Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "'This Is The Most Extraordinary Thing I Have Ever Seen': Hawley, Biden Nom Have Unbelievable Clash" video.

How so?
7
@DeadPresidents408 What's wrong with the Fifth Amendment, or the First? I support the Bill of Rights. I'm glad she refused to bend. Vote her down, and be done with it. Instead, Hawley said "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers/nonanswers.
6
@justtryme2020 So what? Good. Why should she bend to any politician? Let them vote her down. They have the power. Do you respect Biden? Harris? I don't.
5
@Baratheon. No one said any such thing. We are talking about the difference between being UNQUALIFIED for a job based (among other things) on unresponsiveness to a Senator, and a CRIME for which she should go to prison. That seems to escape you. There is nothing subjective here. Have you ever met a US Attorney? (Have you ever been inside a law school, like, to visit a friend?) You know, a lot of not very nice people in the world are happy to see what has become of you. Do you grasp that at all? Don't put on a show of how much you despise the Bill of Rights and how little you are capable of understanding basic facts because someone scared you. Keep it to yourselves.
4
Oh yeah? HE JUST SAID : "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers. Not one of you believes in the Bill of Rights unless you have a dog in the fight.
3
@Baratheon. What do you think constitutes "perjury?" I mean, under the law, not on social media. Have you ever read any cases that were prosecuted? No one is ever convicted on the basis of statements that are vague, or lacking in comprehensiveness, or open to more than one reasonable interpretation, or where faulty memory could be a factor -- for example, if she tweeted all the time, and the vast majority of her tweets were about pets or recipes, and she forgot about the handful of offensive ones, or didn't appreciate that they were offensive. Stuff like that isn't a crime, it's a disqualification from having a serious job -- or at least it used to be. What "projection" are you talking about? Where did you pick that up from? Freud was the gaslighter extraordinaire.
3
HE JUST SAID : "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers.
3
For having a backbone? I'm glad someone is pushing back. Vote her down and be done with it.
3
@Baratheon. Where do you have proof she lied? She failed to answer the question in a substantive way.
2
@christ-centeredcrypto There is a big difference between this case, and the guy (th/s/he/y) who turned out to be a serial suitcase thief. God help us. I see no other solution.
2
No it's not. We have a Fifth Amendment and a First Amendment. So, she refused to bend. Fine, vote her down. Leave it at that.
2
@DeadPresidents408 False. Every intelligent person does.
2
I disagree. They can vote as they like, every time. They have her posts, so they know. I admire her refusal to answer these questions BECAUSE it is a First Amendment issue. So let them vote her down. I like backbone. So, vote her down. Why do you want her to bend as well??
2
@trumpforever6706 SMH
1
@Allenrobinson9 Except that that is nonsense.
1
@joeladams2540 No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
1
@kaelynn4744 No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
1
@Baratheon. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said previously that she usually posts about may indeed be what she usually posts about, and some of the posts he asked her about are unimportant enough for her to have forgotten about them. In this hearing, she was substantively unresponsive. That is not the same thing as committing perjury. I don't understand where you all think you saw or heard "perjury on live television." How do you think US Attorneys go about bringing federal charges? Based on Facebook polls? YouTube impressions? The Senate's job is to vote, not "make her talk." I'm assuming she won't be confirmed.
1
@Baratheon. I'm not lying for her. Prove up your claims. I'm not supporting her for confirmation. I think most people in government are objectively unqualified by any standard. That's not the same thing as calling her a criminal because of this. If you believe she is, then you have the burden of proof -- especially if there are Bill of Rights implications. Feel free to leave keywords; I know actual links are likely to be shadowed. I am genuinely interested. If you show me it's true, I'll believe it. BTW, I had the good sense never to open FB or Twitter accounts. I only joined this when the snakes shut down the economy -- and I did so under a pen name that is a version of my real name. So, what would they do to me?
