Kavanaugh

Tagged: 

Viewing 28 posts - 1 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #91219
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    The conservative talking points on Ford/Kavanaugh are:

    1) There is no evidence at all. She can’t even remember the time or place.
    2) there is nothing to investigate, so they CAN’T investigate it
    3) The FBI doesn’t investigate this kind of thing
    4) Dems are just trying to stall

    This is all complete crap. It is true that the FBI is responsible for interstate crimes, and wouldn’t ordinarily investigate sexual assault cases unless there was something involved like kidnapping, and crossing state lines. But the FBI works for the president, and can be asked to do this. In fact, that is exactly what happened with Anita Hill. At Biden’s request (he was then head of the Senate Judiciary committee), Pres. Bush asked the FBI to investigate Hill’s allegations, and they did. So…why don’t the have an FBI investigation?

    If Ford has no evidence, as they claim, the investigation will take 10 minutes. Right? She is going to be asked to produce evidence immediately. If there is no evidence, the investigation is over. End of story. And…guess what? She gets charged with crimes for her attempt. I’m not sure which laws she has violated… some kind of Slander and/or Defamation laws at a minimum, I would think…and she will have committed the crime of filing a false report. To the Feds. A felony offense. She would do time in prison for this. So why would she call for an investigation that would lead to her OWN prosecution?

    Now..you can also take it to the bank that she has received the best legal advice in the country. The Democrats have known about this since July, so they all know whether she has evidence or not. And their credibility is at stake in this, too. If she has no evidence and the FBI verifies that, think how bad that would look for the Democrats just when they felt they had momentum going into the mid-terms. Such a revelation would totally take the wind out of Democrats’ sails in November. My goodness.

    And the Kavanaugh camp has known about it long enough to have been prepared with a letter endorsing his character from 65 women most of whom he hasn’t seen in years, some of whom changed their last names, and had to be tracked down to sign the letter. That wasn’t accomplished overnight. They knew this was coming. 65 WOMEN signed that letter. Not 65 PEOPLE. 65 women. They knew it was coming. So therefore you can bet that all of the Republican senators know exactly how much evidence there is, too. And if they were as confident as all of the righties are that Kavanaugh is completely innocent, they absolutely would say, “Let’s investigate this.”

    Why? Because … if Kavanaugh is innocent, and there is no evidence against him…the GOP has absolutely nothing to lose, and everything to gain by having the claims investigated. Because if there is no evidence, Kavanaugh will be vindicated publicly, and will go to the court as clean as a whistle for the whole wide world to see. It would be a No-Brainer to do that. Kavanaugh is vindicated, Republicans are vindicated, Dr. Ford gets criminally prosecuted, and the Democrats get exposed as whining, losing obstructionists, and lose all credibility for everybody in the whole wide world to see right as election day approaches.

    And what, exactly, would be the downside of an investigation…if he is innocent? Nothing. There is no downside. The investigation is closed after a week, and Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court for the next 40 years.

    Instead, the GOP wants this to happen before the Senate because nothing that happens there is legally binding, and the Republicans basically get to serve as the jury and judge in the case. It isn’t a fair playing field. They will have the complete advantage in there. They are preventing her from bringing in any outside people to testify, thus limiting the persuasiveness of her case. That’s why they want it there. Not because it is the right thing to do. But because they have all the advantages, and get to make the decision on whether or not she has sufficient evidence themselves. AND we already know that McConnell pulled in every single Republican and made it perfectly clear that they are going to vote for Kavanaugh regardless of anything that is said in the hearing, so the outcome is already fixed.

    She had better have some strong evidence. Like…solid. I hope her lawyers know what they are doing. Because her choice was 1) to risk everything before the Senate Judiciary committee without corroborating witnesses, 2) to file charges against him with the Maryland police, or 3) to decline the invitation to testify before the committee, and go crazy in the media DEMANDING an investigation in an attempt to generate public demand for one, making the argument that Republicans are obstructing justice. She’s chosen option 1. That suggests that her lawyers (and the Democrat party) think that there is a pathway to victory there that is stronger than the one that would come from choosing #2 or #3.

    Or…that they knew they lost when the FBI investigation was denied, and this is the softest way to lose

    #91222
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    All well reasoned.

    #91305
    Ozoneranger
    Participant

    I agree. Open it up, be all transparent and let them both say their piece. Like you said, there needs to be *solid* evidence of the assault.

