View Full Version : Kavanaugh Supreme Court Nomination
Good, bad, indifferent?
The end of the universe, or business-as-usual?
I've been inundated with emails from my progressive sources making this nomination out as the worst disaster in history, we need to FIGHT, and I need to DONATE NOW!!!! (Though they are unclear on the details of how donating money to them would RESIST!.)
What's the story?
ToomuchStuff
9-4-18, 3:55pm
The last one I knew anything really about was SO'C, as a friend was her Marshall at times.
I figure he would be no different then any other judge. Somethings I would agree with, others not. Some due to bad laws, some due to the ways existing laws get used/enforced, others not.
Teacher Terry
9-4-18, 3:56pm
Bad
I see nothing wrong with him and see no problem with his eventual confirmation, despite all the associated sturm and drang. I did get a kick out of watching the long line of women dressed in a Handmaid's Tale costumes and all of the unruly people who cannot articulate beyond "bad" disrupting the early proceedings. It's the only reality TV I enjoy.
It's not the end of the universe, just a setback that will take years to reverse. As pundits have pointed out, a president cited as an unindicted co-conspirator in an ongoing investigation shouldn't be allowed to choose any jurist, let alone one who has signaled an willingness to let him off the hook despite his transgressions. Kavanaugh was chosen for that reason and for his Neanderthal leanings on women's issues and voting rights--which is probably why Republicans held back 42,000 pages of records until the eleventh hour. He's the most unpopular Supreme Court candidate in memory, especially with women--more so than Harriet Myers or Robert Bork. If our new normal is dirty winner-take-all politics, I hope Democrats play by the same rules when they take over; their natural impulse is to play fair, which hasn't served them well.
iris lilies
9-4-18, 5:45pm
I just read the NYT article about Kavanaugh snd even that doesnt raise alarm bells, with me anyway. It actually seems even handed, what am I missing?
I am interested to know why those here think the abortion ruling and the same sex marriage ruling will be revisited. i mean, do ya’ll have logical reasons why the Supremes will bring those up again? Insider knowledge? Traditionally, and generally speaking, the Court lets previous rulings lie.
And LOL to the moon about Jane’s assertion that the “natural impulse” of Democrats is to play fair.
Compared to some of the people floated as potential Trump nominees he is reasonable.
And LOL to the moon about Jane’s assertion that the “natural impulse” of Democrats is to play fair.I know, I laughed out loud too. Maybe Jane isn't old enough to remember the Bork or Thomas nominations.
Bad. His past discussion has made it very clear that he wants to reverse Roe v Wade even though he has promised that he will respect presidence. 40 years of being upheld should make that human right permanent. (I am opposed to abortion however I am pro-choice!)
He will be fine. The Democrats are just stirring up their base. Democrats that are planning to run in 2020 will be trying to make some news.
And everything is a excuse to ask for donations.
Bad. His past discussion has made it very clear that he wants to reverse Roe v Wade even though he has promised that he will respect presidence. 40 years of being upheld should make that human right permanent. (I am opposed to abortion however I am pro-choice!)
He'll leave the original ruling in place while chipping away at the edges--facilities must be associated with hospitals, facilities must meet certain unmeetable space requirements, doctors must read patients a bunch of bogus health warnings/show ultrasounds, patients must wait for lengths of time making the procedure lengthier and more difficult, patients must get permission from various people, strictures will be put in place on gestation length, and on and on until more clinics are forced to close and it becomes nearly impossible for low income women, particularly, to obtain an abortion. Rich women, as usual, will have no trouble--like Sherri Finkbine, they can just go abroad.
I well remember Bork and Thomas--that there was vigorous debate, and a fair vote. That didn't happen with Merrick Garland. McConnell is keeping any measure he doesn't like from being voted on--it never gets out of committee. Even non-partisan ones.
McConnell is keeping any measure he doesn't like from being voted on--it never gets out of committee. Even non-partisan ones.Harry Reed set the bar pretty high for his predecessors.
Harry Reed set the bar pretty high for his predecessors.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/C1tGoOe3mRo/maxresdefault.jpg
Williamsmith
9-4-18, 8:27pm
For the most part it is high drama worthy of an Academy Award by both sides. Each side is taking the opportunity to gin up support for their radical agendas. When really both sides will dine with each other and congratulate each other on delivering their lines so convincingly. Both sides are perfectly satisfied with Kavanaugh because he will support the expansion of power of the executive branch for waging war and he will condone the NSA use of mass surveillance during times of military action....like the ongoing apparently forever War on Terror.
Theres nothing both sides want more than to establish the chief executive as dictator in chief and Kavanaugh (close friend of the Bush family) will facilitate this. The democrats are certainly interested in this because they believe they will take back the White House in 2020...and a powerful President is a quick policy maker. No messing with that pesky Congress.
If you think any politician gives a rats rear end about abortion, or any of those social causes......we’ll take a seat upfront center stage and enjoy the show.
It actually seems even handed, what am I missing?
What are you missing? The same thing we're all missing. His record during his time in the white house. The republicans are trying to jam this through in a hurry because they either know or suspect that his opinions on torture and other issues will not be palatable to reasonable voters. If they let all his work product from his time in government to become public he will most likely not seem nearly as milquetoast as he does now.
And if that's not what the R's are afraid of then why are they in such a hurry? They were plenty willing to drag their feet when it wasn't their nominee...
Yeah--Elena Kagan, for example, made 99% of her records available--in a timely fashion.
Bae, I hope you're right, but I've never seen anything like this. I suppose Caligula was worse, but I wasn't around then.
Yeah--Elena Kagan, for example, made 99% of her records available--in a timely fashion.
Bae, I hope you're right, but I've never seen anything like this. I suppose Caligula was worse, but I wasn't around then.
In Caligula’s defense, the people who killed him and ended the line that began with Augustus had a lot of incentive to blacken his reputation. Borking him made it a lot easier and safer for them to put their own people in power.
In Caligula’s defense, the people who killed him and ended the line that began with Augustus had a lot of incentive to blacken his reputation. Borking him made it a lot easier and safer for them to put their own people in power.
Well, there's the difference--Trump is doing the heavy lifting of blackening himself!
He'll leave the original ruling in place while chipping away at the edges--facilities must be associated with hospitals, facilities must meet certain unmeetable space requirements, doctors must read patients a bunch of bogus health warnings/show ultrasounds, patients must wait for lengths of time making the procedure lengthier and more difficult, patients must get permission from various people, strictures will be put in place on gestation length, and on and on until more clinics are forced to close and it becomes nearly impossible for low income women, particularly, to obtain an abortion. Rich women, as usual, will have no trouble--like Sherri Finkbine, they can just go abroad.
I well remember Bork and Thomas--that there was vigorous debate, and a fair vote. That didn't happen with Merrick Garland. McConnell is keeping any measure he doesn't like from being voted on--it never gets out of committee. Even non-partisan ones.
+1
Of course there will be additional cases filed on these issues - that's how the "chipping away" happens. Same sex marriage became law of the land by only a 5 to 4 vote. Don't think there aren't many out there who are willing to pay attorneys to have another go at that.
So the real issue is, what cases does the Supreme Court decide to hear? If only 4 justices agree, then it will be heard.
https://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/supreme_court_case_hearing.htm If the justices who are hardline social conservatives form a core group, things we thought were settled will be overturned easily.
iris lilies
9-5-18, 12:05pm
+1
Of course there will be additional cases filed on these issues - that's how the "chipping away" happens. Same sex marriage became law of the land by only a 5 to 4 vote. Don't think there aren't many out there who are willing to pay attorneys to have another go at that.
So the real issue is, what cases does the Supreme Court decide to hear? If only 4 justices agree, then it will be heard.
https://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/supreme_court_case_hearing.htm If the justices who are hardline social conservatives form a core group, things we thought were settled will be overturned easily.
This link you gave above addresses new cases and how they come before the courts.
I repeat that traditionally and generally, settled cases are not re tried. Same sex marriage will not be brought up again, no one cares. There is a larger body that cares about abortion, though.
But continue with your awfulizing and outside scenarios, it must help some people in some way becUse there are many participating.
flowerseverywhere
9-5-18, 2:02pm
I find the hearings very sad. The partisanship and posturing on both sides for the past ten years in particular is ruining a functioning government. These people are supposed to be representing their constituents, not special interest groups and making themselves and their cronies richer.
They are all living in crazy town.
Selection of federal judges is high stakes because they are elected for life. Of course there will be partisanship because it can be determining policy for decades. The Federalist Society is the pipeline for libertarians and conservatives, and Kavanaugh is one of them.
Opinion piece, why Kavanaugh was selected:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-couldnt-care-less-about-kavanaughs-judicial-philosophy/2018/09/02/c7606356-ad4f-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.3358aa62f400
The change in the last decade or two has been thanks to the Koch Brothers and friends taking a long-term strategy and investing in these judges campaigns, starting with state judges who need to run for election (vs. in states where they are appointed). That used to be a sleepy election but now the most conservative candidate can count on campaign money that a more moderate or progressive candidate will not get. The state judges get tapped for the federal bench, and Supreme court candidates normally come from there. The Kochs and their ilk have played the long game and that, along with their hundreds of millions of dollars, has proved wildly successful.
The change in the last decade or two has been thanks to the Koch Brothers and friends taking a long-term strategy and investing in these judges campaigns, starting with state judges who need to run for election (vs. in states where they are appointed). That used to be a sleepy election but now the most conservative candidate can count on campaign money that a more moderate or progressive candidate will not get. The state judges get tapped for the federal bench, and Supreme court candidates normally come from there. The Kochs and their ilk have played the long game and that, along with their hundreds of millions of dollars, has proved wildly successful.Are you implying that on the progressive side no one exercises a long term strategy or contributes campaign funds designed to further their favorite causes?
Teacher Terry
9-5-18, 4:36pm
Lainey, those positions are very important since they are appointed for life and will set our country backwards if too many ultra conservatives end up in them.
As long as people view the courts as legislatures of last resort rather than interpreters of the law, we will see ridiculous displays like this. It doesn’t help that every third Democrat is running for president and looking to impress the base with conspicuous acts of dramatic silliness.
The President could have nominated a ham sandwich and we would be hearing the same overwrought rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that the man is already having memory issues. My memory's not perfect but I'd certainly remember if I'd had a conversation about the Mueller investigation with someone at the law firm defending the president and could answer a simple question about it with a declarative yes or no.
It's too bad Republicans stonewalled Merrick Garland. He seemed likely to be a responsible, centrist jurist. Now it's likely we'll be stuck with this unspeakable (literally--he answers nothing honestly) character. Cory Booker just introduced "forbidden" documents into the records. It will be interesting to see the fallout.
flowerseverywhere
9-6-18, 11:13am
Are you implying that on the progressive side no one exercises a long term strategy or contributes campaign funds designed to further their favorite causes?
Of course they all do. In the name of what god they believe in, how they can earn the most money, or get the most votes or a number of other reasons.
i watched the hearings this morning. He seems very bright, well, versed in the law and the protesters that were hauled out seemed pointless.
