[Primateus]

The cynic in me tells me he did it, that he knows he did it, that the GOP knows he did it and that they don't care. They don't care, because he will give them what they want, and that's more important to them.

[D'rek]

@QT as far as I can tell Apt was talking only about the legal procedures/jurisprudence while you are talking only about the cultural norms/ramifications. I dont think you two necessarily have such contrary views, but you're talking past each other.

[D'rek]

Tiste Simeon, on 17 September 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

I'm all for giving him a chance to defend himself but if this is the case he should be nowhere near the highest court of the land in a position to literally make laws.

The Reps screamed when the Dems tried to put their guy in before the election, yet now they don't seem worried.

Oh wait. I forgot. They're all massive hypocrites and terrible people.

Yeah, you'd think there'd at least be some sort of procedure where they can pause the progression of appointing him, let a hearing/trial/whatever happen, and then resume or cancel afterward instead of just ignore or abandon the whole thing.

But I guess with US ultra 2-party partisanship it would get abused like every other government process?

[Slow Ben]

Primateus, on 18 September 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

... they don't care. They don't care, because he will give them what they want, and that's more important to them.

This is exactly correct. And its fucking sickening.

[amphibian]

D, on 18 September 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 17 September 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

I'm all for giving him a chance to defend himself but if this is the case he should be nowhere near the highest court of the land in a position to literally make laws.

The Reps screamed when the Dems tried to put their guy in before the election, yet now they don't seem worried.

Oh wait. I forgot. They're all massive hypocrites and terrible people.

Yeah, you'd think there'd at least be some sort of procedure where they can pause the progression of appointing him, let a hearing/trial/whatever happen, and then resume or cancel afterward instead of just ignore or abandon the whole thing.

But I guess with US ultra 2-party partisanship it would get abused like every other government process?

This hypothetical procedure is what the confirmation hearings are supposed to be and provide. Kavanagh is in exactly what you're proposing and he's still most likely going to get through despite this being a repeat of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill situation.

Prof. Hill by the way is an immensely talented person. Look up her interview with John Oliver recently as a good look at her and her story.

[Primateus]

amphibian, on 18 September 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

D, on 18 September 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 17 September 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

I'm all for giving him a chance to defend himself but if this is the case he should be nowhere near the highest court of the land in a position to literally make laws.

The Reps screamed when the Dems tried to put their guy in before the election, yet now they don't seem worried.

Oh wait. I forgot. They're all massive hypocrites and terrible people.

Yeah, you'd think there'd at least be some sort of procedure where they can pause the progression of appointing him, let a hearing/trial/whatever happen, and then resume or cancel afterward instead of just ignore or abandon the whole thing.

But I guess with US ultra 2-party partisanship it would get abused like every other government process?

This hypothetical procedure is what the confirmation hearings are supposed to be and provide. Kavanagh is in exactly what you're proposing and he's still most likely going to get through despite this being a repeat of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill situation.

Prof. Hill by the way is an immensely talented person. Look up her interview with John Oliver recently as a good look at her and her story.

I second this! That was a damned fine interview. Hill is amazing!

[worry]

[Vengeance]

Trump saying that there is no reason for the FBI to investigate means he should be investigated. Good for her.

[Maark Abbott]

D, on 18 September 2018 - 03:32 PM, said:

@QT as far as I can tell Apt was talking only about the legal procedures/jurisprudence while you are talking only about the cultural norms/ramifications. I dont think you two necessarily have such contrary views, but you're talking past each other.

Yes - in effect, both are right.

On one hand - a claim requires a burden of proof be satisfied.

On the other - if a claim is based on any evidence that could be construed as anecdotal (and I use that word very grudgingly so please read it as 'in the absence of hard proof, i.e. DNA evidence'), we then have the balance of probabilities.

Realistically anyone making such a claim should always try and do so as early as they can because the longer it's left, generally speaking, the harder both B.proof and B.probabilities are to satisfy. I entirely understand why someone wouldn't report something like that, but then that's where the cultural aspect comes in, with a general shift in attitude towards this kind of thing.

[QuickTidal]

Republicans: Who can be sure what happened 35 years ago?

Also Republicans: Kavanaugh said he wasn’t AT that party 35 years ago sooooooo, he totally remembers not being there.