    I just don’t get all the maneuvering by both sides.

    #91307
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    I agree. Open it up, be all transparent and let them both say their piece. Like you said, there needs to be *solid* evidence of the assault.

    I just don’t get all the maneuvering by both sides.

    I don’t understand why the public isn’t all for an investigation. Everybody seems so sure that the person they favor is right…so what’s there to fear? Investigate it. Let’s see. Right here in broad daylight, let’s find out what we’ve got.

    Because if we DON’T have a legitimate investigation, either Kavanaugh goes to the court tainted with half the country screaming about his illegitimacy for the next 50 years, or else he withdraws, and half the country screams about how the Democrats brazenly obstructed a good man for partisan purposes. Neither one of those outcomes is in the interest of this country.

    Investigate it, and let’s find out.

    #91340
    TSRF
    Participant

    Wow… Things are getting wild here. Avanatti now involved.

    #91361
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Well, rightwing-evangelicals think K is another instrument-of-God. Just like Trump.

    Because he’s going to save thousands and thousands of unborn-babies from murder.

    So…they dont care if the instrument-of-God is a rapist.

    God works in mysterious ways.

    w
    v

    #91376
    Ozoneranger
    Participant

    As a lawyer, what is your take on Rose’ demand that K testifies first?

    #91460
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    As a lawyer, what is your take on Rose’ demand that K testifies first?

    ============

    As a lawyer i can categorically state this american-corporotacracy we live in should be illegal. 🙂

    …i havent followed the Kavanaugh thing at all Ozone. I rarely follow these dramas anymore. To me, its like following arguments between deckhands on the Titanic.

    If Kavanaugh aint appointed to the court, Trump will just appoint someone even worse.

    We’ll never know if K is guilty of the sex thing.

    w
    v

    #91530
    waterfield
    Participant

    And that is precisely what this is all about ! Abortion.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by waterfield.
    #91550
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    I am hearing that Shelley Moore Capito, who is a republican senator from West Virginia may be a swing vote on Kavanaugh, because she graduated from the same school as Ford. There was talk she was on on the fence.

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by JackPMiller.
    #91596
    waterfield
    Participant

    On balance I think she was more credible because she called for a further investigation into her assertions-something she would normally not do if she was making up the story-and of course he doesn’t want the FBI to investigate the only eye witness-and neither does Trump nor apparently any Republicans. Equally important is the temperament he displayed in his response. Especially his anger. It is easy to see how someone that “unleashed” could do what she alleges. Finally, a person who sits on the highest court must have respect as a person even if one disagrees with his “legal” arguments. I can’t see how anyone, including fellow jurists, can give that self pity, angry man the respect that one would expect for a person sitting on the highest court. Finally, if Clinton or any democrat-for that matter-came before a court he was sitting on he would have to recuse himself after that rant of his.

    #91598
    Avatar photojoemad
    Participant

    Finally, if Clinton or any democrat-for that matter-came before a court he was sitting on he would have to recuse himself after that rant of his.

    I was blown away by this and his behavior on the stand after his rant..

    His arrogance and his replies to his questioning were very surprising to me.. I couldn’t believe his replies….

    What about the last guy questioning him? ” DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?” “Do you swear to God you didn’t do this to Dr. Ford”

    Are these assholes in 5th grade?

    folks need to remember that this was not a trail……. allegations beyond reasonable doubt doesn’t apply in a senate hearing…. Any judge, no matter what court, should be held to a higher standard… with a bit more character. ,,,,

    Kavanaugh showed the world that he’s a complete dickhead……A rich entitled asshole with a childish temperament…

    Very disappointing time in our country, the culture is changing…… it’s ok and encouraged to be an arrogant asshole…

    In addition, I think an FBI investigation is being bypassed because this type of behavior on girls was very prevalent during this time frame….. FBI investigation will certainly open a can of worms against other shitheads who are currently in power who treated women the same way that this asshole did 30+ years ago…

    #91599
    TSRF
    Participant

    Joe, I agree with every single statement you have made here.

    Nailed it. This is truly that “Age of Trump”.

    I think this preppy prick is going to get the job. The only thing I have left to root for here is Karma.

    #91650
    Cal
    Participant

    Yeah–I couldn’t believe some of the shit that came from this dude who is so respected.