Unfortunately people are only seeing and hearing what what they want to hear. Watch CNN for an hour and you will hear an hour of trump bashing and teeth gnashing. Watch Fox for an hour and you will hear an hour of media bashing, trump loving and Christian undertones. Both have terribly rude interviewers who interrupt if they don’t agree, shouting over each other, smirking and smug superiority. Shameful.
Perhaps if we could get Big Money out of the picture, legislators could spend more time legislating, and less time money-grubbing. Campaign finance reform needs to happen.
Williamsmith
9-6-18, 12:46pm
It's unfortunate that the man is already having memory issues. My memory's not perfect but I'd certainly remember if I'd had a conversation about the Mueller investigation with someone at the law firm defending the president and could answer a simple question about it with a declarative yes or no.
Attorneys never answer yes or no. Waitress,”Would you like water?” Attorney, “Well, that depends.”
Williamsmith
9-6-18, 12:48pm
It's too bad Republicans stonewalled Merrick Garland. He seemed likely to be a responsible, centrist jurist. Now it's likely we'll be stuck with this unspeakable (literally--he answers nothing honestly) character. Corey Booker just introduced "forbidden" documents into the records. It will be interesting to see the fallout.
The one thing that is harder to get rid of than President Trump......a Supreme Court Appointee.
i watched the hearings this morning. He seems very bright, well, versed in the law and the protesters that were hauled out seemed pointless.
I've watched each day of the hearings and have been tempted to keep a log of times when protesters erupt. One or more seem to stand up and shout every 15 to 20 minutes, almost as if they're following a schedule. I'm wondering what the point of that is as well.
Williamsmith
9-6-18, 12:56pm
I've watched each day of the hearings and have been tempted to keep a log of times when protesters erupt. One or more seem to stand up and shout every 15 to 20 minutes, almost as if they're following a schedule. I'm wondering what the point of that is as well.
Alan, the cameras don’t show the director, the cue cards and the key grip moving the microphones. Although, one time I swore I heard the opening riffs to “Baba O’Riley.”
Alan, the cameras don’t show the director, the cue cards and the key grip moving the microphones. I don't doubt it's highly orchestrated as each protestor sits quietly for hours awaiting their turn. I just wonder who's funding and organizing it.
Williamsmith
9-6-18, 1:49pm
I don't doubt it's highly orchestrated as each protestor sits quietly for hours awaiting their turn. I just wonder who's funding and organizing it.
My guess is it’s both parties. I call it the radical center.
It's too bad Republicans stonewalled Merrick Garland. He seemed likely to be a responsible, centrist jurist. Now it's likely we'll be stuck with this unspeakable (literally--he answers nothing honestly) character. Corey Booker just introduced "forbidden" documents into the records. It will be interesting to see the fallout.
Yeah. I see he’s comparing himself to Spartacus now. In order to compete, Kamala Harris will need to show up in one of those Handmaid’s Tale costumes tomorrow.
flowerseverywhere
9-6-18, 9:45pm
I don't doubt it's highly orchestrated as each protestor sits quietly for hours awaiting their turn. I just wonder who's funding and organizing it.
conspiracy theory alert. Maybe a group of people decided on their own to attend the hearing and disrupt at intervals. Or maybe one of the busses that picked up voters to illegally vote for Obama was left over and they transported people and paid them to attend.
Why does everything Democrat have to be linked to people being paid off. Unless all those MAGA rallies the Pres is holding are bussed in and paid.... equally silly conclusion.
flowerseverywhere
9-6-18, 9:50pm
Yeah. I see he’s comparing himself to Spartacus now. In order to compete, Kamala Harris will need to show up in one of those Handmaid’s Tale costumes tomorrow.
how dare they speak up. Only white men have the right to do it....
you know one of the jokes about the mysterious op ed writer was:
wait...I have it, the writer was white. Most likely male.
personally I liked it when Kamala asked if there was any legislation that governed men’s bodies. Guess what, their is none. And you wonder why women get annoyed.
conspiracy theory alert. Maybe a group of people decided on their own to attend the hearing and disrupt at intervals. Or maybe one of the busses that picked up voters to illegally vote for Obama was left over and they transported people and paid them to attend.
Why does everything Democrat have to be linked to people being paid off. Unless all those MAGA rallies the Pres is holding are bussed in and paid.... equally silly conclusion.No conspiracy theories here, just wondering who organizes dozens of Handmaid Tales doppelgangers and hundreds (at this point) of individual protests scheduling their outbursts every 15 to 20 minutes within the hearing room.
During the course of my career I was on the protection side of dozens of protests which were all organized by just a couple of local groups and they did indeed pay protestors, sometimes in beer and cigarettes. In this case, it's the scheduling that piques my curiosity. It seems to be set up in such a way that the disruptions will continue for the maximum amount of time with the smallest number of participants. It doesn't appear organic at all.
how dare they speak up. Only white men have the right to do it....
you know one of the jokes about the mysterious op ed writer was:
wait...I have it, the writer was white. Most likely male.
personally I liked it when Kamala asked if there was any legislation that governed men’s bodies. Guess what, their is none. And you wonder why women get annoyed.
They're both showboating in preparation for their upcoming Presidential runs. Why are you so hung up on race and gender?
They're both showboating in preparation for their upcoming Presidential runs. Why are you so hung up on race and gender?
And people wonder why republicans are viewed as lacking empathy.
And people wonder why republicans are viewed as lacking empathy.
I think you meant to say "Republicans are viewed as lacking the proper empathy", cause we're chock full of the regular kind.;)
Naw. Empathy comes naturally to some of us. Then you got people like rob portman and dick cheney who only find their inner empathy when it’s something that involves close family members.
They're both showboating in preparation for their upcoming Presidential runs. Why are you so hung up on race and gender?
Yes. There are white male Democrats acting every bit as foolishly in the pursuit of power.
ToomuchStuff
9-7-18, 4:15am
personally I liked it when Kamala asked if there was any legislation that governed men’s bodies. Guess what, their is none. And you wonder why women get annoyed.
Really? I thought there was legislation that made men sign up for the draft, so their bodies could be used for cannon fodder. Last I checked, women didn't have to do that.
I'm way beyond annoyed. This is the most corrupt bunch of politicians in my memory--and it wasn't long ago they were holding themselves up as the party of "family values," fiscal conservatism, and the sanctity of the Constitution. A lot of people fell for it, and now we're being governed by an addle-brained grifter and his army of toadies, all sucking greedily at the public trough. It's disgusting. And "both sides do it?" Bill Clinton's bl0w j0b and Rob Blagojevich's peccadilloes don't even touch this. I don't think it is a coincidence that Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the Russian oligarchy in bed with a president all happened under the banner of the Grand Old Party.
conspiracy theory alert. Maybe a group of people decided on their own to attend the hearing and disrupt at intervals. Or maybe one of the busses that picked up voters to illegally vote for Obama was left over and they transported people and paid them to attend.
Why does everything Democrat have to be linked to people being paid off. Unless all those MAGA rallies the Pres is holding are bussed in and paid.... equally silly conclusion.
+1
wonder who was paying for Cliven Bundy and friends who were protesting the federal government for weeks in Oregon? wonder who paid for the Unite the Right rallies? I mean, surely, otherwise no one would even bother unless they were getting a check... oy vey.
In many ways, the current GOP is a victim of its successes over the past few decades, outflanking the opposition at every turn so decisively that even Democratic Administrations generally either adopted Republican-Lite policies or had to content themselves with easily reversible executive orders. Such dominance breeds hubris and attracts main-chance players like Trump.
The Democrats seem to be victims of their past failures, doubling down on identity politics, class warfare and a preening disdain for large swathes of the electorate. This may interest a narrow core of activists, but it doesn’t win elections. The show-trial histrionics of the past few days seem to me evidence that they have learned very little.
I would think (and fervently hope) that Trump was eminently defeatable by any half rational opponent; but the Democrats seem unwilling to meet rationality halfway. You can’t out-ridiculous the man, but that seems to be their strategy of choice.
In many ways, the current GOP is a victim of its successes over the past few decades, outflanking the opposition at every turn so decisively that even Democratic Administrations generally either adopted Republican-Lite policies or had to content themselves with easily reversible executive orders. Such dominance breeds hubris and attracts main-chance players like Trump.
The Democrats seem to be victims of their past failures, doubling down on identity politics, class warfare and a preening disdain for large swathes of the electorate. This may interest a narrow core of activists, but it doesn’t win elections. The show-trial histrionics of the past few days seem to me evidence that they have learned very little.
I would think (and fervently hope) that Trump was eminently defeatable by any half rational opponent; but the Democrats seem unwilling to meet rationality halfway. You can’t out-ridiculous the man, but that seems to be their strategy of choice.
John Fugelsang this morning characterized the Democratic party as being like a bondage submissive who's forgotten their safe word. I couldn't agree more. We need to take the gloves off. And vote. I have nothing but contempt for those who don't.
I remember when at least some Republicans were honorable. I'd be happy to vote for one again in my lifetime, but I'm not hopeful.
I don’t think it’s a case of Democrats being too passive and fair-minded and nice in the face of brutal opposition. They have proven themselves every bit as nasty and crazy as their foes.
They aren’t shrinking from a fight. They’re just wrong in their choice of weapons. They’re lurching left when the center would seem to have more promise. They’re showing a face to the voters that appears every bit as reality-challenged as Trump, inviting voters to go with the lunatic they know. They seem to believe that the country is ripe for a sort of socialist realignment. I’m not sure that’s really the case.
To be fair, Democrats don't have the firehose of financial backing the Republicans do. And I don't remember the nasty craziness you're referencing; maybe it was before my time...
I think they overestimated the electorate this time around. I remember Clinton laying out the Russian connection in a debate; I guess that was too dry for voters, compared to Trump's bombast. There was voter suppression and Russian hacking involved. And, of course, she was female.
I don't think we need to abandon minorities or our principles in general (didn't Bill Clinton try that? Republican lite.) I think we need to institute meaningful campaign finance reform, combat voter suppression, get out the vote, and make laws in Congress that prevent running out the clock as Republicans shamelessly did with Merrick Garland. Also get rid of the lobbyist/legislator revolving door. I have hope for the Millennials.
To be fair, Democrats don't have the firehose of financial backing the Republicans do. And I don't remember the nasty craziness you're referencing; maybe it was before my time...
.
Unless you were born this morning it wasn’t before your time.
Clinton and her super-PACs outspent Trump and his by a fairly wide margin in 2016. She was able to get her message out. It was just a losing message. As far as overestimating the voters, is it really intelligent politics to tell the voters that you’re too good for them?
Unless you were born this morning it wasn’t before your time.
Clinton and her super-PACs outspent Trump and his by a fairly wide margin in 2016. She was able to get her message out. It was just a losing message. As far as overestimating the voters, is it really intelligent politics to tell the voters that you’re too good for them?
Is it too much to ask that your leaders are more capable of running the country than you are? Apparently so.
Is it too much to ask that your leaders are more capable of running the country than you are? Apparently so.
Even if you’re right, the above isn’t much of a campaign slogan.