Also bonus: here’s a list of 65 women he DIDN’T assault. So that proves stuff and junk...

*slow clap*

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 19 September 2018 - 01:33 PM

[QuickTidal]

The President shot a video this morning saying some banal words of encouragement about the Hurricane and rest response and this sentence flowed out of his garbage hole...

"This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water."




.....

the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water

the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water

the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water

the wettest we’ve ever seen from the standpoint of water

I can't facepalm hard enough.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 19 September 2018 - 01:55 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

I dunno I found some water the other day that was pretty darn wet, so he'll have to do better than that to persuade me that it was the wettest we've ever seen...

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

And again, I wonder at what madness gave America such terrible choices that this braindead cretin became president.....

[Tiste Simeon]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 19 September 2018 - 03:35 PM, said:

And again, I wonder at what madness gave America such terrible choices that this braindead cretin became president.....

Well he isn't female and didn't send some emails from a personal computer and he hates brown people so ʅ(ツ)ʃ

[HoosierDaddy]

Merrick Garland. Nominated. Waited months for a vote that never happened.

Brett Kavanaugh. Nominated. Being rushed through to a vote.

Hmmm. What is the common denominator? I can't put my finger on it. Is it Garland being accused of sexual assault? I don't think that sounds right. Is it Kavanaugh's crystal clear record in testifying before Congress? Or sexual assault being bad? Hrm. Doesn't strike true.

Oh, I get it. A bunch of very old white guys want to abuse, control, assault, and take away womens' autonomy.

That makes sense.

[amphibian]

I think Kavanagh's effect on women's autonomy is probably a tertiary desired effect, even if it's very publicized. I believe that his super-big business friendly politics and willingness to chop out protections for every individual who doesn't have money is more important.

We're in for a real bad time if he or someone ideologically similar gets appointed.

[worry]

Frankly, I think it's all just one big coincidence that principled 'pro-life' conservatives also uniformly happen to side with moneyed interests once in power. And if I had to guess, it's one mystery we're never gonna solve.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

No abortion in red states or red districts = more Republicans. (Perhaps the ideal strategy would be to only ban abortion in areas with Republican voters, like gerrymandered abortion districts. And encourage abortion among non-Republicans. But there's the risk that Republicans---the poor ones, that is---might be able to travel to the abortion zones. (By similar logic, 'abstinence only' sex ed for Republican areas is good *because* it's so ineffective at preventing pregnancy.))

For 'religious' conservatives, abortion is one of the only issues on which they differ with Democrats *and* can make a semi-plausible moral argument other than 'the Bible says' or 'it's not natural' (no longer really plausible, partly thanks to tv and movies) or 'it makes us snowflakes of the cross feel uncomfortable'... it makes it easier for them to rationalize their sense of moral superiority and the depravity of their opponents.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 20 September 2018 - 03:43 AM

[QuickTidal]

HoosierDaddy, on 20 September 2018 - 02:17 AM, said:

Merrick Garland. Nominated. Waited months for a vote that never happened.

Brett Kavanaugh. Nominated. Being rushed through to a vote.

Hmmm. What is the common denominator? I can't put my finger on it. Is it Garland being accused of sexual assault? I don't think that sounds right. Is it Kavanaugh's crystal clear record in testifying before Congress? Or sexual assault being bad? Hrm. Doesn't strike true.

Oh, I get it. A bunch of very old white guys want to abuse, control, assault, and take away womens' autonomy.

That makes sense.

I think that's part of it, but I also think a HUGE part of it is that he said he's strongly against a sitting President being indicted, and would likely be on board to shut down Mueller.

He's Trump's saviour. That's why Trump won't rescind the Nom, ask Kavanaugh to step back, and then it's the GOP that stands to benefit most from him being a right leaning judge who would overturn stuff like R v. W.

I think no one else on the short list had openly said he'd support keeping Trump out of the laws hands. Kavanaugh is his hail mary for safety.

[Tiste Simeon]

That's it. They know something is going to happen with the Mueller case, sooner or later, and Trump is trying to get support in place before that happens. There's no doubt a bunch of other people in the Rep party who will be taken down too so they're all acting in their own interests to get Kavanaugh in ASAP. Because they're all self serving hypocrites.