Children - just like Trevon Martin, who most cons refused to call a child.
Jesus sometimes I think r/braincel wouldn’t be this callous.
1 Like
My prediction. She will not show up for her Monday invitation. So the vote will take place. I hope she shows.
As if her wishes did not matter… you are the one reducing to just a political stunt.
I honestly and on the record was not comfortable with bringing up something Anonymously from his past to delay the confirmations. UNTIL: Trump Jr. started trolling the victim on social media, the CEC had a total meltdown, and a certain caliber of posters here started making pretzel yoga justification OPs like this one.
Now I’m fully on board. Let’s hear her out. Let’s see what happens. I’m fed up with everything being about picking a team and destroying the opponent.
Are you ruling it out?
Yea the optics on a bunch of old conservative male senators trying to question and discredit an alleged sexual assault victim are gonna be GREAT.
Only if he’s guilty
Are you really saying seventeen year olds can’t be held responsible for sexual assault? They’re just kids right?
You are making a huge mistake. Groupthink at it’s worst. I am not most cons. Travon Martin should not have been harassed. Period. Now that we have settled that.
Why do you suppose the dems did not bring this up during the hearings? Do you think it was because they wanted to use it as a way to delay the vote until after the mid terms? Could this be a simple political maneuver? 
There is a person here, and she is obviously hesitant about the exposure. You want to reduce it to just a “story” the Democrats had total control over which is obviously false…
So killing is now the same as … what? What was the crime again?
I’m with you on this one. I didn’t even care about this ■■■■■ You can’t find a post from me in the main hearings thread. But I’m just flat out tired of these ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ talking like red-piller incels.
2 Likes
I never said you were most cons. I specifically made the post non-broadbrushing. Geez.
Ain’t what you said at the time, dude.
And that person is committed to resisting Trump. She is not neutral.
Why do you suppose the dems did not bring this up during the hearings? Do you think it was because they wanted to use it as a way to delay the vote until after the mid terms? Could this be a simple political maneuver?
So… his claims of innocence are proof of his guilt.
Lib justice 101.
That’s what happens when you take all your information to a newspaper first. My understanding is they were the leak.
Right Wing media takes to any excuse to go all slut-shaming/mens-rightsy like moths to a 1000 watt LED bulb.
After what happened with Garland, why is this even a surprise? It pales in comparison even if true.
2 Likes