I wouldn't have thought "I love the poorly educated" was either, but it seemed to work.
flowerseverywhere
9-7-18, 12:41pm
Really? I thought there was legislation that made men sign up for the draft, so their bodies could be used for cannon fodder. Last I checked, women didn't have to do that.
you are correct, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. However cases are winding their way through the courts now that woman can engage in combat. There are various proposals as well being studied. I think it would be a good thing. And the regs now exempt divinity students as well as ministers. Why? Would they not be needed during a draft? Double standards.
flowerseverywhere
9-7-18, 1:03pm
They're both showboating in preparation for their upcoming Presidential runs. Why are you so hung up on race and gender?
White population of US about 60%
male population of US around 50%
any snapshot of Congress or Senate, or any of the committees show anywhere near the population mix. Overwhelmingly women and non-whites are underrepresented. Overcoming has been a steep uphill climb. I was shocked when Obama was elected. Women got the right to vote almost 100 years ago. Blacks got the right twenty years before that, but there was so much discrimination and suppression the voting rights act of 1965 had to be passed. Read about sunset laws, common in the south for a little hint on things that went on.
Our leaders are not there to serve the President, their church or their pocketbooks. They are there to serve their electorate. The American people. All of them. The rich, poor, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, male, female, Christian, Jew, Athiest, Muslim and so on.
Overcoming has been a steep uphill climb. I was shocked when Obama was elected. Women got the right to vote almost 100 years ago. Blacks got the right twenty years before that, but there was so much discrimination and suppression the voting rights act of 1965 had to be passed. Read about sunset laws, common in the south for a little hint on things that went on.
I'm well aware of the legacy the Democrats left the south (grew up there). Luckily all those white male Republicans in our national legislatures overcame the opposition to ensure women and minorities had an avenue to overcome the obstacles Democrats had placed on them. It seems like they'd get more credit.
I wouldn't have thought "I love the poorly educated" was either, but it seemed to work.
The results speak for themselves. It sold better than "I despise my deplorable inferiors". You would think an enlightened and superior mind would grasp that.
The results speak for themselves. It sold better than "I despise my deplorable inferiors". You would think an enlightened and superior mind would grasp that.
This is what she actually said:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”
“Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said.
Maybe fewer than half of Trump's crowd is comprised of "deplorables." Some of them are just opportunistic millionaires/billionaires fearful of being taxed appropriately. But when you consider Bannon, Spencer, Miller, Gorka, and all the white supremacists crawling out from the dark corners they originally inhabited, it's hard not to think they are everywhere. So I think she nailed it, but she should have known her words would be used against her.
This is what she actually said:
“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”
She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”
“Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said.
Maybe fewer than half of Trump's crowd is comprised of "deplorables." Some of them are just opportunistic millionaires/billionaires fearful of being taxed appropriately. But when you consider Bannon, Spencer, Miller, Gorka, and all the white supremacists crawling out from the dark corners they originally inhabited, it's hard not to thing they are everywhere. So I think she nailed it, but she should have known her words would be used against her.
Neither she nor her speechwriters had the gift of succinctness. I think people managed to glean her basic meaning from all the passive-aggressive flummery.
White population of US about 60%
male population of US around 50%
any snapshot of Congress or Senate, or any of the committees show anywhere near the population mix. Overwhelmingly women and non-whites are underrepresented. Overcoming has been a steep uphill climb. I was shocked when Obama was elected. Women got the right to vote almost 100 years ago. Blacks got the right twenty years before that, but there was so much discrimination and suppression the voting rights act of 1965 had to be passed. Read about sunset laws, common in the south for a little hint on things that went on.
Our leaders are not there to serve the President, their church or their pocketbooks. They are there to serve their electorate. The American people. All of them. The rich, poor, White, Black, Hispanic, Native American, male, female, Christian, Jew, Athiest, Muslim and so on.
(Standing ovation)
Shouting "identity politics" at us doesn't obviate the fact that women and minorities are just now gaining some traction in the political arena. Given two similar candidates, I will reliably vote for the woman or minority choice. Rule by Old White Men (which is certainly a form of identity politics itself) has had its day.
flowerseverywhere
9-7-18, 2:35pm
I'm well aware of the legacy the Democrats left the south (grew up there). Luckily all those white male Republicans in our national legislatures overcame the opposition to ensure women and minorities had an avenue to overcome the obstacles Democrats had placed on them. It seems like they'd get more credit.
thank you to our masters.
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 2:42pm
Clinton won the popular vote. Our current governor is republican and I voted for him. He is excellent and fair. Unfortunately we have 2 losers running now with the republican worse than the democrat. Ugh! Present governor is term limited.
Clinton won the popular vote.
This is true. It is also irrelevant under the current rules. People keep bringing it up as evidence the election was illegitimate. We have more conspiracy theories floating around than the Weimar Republic. I’m starting to think the Russian Internet Troll thing is about as historically important as New Coke.
Maybe you should watch Active Measures, a documentary that lays it all out, point by point. We should be very concerned.
Teacher Terry
9-7-18, 3:41pm
We as a country are in sorry shape when the president’s aides are hiding stuff from him to protect the country. He is so unstable and unpredictable. The republicans need to grow a set and take care of this problem.
thank you to our masters.
Stockholm syndrome is real.
Now that we've learned that he lied under oath during his appeals court confirmation hearings maybe impeachment would be a better choice than confirmation. But republicans gave up their fiction of being "law and order" folks a while ago so I'm sure they'll continue to jam through the confirmation of a dishonest political hack to the highest court in the land.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html
Now that we've learned that he lied under oath during his appeals court confirmation hearings maybe impeachment would be a better choice than confirmation. But republicans gave up their fiction of being "law and order" folks a while ago so I'm sure they'll continue to jam through the confirmation of a dishonest political hack to the highest court in the land.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-should-be-impeached-for-lying-during-his-confirmation-hearings.html
I doubt that the GOP would consider lying under oath to be a deal breaker.
I doubt that the GOP would consider lying under oath to be a deal breaker.
Maybe if he had lied about something serious. You know, like a blow job.
Maybe if he had lied about something serious. You know, like a blow job.
When a Republican lies it is okay, almost regardless of what it was about.
When a Dem lies, it is bad -- career ending -- even if it is about if he ate his veggies at lunch. haha
Actually it turns out he's lied while under oath to congress multiple times. Just what we need, a supreme court judge who doesn't think telling the truth is important. But since all republican politicians have completely lost their moral compass he'll undoubtedly get approved. Have we ever had such a sad group of traitors running this country before?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/
Teacher Terry
9-8-18, 3:20pm
Trump is rigging the Supreme Court so he won’t be prosecuted for the crimes he has committed. The Republicans are complicit because they are doing nothing. I am so glad that Obama is finally speaking out about what is happening to this country. Most people I know are very worried.
Trump is rigging the Supreme Court so he won’t be prosecuted for the crimes he has committed.
Which crimes are he charged with?
Teacher Terry
9-8-18, 3:24pm
Nothing yet but he will be. He is planning ahead for when the day comes.
Actually it turns out he's lied while under oath to congress multiple times. Just what we need, a supreme court judge who doesn't think telling the truth is important. But since all republican politicians have completely lost their moral compass he'll undoubtedly get approved. Have we ever had such a sad group of traitors running this country before?
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-brett-kavanaugh-appears-to-have-lied-to-congress-while-under-oath/
They haven't lost their moral compass; if they ever had one, they sold it. Money isn't everything, it's the only thing to that bunch.
Trump is rigging the Supreme Court so he won’t be prosecuted for the crimes he has committed.
Typically, crimes are not prosecuted in front of the Supreme Court. It doesn't preside over trials.
Teacher Terry
9-8-18, 3:46pm
The Supreme Court could allow him to pardon himself. Trump has stated that is what he plans to do.
The Supreme Court could allow him to pardon himself. Trump has stated that is what he plans to do.
Trump says a great many things....
Cory Booker just introduced "forbidden" documents into the records. It will be interesting to see the fallout.
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/41267179_2063156903722535_5073453495906992128_n.jp g?_nc_cat=1&oh=86249d60e3ec33c2e837cfa0af2b5951&oe=5C2360F4
Sorry, saw this today and couldn't resist. :~)
If you're going to jump the shark, there should actually be a shark in the water. Not a guppy your office had cleared earlier.
I like what Jonah Goldberg said about the Kavanaugh Democratic Primary: "Our politics are getting dumber because we're defining ourselves by the caricatures of our enemies".
Middle school civics taught that the the Supreme Court has 9 members which means there are 8 other jurists on the court. From the hoopla, you would think that Judge Kavanaugh would be the only judge, making decisions that would change the course of history and in essence is discounting the opinions of the others. I am interested to know if those who adamantly oppose Kavanaugh can name the other 8 judges.
Middle school civics taught that the the Supreme Court has 9 members which means there are 8 other jurists on the court. From the hoopla, you would think that Judge Kavanaugh would be the only judge, making decisions that would change the course of history and in essence is discounting the opinions of the others. I am interested to know if those who adamantly oppose Kavanaugh can name the other 8 judges.
Roberts, Thomas, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and that guy that got the seat that was stolen from Garland.
Considering that the other 8 jurists are pretty evenly split left and right this one guy IS likely to have an outsize influence. There were many times that Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote and the only unknown one. To name but one example, marriage equality would probably not be the law of the land if Kavanaugh had been on the court instead of Kennedy.
Yes, JP, That's the reason for the frustration in not being able to stop this one.
Breyer! That's the one I couldn't remember. And it took me a beat to remember Gorsuch, that serpent's egg.
I see the Senate Democrats have new and secret allegations that justify postponing a vote. They want to put the nominee on double secret probation until it can be investigated.
They had to go all the way back to his high school years to find someone who of coarse wants to remain anonymous.
he must have tried for second base, the scoundrel.
Maybe if the R’a hadnt tried to jam through his nomination before the national archives could release, and everyone review, tge repevant records, thw R’s wouldnt look like a bunch of corrupt cheaters trying to force through the confirmation of someone potentially unsuited for the court. Considering how many decades we will be stuck with him on the court one would think even republicans would want to fully vet him. Or did they through out absolutely all of their integrity when they got behind trump.
There is no one that Trump could nominate that the dems would approve of. They were against his pick before they even knew who it was.
There is no one that Trump could nominate that the dems would approve of. They were against his pick before they even knew who it was.That's true, I believe it took less than an hour from the moment he was nominated to fill in his name on the resistance signs and press releases.
While I believe in my heart that his nomination will be approved, it's interesting to watch the political side of things. The Democrats are determined to hold up the process until after the mid-terms in hopes of gaining a majority in the Senate which would allow them to block any Trump nomination, and the Republicans are determined to get this one approved before the possibility of losing their majority may come to pass. Unfortunately, as this plays out a good man is being abused by the process.
Unfortunately, as this plays out a good man is being abused by the process.
Did you say the same thing about the Garland nominee? At least in that case Republicans loved him until the evil Obama nominated him...