    Kavanaugh and the Republicans can’t even make an argument that makes any sense. To label Ford’s testimony and this whole process a political hit job is pathetic and disgraceful.

    Was anyone else pissed off by the Democrats pathetic use of their 5 minutes? They should have torn that asshole to shreds after he chastised the one senator for dragging the girl mentioned in the yearbook through the mud.

    Then he asked Klobuchar a couple of times whether she blacked out from drinking as if she bragged in her yearbook about drinking 100 kegs.

    What a pathetic, enraging display.

    #91676
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    This is how I know know Kavanaugh lied, Boof’d means anal sex, and Devils Triangle means 2 men and 1 woman. Not what he was saying. You can check online if you don’t believe me. Also, how does she know the party. It is on his calendar.
    Interesting.

    #91687
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    This is about a lot more than abortion.

    There is a case coming before the Supreme Court on Friday that could rewrite Double Indemnity. If Kavanaugh gets his hands on it, he will vote to make it illegal to charge someone on the state level if he has been tried (or pardoned) at the federal level. It would literally cut out any leverage Mueller has, and it will be over.

    Kavanaugh is backed by the Kochs. He is their guy, and they have the same vision. The Kochs want a constitutional convention to revise the constitution to their liking, and their “liking” is fascism.

    Here is a list of the things the Kochs hope to accomplish (from the platform when David Koch ran for Vice President). After this, I will post some Kavanaugh decisions.

    What’s at stake here is democracy as we know it.

    “We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
    “We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
    “We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
    “We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
    “We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
    “We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service.”
    “We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
    “We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
    “As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
    “We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
    “We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
    “We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
    “We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
    “We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
    “We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
    “We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
    “We demand the return of America’s railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
    “We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called “self-protection” equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
    “We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
    “We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
    “We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
    “We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
    “We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
    “We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
    “We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
    “We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”

    #91688
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    The following is a post from a reddit forum called “LawSchool.” I found it while fact-checking a meme on Brian Hundley, the second case on this list:

    In one of his earliest opinions, Jane Doe v. DC, 489 F.3d 376 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Judge Kavanaugh overruled U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy’s preliminary injunction, 374 F.Supp.2d 107 (D.D.C. 2005) and later summary judgment and permanent injunction, 232 F.R.D. 18 (D.D.C. 2005) and said that even when a severely intellectually disabled person expresses that they do not want an unnecessary elective surgery, the government can still impose that surgery against their wishes without violating constitutional or statutory rights.

    Brian Hundley was a 41-year old graduate of Howard University School of Dentistry studying for his boards. He was sitting in his car, unarmed, when a 6’3”, 204-pound off- duty police officer in street clothes ordered him to get out, and in short order shot and killed him with his 9mm Glock. The officer said he shot Brian because he moved his hand behind his back, but the jury specifically rejected that story in a special interrogatory verdict, and found for Brian’s surviving loved ones. In Hundley v. DC, 494 F.3d 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2007), however, Judge Kavanaugh overruled the jury and found for the officer. The opinion describes the facts from the officer’s point of view, id., despite the jury rejecting the officer’s story. As we have already been taught as 1Ls, in a situation like this, the judge is supposed to be deferential to the jury and state the facts in a light favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict. But this early opinion was just one of Judge Kavanaugh’s regular departures from federal rules and constitutional standards.

    Seventeen-year old Antonio Hester was sentenced to a maximum of ten years in prison as a minor. He had a learning disability, and DC public schools, which had been providing him special education for years, promised to continue to provide those services while he was incarcerated in Maryland, or, if they were not allowed into the prison, to provide compensatory services after his release. The Maryland prison did prevent DC from entering to provide Antonio with services, however, and DC then refused to provide services after release. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler held that DC had backed out of a consent decree and ordered the school district to provide Antonio with compensatory services. 433 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2006). Judge Kavanaugh disagreed, however, and not only reversed summary judgment but – glossing over a factual dispute he had with the district court (not the job of an appellate judge) and Judge Kessler’s legal analysis – directed judgment against Antonio, erasing any chance of educational relief. Hester v. DC, 505 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