1
@heavenlysonshine Reported and blocked 🤣
1
@kiyosenl.3889 No it wasn't a "blatant lie." What she said previously that she usually posts about may indeed be what she usually posts about, and some of the posts he asked her about are unimportant enough for her to have forgotten about them. In this hearing, she was substantively unresponsive. That is not the same thing as committing perjury. I don't understand where you all think you saw or heard "perjury on live television." How do you think US Attorneys go about bringing federal charges? Based on Facebook polls? YouTube impressions? The Senate's job is to vote, not "make her talk." I'm assuming she won't be confirmed. I have no problem with that. It's the screeching for criminal charges that astounds me. Man are you dim.
1
@stevenwebster3286 Huh?
1
@sueblood7793 I see you cleaned up the original post. Maybe you should watch for the indictment come down, LOL. Blocked.
1
@MK-mj9gx In my private life? First, I wouldn't be asked that question because I do not have a FB or a Twit account. Second, that is none of your business.
1
@sueblood7793 I am a lawyer. If you had read all of my posts (and I wonder which are shadowed?), you might have picked up on that. Reading Is Fun.
1
@commonsenseconservative No, she was unresponsive. There is no proof that she mischaracterized her public social media accounts. What she said she usually posts about may indeed be what she posts about.
1
@commonsenseconservative Calm down and spell. I watched all of it. It was a show, to impress you.
1
@commonsenseconservative Watch for the indictment. LOL
1
@commonsenseconservative BTW, I would be just as cautious in entertaining the shrieks to prosecute Trump. First, no one is above the law -- true, and most important. BUT you have to be very, VERY sure that you have the grounds to go after a former president. If you are that sure, fine. But otherwise, no. Same for Biden, once we get a grip on the Hunter mess.
1
HE JUST SAID : "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. Your role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers or nonanswers. I'm glad she stood up for free speech. Showed some backbone.
1
@justtryme2020 I don't advocate for her confirmation at all. That's not my point.
1
@justtryme2020 Reading Is Fun
1
@justtryme2020 So let them vote her down. No problem.
1
@picnic66 This is the new sensibility. I remember when people were outraged to find that what you posted on your own time could get you fired. She didn't get flustered, she said what she believes, whether it be wrong or right. And they are welcome to vote her down for it. That's the extent of their power. (Speaking of the Fifth, didn't you hear Hawley say at the end that they needed to make her talk? That is not his role.) I would love to see you in the hot seat in front of Kamala Harris, and whether you would answer her like that -- and you would (rightly) get applause instead of this slew of comments. Could you do it? I'll bet.
1
@picnic66 I didn't call her a paragon of anything. Could she have been even more principled? I think you're right. She could have. I also think most people would have been much weaker in this context, AND I think the only role of the Senate is to vote her up or down, which her choice to answer the way she did put in stark relief. Why are you attacking me, now? Calm down. She's not "my own." I think Biden nominees in general have been abysmal. I didn't vote for him, ever. When Obama added him to the ticket, I sat it out. Gawd this partisanship is weird.
1
HE JUST SAID: "force her to admit" You love that?? We have a Fifth Amendment. His role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers/nonanswers/lack of qualifications.
1
@PuddilyOops I want to see pushback on mining anti-social media for "gotcha" moments, like the DNC crowd typically does. You wouldn't have had the nerve to do what she did. So, let them vote her down. No big deal.
1
@d-law868 Nonsense. Hawley said: "force her to admit" SORRY, BUB -- we have a Fifth Amendment. His role isn't to make her talk, it's to vote her down based on her answers/nonanswers/qualifications or lack thereof. Would you cower to a Senator? How about to Biden or Harris? I hope I wouldn't. No one here has principles. You're all nuts at this point . . .
1
@d-law868 Well, I hate to go that far, but . . . I don't like cancel culture, I don't like woke-ism, I don't like kowtowing to anybody, especially a politician, and I don't like how any of that junk is tolerated as long as a person appears to be "on our side." I remember when what appeared on social media was at least in theory your own business, unless you deliberately made it public and sought a spotlight.
1
@d-law868 Cancel culture has three extra letters . . . it's a cancel cult.
1