Did you say the same thing about the Garland nominee? At least in that case Republicans loved him until the evil Obama nominated him...I don't believe I ever said a word about him, nor do I remember Republicans raking him over the coals (although perhaps one or two did, I really don't remember), his nomination never got that far.
I never thought Garland was a threat to all that's right in the world as Democrats apparently do with Kavanaugh.
I think it was Obama who was the threat to Republicans- thus no raking over the coals of Garland, just refusal by Congress to even consider him or anyone.
I think it was Obama who was the threat to Republicans- thus no raking over the coals of Garland, just refusal by Congress to even consider him or anyone.
If only Joe Biden hadn't come up with the idea and promoted it years earlier, but that was during a Republican administration so I'm sure it was perfectly acceptable then.
Teacher Terry
9-13-18, 11:24pm
Garland was a Republican but a fair middle of the road guy. Yet the republicans blocked him for no reason. Now a horrible guy has been nominated and I hope we can block him.
Now a horrible guy has been nominated and I hope we can block him.
What makes him horrible?
What makes him horrible?
Lying under oath.
What makes him horrible?
Falsely claiming that birth control is an abortificant.
What makes him horrible?
Spending his life as a republican political operative but claiming to be a ‘balls and strikes’ jurist.
What makes him horrible?
Potentially having a gambling problem. I have no idea if this is a real concern but we’ll never know until after he’s been confirmed because the republicans in the senate don’t care about doing their job of vetting him. There’s enough to suspect the truth of this claim that we should at least confirm it one way or the other. But, as I mentioned upthread, integrity is not a republican strong point anymore. Sad.
I don't believe I ever said a word about him, nor do I remember Republicans raking him over the coals (although perhaps one or two did, I really don't remember), his nomination never got that far.
I never thought Garland was a threat to all that's right in the world as Democrats apparently do with Kavanaugh.
Apparently the republicans in the senate suddenly did think he was a threat since they were afraid to even talk to him. Talk about a good man whose career was derailed. {Crying crocodile tears for kavanaugh now. Boo f’ing hoo}
Williamsmith
9-14-18, 8:18am
I find it such a waste of time to be grandstanding in confirmation hearings. The Constitution doesn’t require such shows. It’s rather simple. The President makes a nomination, they vote yes or no. They don’t have to have a reason why. For that matter, there is no requirement the person must be a learned or experienced jurist. And personally I’d be satisfied if they reduced the number of justices. There’s no requirement for nine. And I’d like to see a reaffirmation vote every eight years....except they’d use that for more grandstanding. The only requirement for a justice to remain on the court is his/her “good behavior”. That turns out to be a life appointment....but isn’t stated as such in again....THE CONSTITUTION!
I find it such a waste of time to be grandstanding in confirmation hearings.
It’s not a waste of time if you’re trying to rev up the voters for November. You can play the tough prosecutor. You preen and strike heroic poses with no risk except perhaps beclowning yourself. You can brandish anonymous accusations at the eleventh hour like a badly plotted movie. You can strut and fret your hour upon the stage without having to pay for air time.
iris lilies
9-14-18, 10:29am
Spending his life as a republican political operative but claiming to be a ‘balls and strikes’ jurist.
I dont know what a balls and strikes jurist is, but for some reason
I find “Republican operative” funny. Thanks for the laugh!
I dont know what a balls and strikes jurist is, but for some reason
I find “Republican operative” funny. Thanks for the laugh!
I'll let John Roberts take credit for coining the balls and strikes jurist phrase. Personally i'm smart enough to realize that there is no such thing. If there were we could fire the whole damn court and just ask Siri to make the decisions.
And I suppose it'll be hilarious when Kavanaugh is sitting on the court pretzelizing his logic in ways Scalia could only have dreamed of in order to justify whatever decision he is making.
I suppose at the end of the day you guys are right. The advise part of advise and consent doesn't really mean anything. After all, the party not in power really has no say in this process so they might as well have just skipped the hearing entirely and voted the clown in on the initial go around. At least that would've been more honest and honorable than this sham fraud of a confirmation hearing where they weakly pretended to vet the guy. But honor is not a character trait that any republican senator seems to have at this point. The last one with any honor died a couple of weeks ago.
Teacher Terry
9-14-18, 10:53am
Totally agree JP.
I assume then that the Democrats hope to win the house and then no judges will come up for a vote. They will say Garland didn’t get a vote so now it’s payback time. And from here on out unless one party or the other controlles all three branches, nothing will get done. Unless of coarse it benefits the ruling class.
I’m sure if Hillary would have won we would be looking at three far left leaning judges. We would be looking for the best trans, minority , whatever the current victim class is for new judges. She would have the two current, and I’m sure Ruth would retire before 2020 if she knew a Democrat would chose and probably let her have a say in her successor.
Teacher Terry
9-14-18, 11:40am
I hope Ruth hangs in there until we get rid of some of the incompetents we now have.
I hope Ruth hangs in there until we get rid of some of the incompetents we now have.
I know it's a waste of time to ask but, what makes some of them incompetent?
Williamsmith
9-14-18, 12:07pm
Only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached and he remained on the court anyway. I like Ruth. I just wish she would ask a question every once in awhile to let us know she is still alive.
Only one Supreme Court Justice has ever been impeached and he remained on the court anyway. I like Ruth. I just wish she would ask a question every once in awhile to let us know she is still alive.
i wish her no ill will, but she getting up there in years. Just a fact for all of us. I saw the interview where she decried the political grandstanding over this nomination. She didn’t look to sharpe.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=AriOjUfbBrw
i wish her no ill will, but she getting up there in years. Just a fact for all of us.
I saw her twice last month at the Santa Fe Opera (The Italian Girl in Algiers & Ariadne auf Naxos), and she seemed pretty perky and with-it.
However, I think we should consider mandatory retirement age limits for these positions.
...
However, I think we should consider mandatory retirement age limits for these positions.
Agree - either limited by age (I'd vote for age 75 max), or limited by number of presidential terms, i.e., you get to serve 4 presidential-length terms or 16 years. Which is why it's another popular tactic to nominate the youngest feasible candidate so they can serve 30 or 40 years - I think that's why too long to have that kind of power.
Well, the republicans are certainly in a tough spot now. They were already polling poorly among women heading into the midterms. And now they can either 1) meet with Kavanaugh's accuser and alternate between victim blaming and calling her a liar, or 2) ignore her completely and vote on Kavanaugh anyway, neither of which will help them with the female vote. There's a third option, convince the president to rescind the nomination, which would improve their position among women, but I will truly be surprised if that happens.
Yes, I agree with the term limits. Seems sorta crazy for it to be a lifetime thing.
I don’t think the Democrats did themselves any favors by not surfacing this thing for the past couple of months. Now it smacks of a desperate last-minute play.
I think they should interview the accuser but I doubt anything said will do much to change the position of the Handmaids cosplay society. I’m not sure what anybody can do at this point to establish the truth of what happened all those years ago. People will simply default to their established positions and “believe” who they wish to.
You’re probably right. If a little bit of perjury didn’t derail his nomination surely a little bit of rape isn’t likely to do so either.
You’re probably right. If a little bit of perjury didn’t derail his nomination surely a little bit of rape isn’t likely to do so either.
How sad that a little bit of due process and the presumption of innocence so often derails justice.
No sadder than trying to jam this guy through confirmation for a lifetime appointment without actually trying to vet him.
No sadder than trying to jam this guy through confirmation for a lifetime appointment without actually trying to vet him.
i heard that he called someone a poo poo head in grade school. The accuser doesn’t remember when or where, or the name of anyone else who was there, but without a dought it was him. They are going public with this the day before the vote.
Comsidering that there are medical records showing that she discussed this in couples therapy back in 2012 it seems unlikely that this is a total fabrication.
When I first heard about this, I thought it smacked of desperation, but I've changed my mind. If she's willing to put her reputation on the line in a public forum, she should be heard. The presumption of innocence does not apply here. Kavanaugh isn't on trial for holding up a liquor store; he's being vetted for one of the most powerful appointed positions in government.
Now that I've heard more details about the accusations, I'm inclined to believe them, simply, I'm afraid, because it's the kind of thing any drunk teenage boy might do under the right circumstances. If, after hearing what this woman has to say, senators want to vote to confirm him--as they likely will--they'll won't be able to plead ignorance. Of course, there are dozens of reasons to reject this guy that have nothing to do with him groping girls, just like Clarence Thomas, who was probably every bit as gross as Anita Hill said he was, should have been rejected on grounds of intellectual mediocrity alone.
In a crude political sense, I see this as a win-win for the Dems. After this woman testifies, if she's at all plausible, it could swing a few votes (Collins, McCaskill) and get him defeated. He might even withdraw. Neither is likely, but at best the Repubs will look like they're turning a blind eye to a possible groper.
Williamsmith
9-17-18, 3:58pm
I reject the confirmation process as a huge waste of the taxpayers dollars. It’s not like Trump doesn’t have a list a mile long of jurists who will provide the court with a conservative majority. Get on with it, and spare me the drama.
iris lilies
9-17-18, 4:02pm
I reject the confirmation process as a huge waste of the taxpayers dollars. It’s not like Trump doesn’t have a list a mile long of jurists who will provide the court with a conservative majority. Get on with it, and spare me the drama.
haha, yeah, and I am not even sure Donald J. Trump knows what “conservative” means.
Teacher Terry
9-17-18, 4:29pm
It’s too big of a word for trump.
I wonder why Feinstein waited till the last minute to bring this forward. She had the information last July. Even she wasn’t buying it.
Ford took a lie detector test administered by a former FBI agent. So should Kavanaugh. Though if he was too drunk to remember what he did he could pass so that in itself is not proof of anything, but it would be a start to determining what may or may not have happened.
Feunstein kept quiet because the woman asked that she do so. And i can certainly understand her hesitance to come forward. She has nothing to gain personally and will now be smeared and ridiculed endlessly on tv and internet by trump supporters and in today’s hyper-politicized environment will likely also have death threats hurled at herself and her family.
It will be interesting to see what comes out. No one else at the supposed party has come forward, at least not yet. From the post story she seems to not know when or where the party was , or how she got home. She was maybe 15 at the time and everyone was drinking.
Also so there have been no other claims that Kavanaugh has done this. Only that he has always been a gentleman.
Im not saying it couldn’t have happened. But unless someone there also comes forward isn’t it his word against her’s.
There are are a lot of crazy people out there. We will see.
Feunstein kept quiet because the woman asked that she do so. And i can certainly understand her hesitance to come forward. She has nothing to gain personally and will now be smeared and ridiculed endlessly on tv and internet by trump supporters and in today’s hyper-politicized environment will likely also have death threats hurled at herself and her family.
She would be a hero to those in the resistance. People kill to be famous, who knows. And she could just be confused. Have the wrong guy, who knows after all these years.
Looks like there will be a hearing next Monday. I’ll have to watch CNN to see if they have any info.
iris lilies
9-17-18, 7:24pm
When I first heard about this, I thought it smacked of desperation, but I've changed my mind. If she's willing to put her reputation on the line in a public forum, she should be heard. The presumption of innocence does not apply here. Kavanaugh isn't on trial for holding up a liquor store; he's being vetted for one of the most powerful appointed positions in government.
