Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings

[KG1]

Interesting

Wondering when the shoe is gonna drop. I know it's coming. Here let me get it started. How come all of a sudden the issue of believing accusations sans proof has come to the forefront when it concerns a white person of prominence given the history of pinning crimes on black boys based on faulty doctored evidence?

 

[Route 45]

#BLM vs. #METOO, Round 2

 

[jamil]

Interesting

Yeah, it identifies the unfavorable impact of intersectional feminism on critical race theory.

Number of possible intersections in a population ~ number in population. (Because number of possible intersectional factors reduce down to essentially the number of people)

That number is probably not infinite but it is arbitrarily large enough to make it unworkable for any practical use. Probably the critical race theorists should drop their alliance with the intersectional part of feminism.

 

[KG1]

#BLM vs. #METOO, Round 2

Segregate your victimization people. Go find your own gimmick.

 

[d.kaufman]

 

[KG1]

Hmmm.....

[video=youtube;3j0MXE2DDic]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j0MXE2DDic[/video]

I don't know what the context is but I would be willing to bet she was claiming that the GOP employs these tactics. Surely she can't be that far gone to give up the Democrat playbook......

 

[Route 45]

I don't know what the context is but I would be willing to bet she was claiming that the GOP employs these tactics. Surely she can't be that far gone to give up the Democrat playbook......

I'm sure she's talking about "the other side," but she isn't smart enough to realize that she's explaining the process at the Instructor level.

More projection than an IMAX theater.

 

[Alamo]

Interesting

You mean when you read “to kill a Mockingbird” you didn’t realize that Atticus Finch wa a rape apologist? Golly.

That would be an insane interpretation of AF, but then Kavanaugh as “iffy” after all the baseless dreck falls directly in the same vein.

 

[jamil]

#BLM vs. #METOO, Round 2

This is what I'm talking about. The logical conclusion of "intersections" is ever smaller groupings of oppressed minorities competing for the top spot in the intersectional hierarchy. Eventually they'll get back to the individual and hopefully conclude that the enlightenment had it mostly right all along.

 

[2A_Tom]

I'm not sure I'd characterize what happened as rule of law. It happened within and by the rule of law. But I think that republicans aren't above scuttling the rule of law for ideological reasons.

I said that Republicans don't have a BAMN playbook. And that's true. Had the situation reversed, and it R's were the minority trying to scuttle a D nominee, they're not above playing some tricks, but it's doubtful they'd be so desperate that they'd bring unsubstantiated claims, and collude with "witnesses", law firms, and the press, to make them stick.

When the Republicans had the Senate, to scuttle Obama's nominee, they just ignored it. As much as we didn't want Garland to be nominated, that's not a trick that we would want reciprocated if those circumstances flipped. "Lame Duck" isn't a reason not to take up a nominee. And we'd rightly have complained about it.

I'm glad it turned out the way it did. America is better off for it with Gorsuch over Garland. But it did not happened within the spirit of "rule of law" either. When Democrats have power, why couldn't they just do the same thing for their whole time in the majority? They plausibly claim they're just playing out the logical conclusion of a Republican precedent. And if they have any political clout, they'd get away with it. Do we want congress to function only when the majority is of the President's party?

But yeah, other than that, the Dem side was definitely mob rule.

Remind me which Obama ans Clinton nominees were scuttled by the Repiblicans. Garland was a Precedent set by I think Joe Biden.

Bork Thomas Kavanaugh Next.

 

[jamil]

I'm sure she's talking about "the other side," but she isn't smart enough to realize that she's explaining the process at the Instructor level.

More projection than an IMAX theater.

I'd guessing she's talking about elections? Both sides have smear campaigns in their playbooks for candidates for elections. So it's possible she could be telling half the truth. The other half is that the Democrats use the same play for a wider range of circumstances.

I can't think of a Democratic nominee for appointment that the Republicans have smeared. I mean, seriously, if any SCOTUS nominee rose to the Democratic equivalence of Kavanaugh for Republicans, it was Sotomayer with her outcome based jurisprudence. Ain't no way I'd consent to her on the SCOTUS bench if I were a Senator. But I wouldn't try to smear her. And, did Republicans scorch the Earth BAMN for Sotomayer? No. They helped confirmed her. When Republicans pull ****ting plays from their playbook, they do stuff like ignoring nominees.

I thought that was a longshot move which would clear the way for Democrats to one-up that. But, we got Gorsuch out of the deal, instead of the anti-gun Garland. Maybe that's worth the tradeoffs, but in terms of principled governance, it's kinda ****ty.

