I agree, with one exception: Mitch McConnell erred in saying (I think it was yesterday) that Kavanaugh was going to be on the Supreme Court. But yes, they are giving her every chance to agree to appear this week, and if she doesn't, there's really nothing they can do but hold the vote and of course, with only an uncorroborated allegation, from an accuser who refuses to make a statement under oath, he will (and should) be confirmed.

As you might expect, my perspective on this is a little different than most here. I doubt her accusation was politically motivated (mostly because as I understand it, her revealing the incident to a therapist in 2012 has been confirmed as true), and I can understand her reluctance to jump into a partisan maelstrom, especially if, as it seems, she was an anti-Trump demonstrator. I also wonder how certain she is that it was Kavanaugh. My guess is that this is probably a case of mistaken identity. But if not, and she is 100% certain, then I hope she'll take the deal and testify. She'll have a hard time living with herself if she is right and he gets confirmed. Worse for the country, if corroborating evidence comes out after he is on the Court, then things get very messy.

I appreciate your deference for giving Ford the benefit of the doubt, but I have so such compulsion.  People are capable of making up stories to therapists if it means defending their actions or inactions in matters involving marriage.  Imagine a male spouse wanting to go to a therapist because his wife wouldn’t have sex with him. Wife needs an excuse, and concocts a unverifiable story of a high school incident that provides her an excuse for her behavior. I’m not saying that was the situation, but I’m trying to demonstrate that an alleged admission to a therapist is not dispositive.

Further, do we know that Judge Kavanaugh was specifically named in that therapy session?  That’s what is implied, but to my knowledge we have no idea. It actually seems odd to name a specific individual in a therapy session.

Lastly, I have zero patience for a 35 year old story being told to a congressman or a senator instead of the police. That put the wires story into the political realm, with no turning back.

I give her no quarter in this case.

Yep, that's pretty much where I am with Trump. I'm happy with a number of his accomplishments but I really, really dislike him. And disliking him wouldn't necessarily keep me from voting for him, though I didn't in 2016. Unfortunately, some aspects of his personality make his fitness for office questionable, in my opinion (his apparent tone-deafness on matters of race is a big one for me, but there are others). I don't expect to vote for him in 2020, but I'm not entirely ruling it out. It depends on what he does between now and then, and who the Dems put up against him.

I somewhat agree with you. I always say Trump was my 17th choice, but in reality he was about my 12th choice. But I remain in awe of the good things that he’s accomplished and the promises he’s kept, with an adversarial House and Senate (being in the same party didn’t guarantee cooperation, and in fact he’s received very little from the house and senate. )

That being said, can you explain the “tone deafness on matters of race”?  I mean no disrespect, but I’d like to understand it. I’m interested because the left as a matter of perceived fact simply concludes Trump is a racist, and in turn his voters like me are also racist. I hate it, and just don’t see it. Ive listened to many of his speeches, read many things that he’s written including his cringeworthy tweets, but I still don’t see this racial facet.

I will say he’s an equal opportunity offender, but criticizing a black or Hispanic doesn’t mean the man is racist.

I will be making a contribution to whoever runs against him in the next election. The man has no freaking backbone and no brain. He is a disgrace and should be kicked out of the Republican Party.

And recall that I am registered Independent.

Save your money. This never-Trumper isn’t running for re-election. I’m sure he’s now taking positions that are resume builders to become a consultant / panelist for ABCNBCCNNMSNBC.  They LOVE RINOs that spit on other Republicans.

Bob Corker is saying the same thing about delaying the vote.

Lied about what exactly?

Refused?  Again, this is new to me.  That said, I don't know how they would have, with the island being in as bad a shape as it was.

Power wasn't restored to much of the island for close to a year.  But to be perfectly honest, I don't see what any of this has to do with the death toll (which was verified by out side sources) and Trump's denial thereof.  To be honest, I can't blame anyone for the miscommunication.  Roads, power, and telephone lies were all washed out after the storm.  No one knew right away just how badly they'ed been hit and how many they'd lost.  I can understand Trump having trouble i with the methodology used to determine the death toll, I can't blame him for being surprised it increased after the fact.  What surprises me is the liar in Chief turned it into yet another cockamamie conspiracy theory with "Democrats" as the scapegoats.

Since the “official” death toll from that hurricane was 64, I agree with his skepticism. You should too.

Further, the San Juan mayor is a major anti-Trump leftist who was on TV screaming against Trump, while literally standing in front of pallets of water and other goods delivered by the federal government. Pardon me if I don’t give her the benefit of the doubt.

So?  Since when does the first amendment not apply to private citizens?  Had their been cameras in my house you would have gotten quite the video, probably way more entertaining.  Booze always helps.  Thankfully there wasn't.  I'm not too big on cameras, less evidence created means less to burn.

I’m sorry, did someone propose that the Government silence these Google execs?  If so, I missed it.

Or are you saying the First Amendment means that no one is allowed to ridicule and scorn the words and actions from the people saying inane and irrational shit? 

The cake baking/florist issue was epic in the old SZ. I myself brilliantly argued the points for mutual tolerance and thus, mature and thoughtful interaction in all our dealings with one another as American citizens. 

But shew! Mari was “done” with me a number of times. But instead of sitting back and enjoying the discourse, apparently she and a bunch of other peeps were triggered, and complained that the conflicts over ideology in the SZ were spilling over into posts on the regular board. I suppose there could have been some truth in that. But, as we do here, ignoring it is perfectly possible. I will say that any spillover was quite equally distributed amongst ideologies.

PilotSpin exists because of the SZ stoppage, so it’s not all bad. We’ve been unmoderated for several years and seem to be doing fine.

Hey, missy. I’m a moderator and if you don’t watch your tone, I’m going to ... do nothing.

The Mexican 'bad ones' immigration story boils down to this: Our republican candidaate has said(without proof) that Mexican govt sends bad people to the US. The Mexican govt denies this(without proof). Since no one can prove a negative, politifact has to somehow determine that the negative is correct and that the candidate is false.

To do this, politifact would need to investigate every illegal alien who comes over the border, and then investigate the Mexican govt beyond their assertion that the do not send 'bad people' to the US. It can't be done, so the politifact people decide to believe the Mexican govt officials, who have a vested interest in denying a story about exporting criminals. It's a judgment call, that no one can ever prove one way or the other.

Spot on. Their level of “research” amounts to no more than a few Google hits. Period, end of story. And from that they “conclude” truths and lies. And when they can’t confirm shit and are judging a conservative or Republican, guess which way the arrow points.  They do the same thing with Scott Walker in Wisconsin.