Now that I've heard more details about the accusations, I'm inclined to believe them, simply, I'm afraid, because it's the kind of thing any drunk teenage boy might do under the right circumstances. If, after hearing what this woman has to say, senators want to vote to confirm him--as they likely will--they'll won't be able to plead ignorance. Of course, there are dozens of reasons to reject this guy that have nothing to do with him groping girls, just like Clarence Thomas, who was probably every bit as gross as Anita Hill said he was, should have been rejected on grounds of intellectual mediocrity alone.
In a crude political sense, I see this as a win-win for the Dems. After this woman testifies, if she's at all plausible, it could swing a few votes (Collins, McCaskill) and get him defeated.He might even withdraw. Neither is likely, but at best the Repubs will look like they're turning a blind eye to a possible groper.]
oh poor Claire Bear, so sad, too bad. She has such a dilemma! Being a Senator is HARD!
not.
She will vote in lock step with her party. The rest of her blathering is just campaign noise.
I wonder if Trump has a woman on his list if this one becomes a problem. I’m sure the Democrats won’t like her either. Poor Mcaskill just won’t know what to do.
Williamsmith
9-17-18, 8:54pm
Ford took a lie detector test administered by a former FBI agent. So should Kavanaugh. Though if he was too drunk to remember what he did he could pass so that in itself is not proof of anything, but it would be a start to determining what may or may not have happened.
There is a good reason why the results of a polygraph test are not admissible in court....don’t get me started on that magic box. The only thing it’s good for is to illicit confessions.
She would be a hero to those in the resistance. People kill to be famous, who knows. And she could just be confused. Have the wrong guy, who knows after all these years.
Yes, I'm sure lots of women dream of being Anita Hill v. 2.0.
In the absence of any corroborating evidence, it will break down to those who believe the accusation itself is sufficient reason to kill the nomination and those who do not. Those who feel the charge is enough were never going to support it anyway. Nor do I see a lot of minds being changed by another few days of political theater. As has been pointed out here, the truth of the matter is irrelevant if it allows one party to portray themselves as the champions of women.
What we will get from this is some additional performance art aimed at energizing the already convinced. But as Trump has taught us, truth is a poor substitute for drama in our current political climate.
ToomuchStuff
9-18-18, 12:26pm
I know it's a waste of time to ask but, what makes some of them incompetent?
Did you ever get an answer?
Did you ever get an answer?
Nope, but I honestly didn't expect one as we've now reached the point where it's no longer necessary to base our feelings on facts or data.
Teacher Terry
9-18-18, 1:27pm
It’s a waste of time because we fundamentally disagree and no one is going to change their minds.
It’s a waste of time because we fundamentally disagree and no one is going to change their minds.In my world agreements aren't necessary for discussion, but I'm a conservative. I would think you would empathize with those you cannot convert due to their inability to see beyond reason into the realm of feelings. :cool:
But as Trump has taught us, truth is a poor substitute for drama in our current political climate.
So sad, but true.
I would like to know if Kavanaugh were a Democrat and accused of the same allegations, would we Dems have a biased reaction? There are a lot of 17 year old drunken jerks out there, and I'm not at all condoning his alleged behavior, but given this is a decades old "he said/she said" argument, I am wrestling with whether or not this "bombshell" should impede the hearings for his Supreme Court candidacy.
And I'm a woman. And a Democrat. And pro-choice. And I really don't want Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, strictly for political reasons.
So sad, but true.
I would like to know if Kavanaugh were a Democrat and accused of the same allegations, would we Dems have a biased reaction? There are a lot of 17 year old drunken jerks out there, and I'm not at all condoning his alleged behavior, but given this is a decades old "he said/she said" argument, I am wrestling with whether or not this "bombshell" should impede the hearings for his Supreme Court candidacy.
And I'm a woman. And a Democrat. And pro-choice. And I really don't want Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court, strictly for political reasons.
Clearly, you labor under a burden of integrity that does not impede many in high office who seek higher office.
Teacher Terry
9-18-18, 1:57pm
Alan, I base my decisions on facts not feelings. Considering they wouldn’t even let Garland have a hearing and he was republican I have no problem with what is happening now .
Alan, I base my decisions on facts not feelings. Considering they wouldn’t even let Garland have a hearing and he was republican I have no problem with what is happening now .Oh, I completely understand your desire for retribution, but my question was what in your mind makes some of the other justices incompetent?
And now I have another question for you. Since you approve of the Democrats efforts to derail this nomination out of spite, will you also approve of a by any means campaign to stop the next one as well if Kavanaugh decides the appointment is no longer worth pursuing?
Teacher Terry
9-18-18, 5:01pm
I am not a lawyer. However, sometimes some judges do not appear to be interpreting the law with well thought out decisions. Even if I disagree I respect their decisions if done properly. We need smart, informed judges that can interpret the law. If the republicans pick a good candidate that person should not be blocked. Garland wouldn’t have been my first choice but would have made a good Judge.
Oh, I completely understand your desire for retribution, but my question was what in your mind makes some of the other justices incompetent?
And now I have another question for you. Since you approve of the Democrats efforts to derail this nomination out of spite, will you also approve of a by any means campaign to stop the next one as well if Kavanaugh decides the appointment is no longer worth pursuing?
Personally I don't want retribution. I just want transparency. The republicans have been pushing so hard to get this confirmation done with a minimal amount of information from his time in the Bush white house becoming available that I can only assume that they know something pretty awful. If not then it's a pretty pathetic partisan display of disregard for the senate's role in this process that the dem's have had to resort to a lawsuit to try and gain access to all that information. If there's nothing there there will be nothing there a month or whatever from now after it's all been released. If there IS something there we the people deserve to know before he gets approved for a lifetime appointment.
iris lilies
9-18-18, 10:56pm
Personally I don't want retribution. I just want transparency. The republicans have been pushing so hard to get this confirmation done with a minimal amount of information from his time in the Bush white house becoming available that I can only assume that they know something pretty awful. If not then it's a pretty pathetic partisan display of disregard for the senate's role in this process that the dem's have had to resort to a lawsuit to try and gain access to all that information. If there's nothing there there will be nothing there a month or whatever from now after it's all been released. If there IS something there we the people deserve to know before he gets approved for a lifetime appointment.
Alex, I will take “Pretty pathetic partisan display of disregard” for $100, please.
I don't suspect nefarious doings of particular import in the White House.
Fine. Lets actually let it play out instead of republicans acting all guilty. Almost as guilty as the turd in chief acts with his pathetic tweets. If there’s nothing to be ashemaed of we confirm him. Otherwise, we’ve dodged a lifetime appointment bullet. What are you afraid of?
At first, I was upset with Dr. Ford for deciding not to come to the hearings........then I realized how important it was for the FBI to investigate first, which is why she wasn't coming. But doesn't the so-called-president have to order that? (which I've he he won't). We've become such a circus.
At first, I was upset with Dr. Ford for deciding not to come to the hearings........then I realized how important it was for the FBI to investigate first, which is why she wasn't coming. But doesn't the so-called-president have to order that? (which I've he he won't). We've become such a circus.
Im waiting for the book deal and the talk show circuit to start. And wait and see how her rise in her status in the liberal college world will effect her.
Teacher Terry
9-19-18, 12:04pm
She will be damaged by this. Don’t kid yourself.
Williamsmith
9-19-18, 4:22pm
Her accusations are a matter for a local jurisdiction or venue. The FBI can’t just cruise into any jurisdiction and declare they are the agency of record. To my knowledge Ford never reported this to the appropriate authority. If she goes now, it is undoubtedly beyond the investigative time limits. So now it looks like she’s been dragged into this thing by people who don’t have her best interest in mind or she is a willing participant in a movement she connects with politically which should give a normal person pause to believe her story. As calculating as the other side is, there is no way they didn’t have this all mapped out from the beginning in order to stall any candidate. In fact, Trumps list is probably already in the hands of the Dems and a game plan is already in the playbook. That any of this is spontaneous is hardly believable.
Im waiting for the book deal and the talk show circuit to start. And wait and see how her rise in her status in the liberal college world will effect her.
She is already a professor.
dado potato
9-19-18, 7:54pm
I saw the news today that Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri will vote against this nomination. She cannot accept a Supreme Court Justice who sees no problem with unlimited anonymous political contributions.
iris lilies
9-19-18, 8:13pm
She is already a professor.
With tenure?
iris lilies
9-19-18, 8:14pm
In other news, water is wet.
In other news, some people have a risktaking gene. They have gambling problems, have been known to drink to excess, and just might be guilty of sexual assault. Do we want someone taking risks with our constitution?
Do we want someone taking risks with our constitution?No, that's why it's important to get conservatives onto the court.
Unfortunately some people's idea of conservativism is to defend anything a president does as executive privilege if he has an R behind his name.
Unfortunately some people's idea of conservativism is to defend anything a president does as executive privilege if he has an R behind his name.
Perhaps on a very superficial level, but I doubt superficiality is a problem on the Supreme Court.
Her accusations are a matter for a local jurisdiction or venue. The FBI can’t just cruise into any jurisdiction and declare they are the agency of record.
They've done it before in similar circumstances.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/07/us/law-professor-accuses-thomas-of-sexual-harassment-in-1980-s.html
Williamsmith
9-20-18, 11:40am
They've done it before in similar circumstances.
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/10/07/us/law-professor-accuses-thomas-of-sexual-harassment-in-1980-s.html
To clarify my statement. The FBI cannot conduct a criminal investigation with the intention of superseding local primary jurisdiction in a state criminal matter. They could as a matter of a background investigation, conduct interviews and forward their results to the Senate. There has been no accusation of a federal crime so the FBI has no interest or authoriAtion to conduct a criminal investigation. That’s up to the Maryland County agency holding venue where the alledged actions occurred.
Now we know why the republicans have been so resistant of the FBI getting involved. Team kavanaugh has been plotting a royal coverup and is trying to smear an innocent classmate of his.
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/21/kavanaugh-battle-gets-darker-and-weirder-will-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-save-him/
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 12:37pm
That is truly terrible. What lengths those scum balls are willing to go to. If K is involved one more reason he is not fit to sit on the court.
iris lilies
9-21-18, 12:43pm
Now we know why the republicans have been so resistant of the FBI getting involved. Team kavanaugh has been plotting a royal coverup and is trying to smear an innocent classmate of his.
https://www.salon.com/2018/09/21/kavanaugh-battle-gets-darker-and-weirder-will-bizarre-conspiracy-theories-save-him/
I skimmed this story. It is still the Ford story, right? The one where he is, what , sixteen years old? The one where eveyone us drunk, in high school, partying, right?
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 1:00pm
K and friends are now blaming a classmate who is a teacher and this teacher has supported K. Fine if you want to deny but don’t blame a innocent person.
Yeah, it is the Ed Whalen theory that another guy who looked like K is the perp. Based on geography of the house where it occurred.
