The dude who tweeted this hysterical take is an editor for the Daily Beast.
So you didn’t read the article describing WHY they called it scripted. Got it.
So the Dems put out a press release opposing the nomination of Kavanaugh… except they have a scary looking picture of Hardiman. Plus it is obvious what the strategy is. They can’t attack him on qualifications because he’s extremely qualified to be on the SC. So the only other option is to portray him as a scary monster.
I think there are some legitimate concerns about things he’s said, and the problem is that you’re literally going to portray every single one of those as PORTRAYING HIM AS SCARY MONSTER!
He’s already answered it.
That is not an opinion outside the legal mainstream, in fact it has been the official DOJ position for decades.
Monday, October 16, 2000
Headnotes:
The indictment or cnminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
where was it debunked? Cool…a source using another source, that if you subtract the spin from is what?
worked up in the same sense Obama was a muslim, or in the sense they are being babies that we have never ever seen before ever in the history of politics?
Rush took calls today from disgruntled listeners about the pick and if Rush put disgruntled listeners on air, you know damn well he’s uneasy about the pick as well. At one point when Rush was talking about how little Kavanaugh had in savings, Bo Snerdley yelled from behind the glass “gambling problem”! Lol, too funny…
“Yahoo did a hit piece.” You may as well have said “the internet” did a hit piece.
If you’re looking for “hysterical takes,” all you have to do click on the Hannity.com thread on this forum. You will get a new hysterical headline every hour.
1 Like
Of course I did. It was just divisive ■■■■■
Because the DNC and their media were going to portray anyone Trump selected as a scary monster. They scripted that even before they knew who it was going to be.
1 Like
edit to add transcript
Pointing out that Trump put on this giant show for a pick he likely had already decided on well prior is not what you describe as "
If only we could have gotten you this worked up about “divisive ■■■■■ before.
Completely irrelevant to the point I made, but hey, you’re Doug, so that’s to be expected.
What nonsense. Now its a sin if the President doesn’t decide who to nominate until he is on TV nominating that person. Just a pathetic excuse for leftist whining. Never mind that Dems had already decided that the nominee was going to be the devil no matter whom Trump picked.
Yes, that is divisiveness just for the purpose of being divisive.
But let them pic on sanctuary cities, open borders, and obstructionism of decent judges as their main platform for 2018. We’ll see hos that “blue wave” comes out.
No, the fact that you’re suddenly this concerned about divisive ■■■■ in the media is truly heart-warming. I only joined the old forum around 2013, but I don’t recall this level of righteous indignation from you then. You can pretend you care about “divisive ■■■■■ when you start calling out the sitting president and his personal state media to the same standard with anything other than whimpering lip service.
Politics as usual, from both sides, but the guys you like are the perpetual victims. We know. When McConnell announced within an hour of Scalia’s death that he would not be replaced under Obama, totes cool with you. But Democrats opposing a Trump nominee? THE AUDACITY!
That comes from the WH. and Fox. Every. Single. Day.
You may be right. I think Democrats were stupid to try to play to the far left. On the other hand, there may just be enough people sick of Trump, and those politicians who aligned with him, but supported him before, who stay home this time that it may not matter.
What was the rationale behind their concerns? Too establishment-y?
That and being connected to the Bush’s