    Judge Kavanaugh is no friend to liberty. In U.S. v. Bullock, 510 F.3d 342 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Kavanaugh justified ordering a person out of his car, detaining him, and searching his crotch area and under his pants by saying that the police had a “reasonable suspicion” that the car was stolen because the person “could not produce registration and could not name the car’s owner,” 510 F.3d at 345–46. But the arrestee had given the car owner’s first name and his own driver’s license, and the police had confirmed that the driver’s license was clean and the car had never been reported missing or stolen. Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion upheld the arrestee’s 12-year prison sentence for possession of crack cocaine. Judge Kavanaugh consistently rules for the government in search-and-seizure. U.S. v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (warrantless entry into house & a later search warrant lacking probable cause), U.S. v. Washington, 559 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (giving deference to “aggressive traffic patrols” in “high crime areas”), U.S. v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (permitting search of home), U.S. v. Askew, 529 F.3d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (dissenting from en banc opinion) (allowing police officers to partially unzip man’s jacket without consent after a pat down and later, after man was not identified by witness, to fully unzip the jacket).

    When Judge Kavanaugh has ruled for a criminal defendant on a point of law, he has specifically noted that it made little to no material difference in the outcome for the defendant. U.S. v. Smith, 640 F.3d 358, 361 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“The vacatur and remand of the felon-in-possession count does not affect Smith’s term of imprisonment”). Hamdan v. United States, 696 F.3d 1238, 1257, 1257 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2012), overruled by Al Bahlul v. United States, 767 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Hamdan was transferred in late 2008 to Yemen and then released there . . . . Our judgment would not preclude detention of Hamdan until the end of U.S. hostilities against al Qaeda[,] [n]or . . . any future military commission charges against Hamdan. . . [,] [n]or . . . appropriate criminal charges in civilian court.”); US v. Bostick, 791 F.3d 127, 162 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction . . . . two of the defendants . . . are entitled to vacatur . . . and to resentencing under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. . . The [life] sentence of the remaining defendant . . . is affirmed. We also remand for . . . technical corrections . . . .”); US v. Williams, 784 F.3d 798, 804 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“We affirm the judgment of the District Court except that, consistent with this Court’s ordinary practice in these circumstances, we remand the case so that the District Court may address Williams’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the first instance.”); US v. Nwoye, 824 F.3d 1129, 1133–34 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“In 2013, after the termination of her supervised release, Nwoye filed a motion to vacate her conviction . . . [w]e reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand for further proceedings.”) (note that this case has been upheld as evidence of Judge Kavanaugh’s sympathy for criminal defendants and women; it should be noted that Judge Tatel had already dissented from the court’s affirmance of the conviction years earlier, 663 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and Judge Kavanaugh’s ruling happened after the defendant had completed her sentence – and he nonetheless said the case was “close.”); US v. Burnett, 827 F.3d 1108, 1112 (D.C. Cir.) (“We affirm the judgments of conviction and sentence in all respects, except that we vacate Burnett’s sentence and remand for the District Court to resentence Burnett.”);

    In U.S. v. Lathern, 488 F.3d 1043 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh allowed the exclusion of exculpatory testimony from a defendant’s witness and expert witness in upholding an 8-year /97-month prison sentence. Other rulings in favor of long sentences include US v. Franklin, 663 F.3d 1289 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (life sentence); U.S. v. Duvall, 705 F.3d 479 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (ruling against retroactive correction of crack cocaine disparity); U.S. v. Wright, 745 F.3d 1231 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ruling against defendant in case alleging attorney conflict of interest); U.S. v. Haight, 892 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (reversing a 12 year, 8 month sentence and vacating because it should be at least a 15 year mandatory minimum sentence); U.S. v. Knight, 824 F.3d 1105 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (rejecting speedy trial act and due process claims and a number of challenges to sentences).

    By way of contrast: When Carlos Gustavo Gardellini filed a false federal tax return and illegally used offshore accounts, the federal guidelines called for a 10- to 16-month prison sentence. But Judge Kavanaugh, U.S. v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2008), upheld a no-prison-time sentence with five years of probation in Belgium for this white collar criminal with his wife and child, and none of the normal probation conditions or restrictions. Judge Williams dissented. In U.S. v. Settles, 530 F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh held that it was permissible for the district court to consider alleged conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in calculating a criminal sentence using the factors in the sentencing guidelines.

    In Omar v. McHugh, 646 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2011), Judge Kavanaugh held that American citizens have no Constitutional habeas corpus or due process rights to judicial review of whether they are likely to be tortured if they are transferred from U.S. to (in this case) Iraqi custody.

