Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

The Kavanaughcalypse!

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Akkula said:

I think you are underestimating how much the reactionaries pissed people off when you stole the supreme court seat.  Garland derangement syndrome may be stronger than TDS.  The pitchforks are out.

Yeah it really doesn’t get more partisan than what happened with judge garland.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It means that both cannot be telling the truth.

that's not very postmodern of you.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pokebball said:

She needs to recall more.  Without that, I know enough now.

Eh. She does. But it's nonsense for you to expect that right off the bat.

I will withhold judgment until at the very least the important characters have had the opportunity to testify under oath. Anything other than that is partisan posturing in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
1 minute ago, edluvar said:

Yeah it really doesn’t get more partisan than what happened with judge garland.  

Agreed.

The Republicans have absolutely no ground to stand on, with regard to their blocking Judge Garland.

There was an opening on the Supreme Court.  Obama nominated someone with plenty of time.  And it should have been filled with Judge Garland.   The end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, #1Stunner said:

Agreed.

The Republicans have absolutely no ground to stand on, with regard to their blocking Judge Garland.

There was an opening on the Supreme Court.  Obama nominated someone with plenty of time.  And it should have been filled with Judge Garland.   The end.

Not necessarily filled. But they should’ve had hearings and voted on his confirmation.  They could’ve rejected him by vote and then the Dems wouldn’t have any ground to stand on with this. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner

OK, I posted earlier that nerds like Kavanaugh probably aren't likely to commit rapes---especially in high school, where they are the student government crowd, trying to build their resume, and geek out for college.

But then I remembered this classic case of nerd rape:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sean327 said:

This is bullshit. The fact that someone can be destroyed with an accusation that has more holes than a screen door because "We must always believe the accuser" is wrong on so many levels. Your side completely shits on due process. The Committee has every right to grill her. The Constitution says so. Take your  "old white men" schtick and stick it up your ass. You clowns make everything about race or gender. It's phucking pathetic.

lol. Triggered much? You don't need to convince me, dude. Tell it to women voters. I didn't say anything against process. I was responding to a post about the way in which she will be questioned. I've already said earlier in this thread that I think that to the extent this is a partisan strategy on the part of the Dems, I think it's a dumb one. But the extent to which your attitiude is reflected in the GOP Senators will only serve to damage their standing with women. Grill away to use your wording, and while you do so, think about the origin of the term.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, smltwnrckr said:

There are plenty of scenarios where the common interests of the three would cause one to take pause before accepting this on its face. 

Sure, but statistically they diminish very significantly.  Statistically, two collaborators are much greater than one.  Three collaborators move the needle significantly.  Not the 100% proof of innocence that you are looking for.  Like I said in an earlier post, proving innocence at 100% is impossible.  You don't need to respond with another "scenario", I've conceded the point.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
Just now, mugtang said:

Not necessarily filled. But they should’ve had hearings and voted on his confirmation.  They could’ve rejected him by vote and then the Dems wouldn’t have any ground to stand on with this. 

OK, fair point. 

Maybe someone would have written an anonymous letter, saying that Merrick Garland was a sexual predator, which would have warranted the Republicans defaulting to "we must believe the accusers", and blocking his nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Eh. She does. But it's nonsense for you to expect that right off the bat.

I will withhold judgment until at the very least the important characters have had the opportunity to testify under oath. Anything other than that is partisan posturing in my opinion.

She wrote her letter in July.  She's been in counselling about this for how long, 6 years if I recall?

Perhaps we should define what you mean by "right off the bat".

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, #1Stunner said:

OK, fair point. 

Maybe someone would have written an anonymous letter, saying that Merrick Garland was a sexual predator, which would have warranted the Republicans defaulting to "we must believe the accusers", and blocking his nomination.

You can be assured that a letter and claim is now part of the SOP in SCOTUS nominations.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Sure, but statistically they diminish very significantly.  Statistically, two collaborators are much greater than one.  Three collaborators move the needle significantly.  Not the 100% proof of innocence that you are looking for.  Like I said in an earlier post, proving innocence at 100% is impossible.  You don't need to respond with another "scenario", I've conceded the point.

powerful people always have a way of finding collaborators, especially in high-profile, high-stakes scenarios. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, pokebball said:

She wrote her letter in July.  She's been in counselling about this for how long, 6 years if I recall?

Perhaps we should define what you mean by "right off the bat".

I mean you've known about it for two days and we're still learning about the accusation as a whole. Other than that, we have a bunch of people with a vested interest saying exactly what you would expect them to say. And nothing as of yet has been said under oath.

Rush to judgements are counterproductive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest #1Stunner
9 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Really? Look at this thread. It falls exactly down partisan lines. You think that is a coincidence?

I don't think the Republicans have been unreasonable at all in dealing with this charge against Kavanaugh.  There's no basis for delaying the confirmation, or any basis for an FBI investigation.  Why an FBI investigation?...FBI has no jurisdiction.

I do think the Democrats have been unreasonable.  They turned the confirmation hearings into a circus, and Diane Feinstein withheld this letter until the 11th hour.  What a dope.

But the Republicans were absolutely unreasonable in the whole Merrick Garland nomination.  That was a political joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...