I don't feel that it is right to call people scumballs or innocent victims or slime or whatever they are being called--seriously, we do not know what happened and we are getting little scraps of things and I think it is wrong to jump to conclusions about people this way.
I never thought I'd say this but I think it's time for the Senate to do it's job behind closed doors. These public hearings are used more as campaign fodder and partisan sideshow theatrics than as an advise and consent hearing. I'm becoming more and more disenchanted with politics.
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 1:16pm
When you put yourself out as a public figure you must be up to scrutiny and everything that goes with it. Take the bad with the good. Right now my opinion is based on the information I have. Only a horrible person tries to shift the blame on a innocent person. If K is involved he is not fit to serve.
iris lilies
9-21-18, 1:18pm
Without reading in much depth about this latest development in Drunk Teen-gate, I definately do not like the idea of concocting a floor plan of the house where this alleged teenage assault took place. I am annoyed at everyone who participated in it.
Return to voting him up or down, and let us all move on.
I agree with Alan. These are orchestrated snippets and we are being manipulated. You cannot really say who is horrible and who is innocent, if you are being fair, based on the fact we don't have anything except these soundbites and it seems to be a political battle at this point, and I want to be fair, and not slander anyone. Anyone. We still have due process, we are still innocent until proven guilty. All of us.
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 1:24pm
I guess we will have to agree to disagree:))
I must’ve had a boring life as a teenager. I neither got blackout drunk nor did i attempt to rape anyone.
I must’ve had a boring life as a teenager. I neither got blackout drunk nor did i attempt to rape anyone.
At this stage I'm not sure it matters, if someone accuses you others like you will devote hundreds of internet posts impugning your character. Best maintain a low profile.
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 3:20pm
I have no doubt it is real. She will suffer by coming forward. She has nothing to gain.
I have no doubt it is real. She will suffer by coming forward. She has nothing to gain.
Never underestimate the power of notoriety. I'm not suggesting that's the case here but it sometimes provides a powerful draw.
At this stage I'm not sure it matters, if someone accuses you others like you will devote hundreds of internet posts impugning your character. Best maintain a low profile.
I winder why it didnt happen with Gorsuch?
If it happened to me i’d want an independent investigation, perhaps with a few interviews of relevant people by the FBI.
I winder why it didnt happen with Gorsuch?
I wonder what will happen with the next one.
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 4:54pm
Nothing if the person has nothing to hide which must have been the case with Gorsuch.
I wonder what will happen with the next one.
What’s to wonder. If someone accuses them of something like this they’ll follow the standard republican playbook. They will forcefully deny any wrongdoing and every other republican will forcefully assert that there’s no need to bother investigating such an absurd accusation that myst obviously be a partisan plot and then they will try and jam the confirmation through as quickly as possible.
Williamsmith
9-21-18, 6:13pm
There is no reason to stall the vote. The Constitution adequately provides for the impeachment and removal of a Supreme Court Justice. It is NOT a lifetime appointment. Should K. Be appointed the House of Representatives May conduct impeachment proceedings and hear testimony regarding his poor behavior which generally has been agreed to be high crimes and misdemeanors. If the House impeaches, then a Senate Commitee presides over hearings to produce a report for the entire Senate who then votes to keep or remove the Justice. A super majority of two thirds would be required to remove. This process would represent a thorough investigation rather than the dog and pony show we are currently witnessing.
dado potato
9-21-18, 6:18pm
I note that Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) was "appalled" today after President Trump's twitter comments about Dr. Ford. Trump implied there is no truth in the allegations, because (as he sees it): if the sexual assault had really occurred back in high school, surely the victim or her loving parents would have complained to law enforcement. (Implication: there was no criminal complaint on record; therefor, there was no offense.)
Senator Collins stated that she felt Trump's remarks were "completely inappropriate and wrong". In the 1980s as now, not every sexual assault is reported to police.
Senator Collins still has not indicated how she intends to vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh's appointment. But I think the Bloviator-in-Chief may have given her a new reason to vote "no" today.
If I were in Senator Collins' situation, with a nationwide crowd-funding effort underway to pressure her to vote "yes", I would vote "no" in defiance. Mainers do not appreciate intimidation... in this case, in the form political contributions by people from away.
Williamsmith
9-21-18, 6:28pm
I note that Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) was "appalled" today after President Trump's twitter comments about Dr. Ford. Trump implied there is no truth in the allegations, because (as he sees it): if the sexual assault had really occurred back in high school, surely the victim or her loving parents would have complained to law enforcement. (Implication: there was no criminal complaint on record; therefor, there was no offense.)
Senator Collins stated that she felt Trump's remarks were "completely inappropriate and wrong". In the 1980s as now, not every sexual assault is reported to police.
Senator Collins still has not indicated how she intends to vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh's appointment. But I think the Bloviator-in-Chief may have given her a new reason to vote "no" today.
If I were in Senator Collins' situation, with a nationwide crowd-funding effort underway to pressure her to vote "yes", I would vote "no" in defiance. Mainers do not appreciate intimidation... in this case, in the form political contributions by people from away.
She met with K. And asked him about the allegations. He denied them. Her vote will likely reflect whether she believed him or not. End of story.
If I were in Senator Collins' situation, with a nationwide crowd-funding effort underway to pressure her to vote "yes", I would vote "no" in defiance. Mainers do not appreciate intimidation... in this case, in the form political contributions by people from away.
That's where we as a nation screwed up in the early 1900's by ratifying the 17th Amendment enabling popular election of Senators. As a result, the Senate is no longer immune to the populism represented by the House of Representatives. Populism is antithetical to a representative democracy.
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 7:29pm
There is no reason to rush the vote.
Senator Collins stated that she felt Trump's remarks were "completely inappropriate and wrong". In the 1980s as now, not every sexual assault is reported to police.
I am familiar with how many "rape kits" we pull off the shelf each year in the county and go through the evidence collection process with. Around 1-2 dozen. They lead, each year, to nearly zero prosecutions, and nearly zero convictions.
The collection process is quite challenging and intrusive. The people who decide after being informed of the process to continue on with it to completion must be quite brave or solid. The process itself, or the prospect of it, I suspect scares off a lot of potential reports. And then the general lack of outcome must also deter reporting.
Tonight we are scouring the island for a 24 year old man, who is homeless, who often camps in the woods about 1.5 miles from my home. He allegedly raped a 12 year old child. I will be out with bloodhound and some gear, with any luck we'll flush him out. It's going to be cold and rainy tonight, perhaps he'll fall off one of the 300 foot cliffs in the park while trying to evade, and save the taxpayers some money. I can't imagine a child going through the interview process FFS.
I am willing to bet all the people who think there is no good reason for a child victim of sexual assault to not report the crime have never been so victimized. I almost want to say they should be.
Teacher Terry
9-21-18, 7:46pm
Bae, that kind of stuff is why I quit being a social worker years ago.
People wonder why women don't routinely speak up after they are sexually assaulted. Perhaps it's things like this. After having to wear an ankle monitoring bracelet while awaiting trial and living at home he pleaded guilty to a felony and it was decided that the time already "served" was sufficient punishment.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/21/us/alaska-assault-man-no-sentence/index.html
There is some definite class bias there as well JP. Man with white collar job gets away with assaulting a woman too poor to own a car. I think if the victim were someone like Sarah Palin it would have been a whole different outcome.
There is some definite class bias there as well JP. Man with white collar job gets away with assaulting a woman too poor to own a car. I think if the victim were someone like Sarah Palin it would have been a whole different outcome.
Yup. And imagine if the perpetrator wasn't just a middle class white guy, but was a rich prep school kid. This article takes a look at the bigger picture of the class bias. TLDR version: Kavanaugh really hasn't been much of a success at anything any more than trump has been a particularly successful businessman.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/21/17876832/kavanaugh-trump-crisis-elite-accountability
So now apparently Whelen, the guy that came up with the silly conspiracy theory that Ford misremembered who attacked her, and slimed a random guy who looked like Kavanaugh, was given her name 90 minutes before it was made public. If the republicans in the senate wanted to look like they were taking this seriously they couldn't possibly do a worse job than they are. The question now is who told Whelen. And why the hell should we take seriously anything the judiciary committee is doing? They have lost all credibility at this point and Kavanaugh needs to withdraw his nomination.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/22/ford-runs-circles-around-hapless-republicans-who-now-have-a-second-scandal/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bdea5e5ac70e
Williamsmith
9-24-18, 8:17am
Kavanaugh is taking it on the chin pretty bad. This new accuser will muddy the waters even more. I didn’t realize Kavanaugh was such a drunken fool while attending Yale. For that matter, I thought the kids that attended Yale and the Ivy League schools were a caliber above the run of the mill college student. Apparently, Kavanaugh was frequently a falling down drunk. I’ve been in that condition before and I could see how these things could happen. It doesn’t make them right but he fact the victims were also drinking heavily, really makes the cases difficult. But reading some of the statements, many District Attorneys would have charged him and went to trial. It all comes down to the victim’s believability on the stand. And some shred of cooborative evidence.
For the sake of the country, maybe he should just step aside. There are plenty of good names on Trumps list of lists.
Teacher Terry
9-24-18, 10:54am
You would think this new accuser would seal the deal but republicans are determined. Ugh!
iris lilies
9-24-18, 10:56am
Kavanaugh is taking it on the chin pretty bad. This new accuser will muddy the waters even more. I didn’t realize Kavanaugh was such a drunken fool while attending Yale. For that matter, I thought the kids that attended Yale and the Ivy League schools were a caliber above the run of the mill college student. Apparently, Kavanaugh was frequently a falling down drunk. I’ve been in that condition before and I could see how these things could happen. It doesn’t make them right but he fact the victims were also drinking heavily, really makes the cases difficult. But reading some of the statements, many District Attorneys would have charged him and went to trial. It all comes down to the victim’s believability on the stand. And some shred of cooborative evidence.
For the sake of the country, maybe he should just step aside. There are plenty of good names on Trumps list of lists.
Are there really “plenty of good names” that can escape all background scrutinty? I have my doubts.
Well they may as well take my name off the list. I can’t even remember much of my high school days. And I was also in a Fraternity in college, and I was present at a few party’s.
But my memory isn’t to good to begin with. I’m not sure what I had for breakfast.
But I’m positive a couple of the posters here assaulted me. I just don’t remember when and where. And no one else supposedly there at the time does either.
But id have to come forward to save the country if they were nominated.
Are there really “plenty of good names” that can escape all background scrutinty? I have my doubts.
You may well be correct. We've changed the rules of the game mid-life for these guys. All those years ago when they had 'youthful indiscretions' they could count on the other guys keeping quiet about it and the girls not speaking out. They HAVE to stick with Kavanaugh to the bitter end because this rule change almost certainly makes a whole lot of guys ineligible for the roles they've believed they were entitled to since they were little boys.
Williamsmith
9-24-18, 1:05pm
Are there really “plenty of good names” that can escape all background scrutinty? I have my doubts.
Perhaps a female nominee might be more palatable.
Teacher Terry
9-24-18, 1:11pm
Yes it’s a rare woman that assaults a man.