 

[jamil]

Remind me which Obama ans Clinton nominees were scuttled by the Repiblicans. Garland was a Precedent set by I think Joe Biden.

Bork Thomas Kavanaugh Next.

I've heard that argument, and I came away thinking it wasn't a biased portrayal of facts. But, it is within the power of the Senate to do. It's on them to consent or not, and the Majority leader has the authority by rules not to bring it to a vote.

I'm just saying it is foolish because it gives the other side political capital to one-up that. Maybe if they take over the Senate majority, they ignore all of Trump's appointees the rest of his Presidency. And they'd have the political clout to do it, because their constituents are pretty pissed about Garland.

I'd have to hear a better argument than what I've heard to agree that it is a good precedent to ignore nominees from lame duck presidents. Sometimes the lame duck will be your guy.

 

[2A_Tom]

These groups are being funded. The term "being funded" does not sound so terrible by itself. Let's look at the reality. Soros, Hussein, Clinton and others are financing these groups. They pay these individuals and purchase supplies for them to go out and protest, harass, humiliate - disturb the peace in so many ways. Soros, Clinton, Hussain and others are in reality the company they work for. Report for work, do a job and get paid.

What if I started a company that hired individuals to harass democrats? Follow them, harass, them, protest in front of their homes......as an employer of these individuals, I'd be in jail.

Looking at the money trail, these individuals (Soros, Clinton and Obama) have in place, an actual army of people who get paid to follow commands through direct orders. They are able to come together in moments notice with supplies - they are in fact an army funded by the opposition.

What will happen when their backs are truly against the wall? Does anyone really feel they will just back off and say, ok - we'll just wait for the elections? DO you think the harassment will stop of become more violent? Why are their employers not put in jail now?

We are in fact experiencing the initial face of a coup.

Same actors they just changed from white hoods and robes to ninja outfits and professionally printed t-shirts.

 

[KG1]

The Dems have indeed established their own precedent. Lindsey Graham pointed out the fact in his hearing speech that the Repubs would never dish out the kinds of despicable tactics of personal destruction that the Dems have employed to one of their nominees. Referenced by the Sotomayer and Kagan nomination process.

 

[2A_Tom]

I've heard that argument, and I came away thinking it wasn't a biased portrayal of facts. But, it is within the power of the Senate to do. It's on them to consent or not, and the Majority leader has the authority by rules not to bring it to a vote.

I'm just saying it is foolish because it gives the other side political capital to one-up that. Maybe if they take over the Senate majority, they ignore all of Trump's appointees the rest of his Presidency. And they'd have the political clout to do it, because their constituents are pretty pissed about Garland.

I'd have to hear a better argument than what I've heard to agree that it is a good precedent to ignore nominees from lame duck presidents. Sometimes the lame duck will be your guy.

I can't say that it is right. I will say that it is fair. I will give it back to them the same way they gave it to me, within reason.

They have no sense of fair play. The same people that shielded Bill Clinton did this to a morally superior man.

 

[2A_Tom]

Yes. Republicans mostly have dissassociated from the unbrella of the so called white nationalist “alt-right”.

Tay WUT! Panky?

AAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Some of the things you say!

 

[2A_Tom]

I don't know what the context is but I would be willing to bet she was claiming that the GOP employs these tactics. Surely she can't be that far gone to give up the Democrat playbook......

She is talking to a group of reporters, like minded bots with the same agenda. I do not believe it was intended for general consumption. She may have been saying that is what the Republicans do.

 

[MCgrease08]

I'm just shocked the sun is shining today, what with the black cloud of patriarchy and sexism hanging over the nation and all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wondering when the shoe is gonna drop. I know it's coming. Here let me get it started. How come all of a sudden the issue of believing accusations sans proof has come to the forefront when it concerns a white person of prominence given the history of pinning crimes on black boys based on faulty doctored evidence?

Don't obsess over other people's thoughts so much KG. I found the position stated interesting, as I had not considered it, nothing more. Though, you do bring up a thought I had also not considered. You of course, are free to explore it more, but I have nothing to say on the subject you brought up.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Dems have indeed established their own precedent. Lindsey Graham pointed out the fact in his hearing speech that the Repubs would never dish out the kinds of despicable tactics of personal destruction that the Dems have employed to one of their nominees. Referenced by the Sotomayer and Kagan nomination process.

I most certainly do not believe that. The GOP would do the exact same thing, if given the opportunity.