    In Harbury v. Hayden, 522 F.3d 413 (D.C. Cir. 2008), Judge Kavanaugh ruled that CIA employees who tortured and killed Guatemalans could not be held accountable in US courts for their violations of international and US law.

    Over a dissent, in Jackson v. Gonzalez, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh threw out a black prison guard’s claim of discrimination, not even allowing it to go to trial, where the guard had shown evidence that he scored 98 out of 100 on qualification exams and that the prison kept positions open for years and had never hired an African American at the level of job he was seeking.

    He consistently ruled for the government in FOIA cases against government transparency. Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), Hodge v. FBI, 703 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Sack v. DOD, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016)

    Against free speech when it applies to workers: In Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 793 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2015) Kavanaugh denied NLRB’s cross-application to enforce its order for the company to permit employees working in public to wear union shirts that said “Inmate” on the front and “Prisoner of (Company)” on the back.

    He has shown a comparatively huge amount of concern for trivial or corporate rights, e.g., finding the CFPB unconstitutional, PHH Corporation v. CFPB, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016), or FAA regulations against flying model airplanes near D.C. monuments unlawful. Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

    #91708
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Over a dissent, in Jackson v. Gonzalez, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007), Kavanaugh threw out a black prison guard’s claim of discrimination, not even allowing it to go to trial, where the guard had shown evidence that he scored 98 out of 100 on qualification exams and that the prison kept positions open for years and had never hired an African American at the level of job he was seeking.

    #91712
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Kavanaugh on Patriot act:https://mises.org/files/judge-andrew-napolitano-brett-kavanaugh-and-patriot-act

    Thing is, and il jus keep sayin it — Trump will just appoint someone else who shares the same views, and who hasnt been a sexual-abuser.

    So while it will be nice that this prick isnt confirmed, it wont stop the trump-policies from moving right along…

    w
    v

    #91720
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    Kavanaugh on Patriot act:https://mises.org/files/judge-andrew-napolitano-brett-kavanaugh-and-patriot-act

    Thing is, and il jus keep sayin it — Trump will just appoint someone else who shares the same views, and who hasnt been a sexual-abuser.

    So while it will be nice that this prick isnt confirmed, it wont stop the trump-policies from moving right along…

    w
    v

    Yes. But the longer it takes, the better. This Double Indemnity case coming up this week is huge. Vital. If the SCOTUS considers that with the 8 current members, Mueller can still squeeze Trump’s lieutenants. If Kavanaugh gets in there, it becomes law of the land that Trump can legally just wipe out criminal investigations into his circle, basically. That’s on the table right NOW.

    Secondly…if they defeat Kavanaugh, they may be able to defer another nomination until post-election, and if the Dems get control of the Senate by some miracle, they can force Trump to put forward someone less radical. They will still have a 5-4 majority on the court for the next 20 years, but Kavanaugh is a real life textbook fascist, and anything is better than that.

    #91724
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by JackPMiller.
    #91745
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    #91761
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    Kavanaugh

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by JackPMiller.
    #91861
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    #91873
    waterfield
    Participant

    To me- the only hope is in the voter booths. If we can take congress then Trump will be severely limited. Any hope that congress as its constituted now can change what we’ve seen happening these last two years is foolhardy. Partisanship on steroids has created too much of a divide. So how do we get out the vote? Republicans have been at my door and on my phone daily. They do a great job. But democrats? Do they remember how to win elections?

    • This reply was modified 6 years, 2 months ago by waterfield.
    #91875
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    To me- the only hope is in the voter booths. If we can take congress then Trump will be severely limited. Any hope that congress as its constituted now can change what we’ve seen happening these last two years is foolhardy. Partisanship on steroids has created too much of a divide. So how do we get out the vote? Republicans have been at my door and on my phone daily. They do a great job. But democrats? Do they remember how to win elections?

    You may have been listed in the system somehow as a republican. It comes up that way. I have worked in those. The system works in that republicans call republicans and democrats call democrats. It is in there system, same as to knocking on the doors. It is a computer thing that happens, they have a list and you were on their list.

    #91890
    JackPMiller
    Participant

    #91909
    waterfield
    Participant
Viewing 28 posts - 1 through 28 (of 28 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.