For that matter, I thought the kids that attended Yale and the Ivy League schools were a caliber above the run of the mill college student. Apparently, Kavanaugh was frequently a falling down drunk.
My experience at Princeton in the '80s, and my daughter's experience there in the '10s, seem to indicate that there is a significant portion, but a minority, of the students that enjoy, even still, partying to blackout, and engaging in unruly behaviour. They tend to be from the privileged classes upon arrival, and move on to careers in banking/finance, politics, and law. We called them "squareheads" in my day, because they all had that square rowing/lacrosse-team preppy look, and were from Only The Best prep schools, from families of money and class, and were striving for "the gentleman's C" in class.
When I was there, it was about 40% of the population, I reckon, and the main street where the "eating clubs" were was a nightmare on weekends. It's now down to ~20% or less, according to my recent spy-on-site.
flowerseverywhere
9-25-18, 7:09am
Excellent viewpoint Bae. I think the culture you describe is accurate, sometimes to different degrees in some universities. I remember getting off a bus from a day at the hospital with our little white nursing uniforms and shoes when there was a gathering of fraternities on the quad. You might have thought a whorehouse had arrived. There were catcalls, vulgar shouts and even some physical encounters as we tried to get away. Imagine that happening today on a campus.
Also, we started our OR rotation and were in a room and the head nurse was orienting us and told us to stay away from Dr. Hands as they called him as he had a reputation for cornering women in closets and hallways and touching them, kissing them. And we were the ones being warned.
Boys will be boys
Teacher Terry
9-25-18, 11:05am
Flowers, yes that sucks. I can remember as a 13 yo going downtown on a Saturday afternoon and having sailors take the train to our town and try to pick us up. Sometimes they would get so aggressive we would go to a store and seek help from a female clerk. Ugh1
Yes it’s a rare woman that assaults a man.
You haven’t been to a dance or function at the country club. Many of the women there probably meet the definition of assault on men. I’ve complained myself to people about it. The times have changed.
gimmethesimplelife
9-25-18, 7:56pm
We are down two shift supervisors at work so I have been unexpectedly picking up a lot of overtime lately. Hence I have not had much time to keep up with my usual - activism, the neighborhood, the news.......point here being that I have not kept up with the entire unfolding drama of Mr. Kavanaugh. What I will say though is that I find his former male roommate from his college days basically saying that Mr. Kavanaugh behaved differently under the influence really helped me see him as unfit for the position. Not that I believe the two female accusers are lying - please understand this much.
It's just much easier to see a full picture (at least for me) with the former roommate stepping up to the plate with what he had to say, and I personally thank him for doing so. So goes my take on this sorry saga. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-25-18, 8:59pm
Perhaps a female nominee might be more palatable.I'm thinking right now it might be easier to get a woman into the Supreme Court than a man. Rob
flowerseverywhere
9-25-18, 11:40pm
I'm thinking right now it might be easier to get a woman into the Supreme Court than a man. Rob
I am not so sure. I do not care if it is a woman or man, if they are white, or Christian, or gay, I care if it is a person of integrity who will do their best to follow the constitution and laws. The worse we can expect is someone who is paid off like the rest of our politicians by the NRA, or anti gun lobbies, pro or anti abortion groups, pharma companies, and so on. We have sunk to such a low with money being valued more than truth and justice.
flowerseverywhere
9-25-18, 11:45pm
You haven’t been to a dance or function at the country club. Many of the women there probably meet the definition of assault on men. I’ve complained myself to people about it. The times have changed.
Why would you put yourself in that position? If you are single and want to meet a person perhaps finding someone who shares your interests and values stay away from any function that is involved in social status or alcohol. I have never been to a country club function, but from what I have seen in the trumpworld don’t sign me up. Real people who are in it for real don’t get sucked into that BS.
iris lilies
9-26-18, 12:09am
Why would you put yourself in that position? If you are single and want to meet a person perhaps finding someone who shares your interests and values stay away from any function that is involved in social status or alcohol. I have never been to a country club function, but from what I have seen in the trumpworld don’t sign me up. Real people who are in it for real don’t get sucked into that BS.
He isnt single. I imagine the golfing opportunity is a draw for dmc and not so much the social status. I doubt that dmc gives two hoots about status. I mean, he is from St. Chuck for god’s sake. (Haha dmc, just poking you.)
This response of reverse snobbery paints a sterotypical picture of “country club” people. Not “real?” Geesh.
Why would you put yourself in that position? If you are single and want to meet a person perhaps finding someone who shares your interests and values stay away from any function that is involved in social status or alcohol. I have never been to a country club function, but from what I have seen in the trumpworld don’t sign me up. Real people who are in it for real don’t get sucked into that BS.
My wife was setting at the table, or at least at the function. I go because my wife was on the board and felt she should attend. And you should here some of the stories from the single guys, and it’s not just at the club. They are single, but many of the women are let’s say aggressive these days. I don’t think they are lieing if they say they are uncomfortable.
Just different times these days, of coarse no one would believe a man.
I'm thinking right now it might be easier to get a woman into the Supreme Court than a man. Rob
of coarse it would.
This is the current play book now. Anyone, Democrat or Republican, that comes up for the Court might as well expect this in the future.
Ultralight
9-26-18, 6:46am
of coarse it would.
Of coarse it wood. ;)
Ultralight
9-26-18, 6:48am
This is the current play book now. Anyone, Democrat or Republican, that comes up for the Court might as well expect this in the future.
We live in a post-privacy society. So these politicians ought to realize this.
flowerseverywhere
9-26-18, 3:41pm
He isnt single. I imagine the golfing opportunity is a draw for dmc and not so much the social status. I doubt that dmc gives two hoots about status. I mean, he is from St. Chuck for god’s sake. (Haha dmc, just poking you.)
This response of reverse snobbery paints a sterotypical picture of “country club” people. Not “real?” Geesh.
i mistyped, it doesn’t even make sense and I can’t recall where I was going with that. I could be a politician since I can’t recall!
flowerseverywhere
9-26-18, 3:46pm
My wife was setting at the table, or at least at the function. I go because my wife was on the board and felt she should attend. And you should here some of the stories from the single guys, and it’s not just at the club. They are single, but many of the women are let’s say aggressive these days. I don’t think they are lieing if they say they are uncomfortable.
Just different times these days, of coarse no one would believe a man.
and that is very sad. From reading all the news about these cavanaugh accusations it appears this was a different time and a different culture. But as in all things, perhaps we have swung too far the other way. I really don’t like that before Dr. Fords testimony she was labeled confused and some senators minds were made up. All three of these women have a lot to lose by coming forward. And I really feel bad for the woman Renate, who was the subject of so many of their yearbook postings, who had no clue. And she was one of the people they recruited to sign the letter in support of Kavanaugh!
By by the way, several women have spoken about their rapes to me recently. One by her stepdad (her mom did not believe her) and the other who had been drinking at a party and was ashamed.
So so what cann you do to firmly reject a woman’s unwanted advances?
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 4:23pm
Well they may as well take my name off the list. I can’t even remember much of my high school days. And I was also in a Fraternity in college, and I was present at a few party’s.
But my memory isn’t to good to begin with. I’m not sure what I had for breakfast.
But I’m positive a couple of the posters here assaulted me. I just don’t remember when and where. And no one else supposedly there at the time does either.
But id have to come forward to save the country if they were nominated.OH MY GOD!
The weather forecast in Phoenix is horribly screwed up - there will be three feet of snow on the ground in Phoenix tomorrow! Either that or my very rarely appearing smidgen of inner Conservative is appearing. Point here is that I believe I understand your gist here and if I get you correctly, I even agree with you. Imagine that! Rob
I've been watching talking heads all day talking about the hearing tomorrow and the following day's senate vote. Just a few days ago, I believed this was all going to blow over and an affirmative vote in the Senate would result by the end of the week. I'm not so sure now.
Based upon the coverage I've seen, I now predict that no matter what comes out in tomorrows hearing, this nomination is toast. Once the media talking heads start providing commentary after seeing the accusers and social media begins its campaign for sainthood for the women testifying, Kavanaugh will be the latest victim of a mob. Then we'll see what happens to the next potential victim of the Supreme Court short list.
Ultralight
9-26-18, 5:02pm
I have heard of such female behavior from a group of straight men I went to high school with that I've interestingly enough befriended since my 30 year high school reunion......very funky. I'm could not agree more that rape is a horrible crime with no excuse nor justification - but if a woman goes too far in her behavior towards a man, this is acceptable? Ummmm....double standard much? I'd even go so far as to say that yes, women have a point as men do tend to be physically stronger in larger in size and therefore represent a greater threat if engaging in such behaviors.....but if a woman assaults a man in anything other than self defense - this needs to be taken just a seriously and with the same consequences a man would face for the same behavior.....no reduction in sentencing/consequences for being female (ladies, if this offends, please google how men face much more stringent sentencing than women for similar crimes.........that's enough of a reason to stop believing in America right there, in and of itself, it really is).
And I don't say this to bash women one iota....my point is I totally believe in equality, and if women wish agree with this, it's a two way street and if a woman commits a crime, she should face the EXACT SAME CONSEQUENCES a man would for the same crime. Rob
When I was in graduate school I went to a party. Almost everyone was drunk. As you might know, I am a lifelong teetotaler. So several of the women there -- women in my department, my fellow graduate students -- got it in their head that they wanted to go to the adult novelty store on the outskirts of town to buy "things." I offered to drive since I was sober. They gladly accepted the offer and one suggested I drive her car.
The gals and I piled into the car. And one woman got into the passenger seat next to me. She was drunk. She started groping me. I repeatedly told her not to. I said: "I am driving!" and "You have a boyfriend!"
She kept grabbing me. I removed her hand with my hand, which she seemed to take as me flirting or playing hard to get.
She is a lawyer now and married some guy who runs a metropolitan symphony.
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:04pm
I've been watching talking heads all day talking about the hearing tomorrow and the following day's senate vote. Just a few days ago, I believed this was all going to blow over and an affirmative vote in the Senate would result by the end of the week. I'm not so sure now.
Based upon the coverage I've seen, I now predict that no matter what comes out in tomorrows hearing, this nomination is toast. Once the media talking heads start providing commentary after seeing the accusers and social media begins its campaign for sainthood for the women testifying, Kavanaugh will be the latest victim of a mob. Then we'll see what happens to the next potential victim of the Supreme Court short list.Alan, in a sort of related topic, I have something to pass along that may stun you a bit.
I am so disgusted with how Kavanaugh is being treated, even as a liberal not wanting another Conservative on the Supreme Court, that I am seriously considering going Independent moving forward. To be honest I'd still vote mostly if not all Democrat due to reasons I've gone on and on and on about and due to loyalty to my social class of origin.....but I'm seeing the Democratic Party from another angle right now and I'm not liking what I am seeing. I don't care for Mr. Kavanaugh personally BUT I also don't at all care for him being raked over the coals as he is with no actual evidence and from events 30 years prior - things that allegedly took place in another day and age.
I did post earlier that I appreciate his former roommate stepping forward to speak of Mr. Cavanaugh's behavior under the influence and I'd still agree that he is unfit for the position BUT I also of the agreeance that the Democratic Party is going a bit far here and I am embarrassed by this (yes, I did say this). I am not suddenly batting for the other team as it were (politically, just to be clear) but this whole Cavanaugh fiasco really appalls me as a male. It really does. I'd agree that what he is being accused of does make him unfit for the position BUT OTOH, I'd also say......why the wait until now to step forward? Something smells fishy in Linz here to me (Linz being something akin to an Austrian Pittsburgh). I just don't care for what I'm seeing as a hostile bid to eject Kavanaugh from consideration via issues from years ago that could have been brought up prior to this. Ay carumba, am I turning Conservative here all of a sudden? I'd say cringe and shudder but I really do believe what I have posted here.
One solution going forward I propose - we need some kind of law, some kind of national agreement as to how to handle accusations of this nature from years in the past. Something concrete that can guide policy/procedure going forward to minimize the appearance(s) of a witch hunt. Rob
Teacher Terry
9-26-18, 5:05pm
Alan, for once I hope you are right:))
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:14pm
When I was in graduate school I went to a party. Almost everyone was drunk. As you might know, I am a lifelong teetotaler. So several of the women there -- women in my department, my fellow graduate students -- got it in their head that they wanted to go to the adult novelty store on the outskirts of town to buy "things." I offered to drive since I was sober. They gladly accepted the offer and one suggested I drive her car.
The gals and I piled into the car. And one woman got into the passenger seat next to me. She was drunk. She started groping me. I repeatedly told her not to. I said: "I am driving!" and "You have a boyfriend!"
She kept grabbing me. I removed her hand with my hand, which she seemed to take as me flirting or playing hard to get.
She is a lawyer now and married some guy who runs a metropolitan symphony.My take on your post, if I may? Men are no angels and as a gay man I feel very much qualified to post this......but this street goes two ways and women are not angels, either. I see a lot more hostility in the future, especially between men and women of younger generations, going forward as society overall seems to be of the opinion that yes, women are angels and no, men are not.
What this women did to you in the car driving over to your destination? Flip the situation around and place her as the sober driver and yourself as the drunken groper - can you see how the situation may have played out much differently? I say equality calls for true equality - what this woman did is no different from a man doing the same and should be treated EXACTLY the same way by the law.....otherwise equality is nothing but a mirage, words of BS that only pertain to situations that fit a narrative. Good luck with equality at this level happening any time soon..........Rob
Ultralight
9-26-18, 5:20pm
My take on your post, if I may? Men are no angels and as a gay man I feel very much qualified to post this......but this street goes two ways and women are not angels, either. I see a lot more hostility in the future, especially between men and women of younger generations, going forward as society overall seems to be of the opinion that yes, women and angels and no, men are not.
What this women did to you in the car driving over to your destination? Flip the situation around and place her as the sober driver and yourself as the drunken groper - can you see how the situation may have played out much differently? I say equality calls for true equality - what this woman did is no different from a man doing the same and should be treated EXACTLY the same way by the law.....otherwise equality is nothing but a mirage, words of BS that only pertain to situations that fit a narrative. Good luck with equality at this level happening any time soon..........Rob
I think the biggest difference is that usually men are strong enough to hold a woman at bay if she acts inappropriately.
I would not call her out on her actions or try to defame or sue her though. She was young, drunk, and ultimately no one was really hurt. I was just annoyed and a little embarrassed because I know the women in the back seat saw what was going on.
Teacher Terry
9-26-18, 5:20pm
Yes I agree that women should be treated equally in these types of situations. Unfortunately, some women are becoming more like men. But when you look at the statistics men overwhelming are the rapists. pedophiles, mass murderers, etc. One factor in this is testosterone. Most men are stronger then women. So stop pretending this sort of thing is equal regardless of how some low lives act in one country club. !thumbsup!
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:23pm
I think the biggest difference is that usually men are strong enough to hold a woman at bay if she acts inappropriately.
I would not call her out on her actions or try to defame or sue her though. She was young, drunk, and ultimately no one was really hurt. I was just annoyed and a little embarrassed because I know the women in the back seat saw what was going on.Fair enough, UL....you get to handle this situation the way you did and I'm not bashing you for choosing to handle it this way. All I'm saying is that if the roles had been reversed, the outcome could have been very, very, very different. And even much different than what would have transpired had you chosen to handle it differently.
Am I wrong to call out the lack of equality? That's my only point. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:30pm
Yes I agree that women should be treated equally in these types of situations. Unfortunately, some women are becoming more like men. But when you look at the statistics men overwhelming are the rapists. pedophiles, mass murderers, etc. One factor in this is testosterone. Most men are stronger then women. So stop pretending this sort of thing is equal regardless of how some low lives act in one country club. !thumbsup!TT, statistically I'd agree with you.....it is men that commit these crimes more often than women. I give you that here and now with no attitude at all - statistics will agree with you here. My point is that when a woman commits a serious crime and gets caught, she typically faces notably reduced sentencing than a man would for the same crime. This in and of itself is a reason to stop believing in America, and what might scare women overall is that this is a more compelling reason than the social class reasons I have brought up time and time again as this issue ACTUALLY TRANSCENDS SOCIAL CLASS (which is quite rare in America, hence the caps).
This is not an issue that one can duck simply by being in the upper quartile of society - hence it's on the radar screen of a lot more men than the issues I often speak of. My take is that you are right - men DO commit more of these crimes than women do. Agreed. Is it too much to expect full equality in sentencing for women committing similar crimes, however? I see no real hope for true equality in this country until women face equal sentencing for equal crimes is my point. Rob
Ultralight
9-26-18, 5:33pm
Unfortunately, some women are becoming more like men.
Toxic identity politics.
Toxic identity politics.
All identity politics are toxic, but toxicity is popular.
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:37pm
All identity politics are toxic, but toxicity is popular.The word "toxic" does seem to get thrown around a lot these days, yes, I'd have to agree with that. Rob
PS Came back to add however I disagee that ALL identity politics are toxic. Case in point - in my infamous zip code (no need to state it at this point) we are being harrassed noticeably less by the police since we started standing up for ourselves and started owning the zip code and proudly throwing it in people's faces. This pride has also translated into the neighborhood being more tidy over time and better cared for and kept up - and I say this for areas of the zip code that are not receiving a big influx of newcomers who don't fit the zip code's demographics, such as in the Coronado neighborhood I've mentioned before.
Point being where I live, in this case, identity politics has generated a positive result that is concrete and visible. Rob
Ultralight
9-26-18, 5:39pm
All identity politics are toxic, but toxicity is popular.
Identity politics are popular?
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:44pm
Identity politics are popular?My experience has been that in the lower social classes, yes, very much so. Rob
Oh crap--we all identify. Christians, gun owners, pro-lifers, war advocates, libertarians, white nationalists, men's rights advocates, etc. etc.
It's tiresome always getting labeled for having opinions, isn't it? I identify with a dozen different groups, probably. What if I only identified with one?
Ok--I'll pick one. I'm a proud snowflake libtard--how's that? :moon:
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:55pm
Oh crap--we all identify. Christians, gun owners, pro-lifers, war advocates, libertarians, white nationalists, men's rights advocates, etc. etc.
It's tiresome always getting labeled for having opinions, isn't it? I identify with a dozen different groups, probably. What if I only identified with one?
Ok--I'll pick one. I'm a proud snowflake libtard--how's that? :moon:I say own it and be proud Jane! Rob
Ultralight
9-26-18, 5:57pm
Oh crap--we all identify. Christians, gun owners, pro-lifers, war advocates, libertarians, white nationalists, men's rights advocates, etc. etc.
It's tiresome always getting labeled for having opinions, isn't it? I identify with a dozen different groups, probably. What if I only identified with one?
Ok--I'll pick one. I'm a proud snowflake libtard--how's that? :moon:
You may be failing to understand the toxic identity politics.
Here is a political slogan from a campaign in Ohio a few years ago:
"When men lead, Ohio prospers."
Do you see what is wrong with that?
Ultralight
9-26-18, 5:58pm
Ok--I'll pick one. I'm a proud snowflake libtard--how's that? :moon:
Better than a gun-totin' cuckservative!
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 5:58pm
TTOO (The Thug Of Orange) is giving a solo press conference right now as I type this in regards to Kavanaugh and his three accusers.......don't have the emotional fortitude to listen to him right now.....but there will be analysis pro and con right after he's done. Should be interesting at this point as his choice really does seem to be backfiring on him and he's not someone with the emotional strength to be able to handle not getting his way very well. Rob
Oh crap--we all identify. Christians, gun owners, pro-lifers, war advocates, libertarians, white nationalists, men's rights advocates, etc. etc.
It's tiresome always getting labeled for having opinions, isn't it? I identify with a dozen different groups, probably. What if I only identified with one?
Ok--I'll pick one. I'm a proud snowflake libtard--how's that? :moon:
Oh you're not a snowflake or a libtard, you have a sense of humor. :D
gimmethesimplelife
9-26-18, 6:00pm
You may be failing to understand the toxic identity politics.
Here is a political slogan from a campaign in Ohio a few years ago:
"When men lead, Ohio prospers."
Do you see what is wrong with that?Yes. I see that as disrespectful to women from miles away and in 2018 this statement just is not going to work for much of the US population. And I agree that it shouldn't work for the US population........Rob
You may be failing to understand the toxic identity politics.
Here is a political slogan from a campaign in Ohio a few years ago:
"When men lead, Ohio prospers."
Do you see what is wrong with that?
Yep, that's pretty toxic, but tell me, being a political junkie and residing in Ohio for the past 40 years, I'm not familiar with that slogan. Can you enlighten me (Google couldn't)?
Ultralight
9-26-18, 6:20pm
Yep, that's pretty toxic, but tell me, being a political junkie and residing in Ohio for the past 40 years, I'm not familiar with that slogan. Can you enlighten me (Google couldn't)?
That is likely because I switched the genders! The sign I saw actually said:
"When women lead, Ohio prospers."
Link here: https://twitter.com/MatriotsOhio
Ultralight
9-26-18, 6:20pm
Yes. I see that as disrespectful to women from miles away and in 2018 this statement just is not going to work for much of the US population. And I agree that it shouldn't work for the US population........Rob
Gotcha!
Alan, for once I hope you are right:))
I hope he is too. Dinner with margaritas at my favorite mexican place is on the line thanks to a friendly wager with a pessimistic friend
Oh you're not a snowflake or a libtard, you have a sense of humor. :D
It's probably more properly "libtard snowflake," anyway. Whatevah!
Teacher Terry
9-26-18, 6:25pm
Rob, I love how you refer to Trump-too funny! Yes women should get the same sentences but things are unequal in the justice system. Minorities get much tougher sentences then white people all the time. At least cosby is going to prison but as Jane pointed out people have gotten far worse sentences for the same crime.
i wonder if kavanaugh paid his nanny taxes. That used to be a deal breaker for senate confirmations. Is it still?
Douglas Ginsberg forced to withdraw his nomination by Reagan when he admitted using marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s.
Innocent times ...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.