Russia/Ukraine?

Quote:

---

Russia runs a formidable worldwide propaganda machine

---

I don't doubt it runs a formidable wordlwide propaganda machine, but then so does the U.S.. Best not to believe either entirely probably is frankly my perspective. Best to believe they will try to manipulate you for ends you don't know regardless probably. Pox on both their houses, live your life.

Quote:

---

Its purpose is to destabilize the West by dividing and inflaming their citizenry.

---

then again there are just as likely to be other forces doing the same. Like you destabilize people just so they can't act on something that effects your profits, let's say pollution as an example. Or take climate change, though unlike local pollution that's a big complex problem, but it wasn't Russia that sowed doubt there, though they may have their interests as well, it was some of the most profitable companies in America like Exxon Mobile. So I tend to believe that diving and inflaming for narrow profit interests is much of what is going on. And no Russians are even needed to explain it. But what if those who wish to destabilize by dividing and inflaming for the sake of narrow profit combine with Russian propaganda? Then you have the modern Republican party I guess :laff:

It seems our propaganda machine isn't up to world standards. We can't even properly propagandize our own citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

It seems our propaganda machine isn't up to world standards. We can't even properly propagandize our own citizens.

---

LOL I sure don't buy into much of US propaganda. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Its purpose is to destabilize the West by dividing and inflaming their citizenry.

---

We, as a country, don't seem to need anyone else to do this - we are doing a fine job of it on our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by happystuff

We, as a country, don't seem to need anyone else to do this - we are doing a fine job of it on our own.

---

Well, I think we get plenty of help.

Did you notice the straight-outta-Russia Qanon nonsense on full display during the hearings on the most recent Supreme Court nominee the other day?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Well, I think we get plenty of help.

Did you notice the straight-outta-Russia Qanon nonsense on full display during the hearings on the most recent Supreme Court nominee the other day?

---

That's just it... if not from Russia, the nonsense would have come straight outta somewhere else. My point is that it is not so much from where, but what we do with it as a country. We ARE divided and pulling stuff from everywhere and anywhere, instead of ignoring the nonsense and choosing to come together. (Again, not an easy topic, so I hope my point came across.)

Someday someone will have to tell me the relation of Murdoch and his media "empire" the Russian empire. As that has been destroying this country for a long time and every country it touches. But where to even start. We didn't start the fire ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Well, I think we get plenty of help.

Did you notice the straight-outta-Russia Qanon nonsense on full display during the hearings on the most recent Supreme Court nominee the other day?

---

I noticed that the insidiously evil Republicans seemed to have covertly brainwashed the nominee into talking like a constitutional originalist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Well, I think we get plenty of help.

Did you notice the straight-outta-Russia Qanon nonsense on full display during the hearings on the most recent Supreme Court nominee the other day?

---

I noticed a pack of jackals figuratively trying to tear apart an eminently qualified, history-making nominee in an attempt, apparently, to drag her down to their level. Their pointless churlishness probably won't derail her, but it certainly left many of us appalled. Yes the QAnon nonsense was on full display.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

I noticed a pack of jackals figuratively trying to tear apart an eminently qualified, history-making nominee in an attempt, apparently, to drag her down to their level. Their pointless churlishness probably won't derail her, but it certainly left many of us appalled.

---

I felt the same way watching the Kavanaugh and Barrett hearings. Out of curiosity, what makes this one different?

Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault, and the 4500 tips the FBI received re his behavior were never investigated. Also. his whiny, erratic behavior suggested he doesn't have the self-discipline for the job. What was it about the Coney-Barrett hearings that offended you? She was what we used to call a "jet job" in that her resume was extremely thin and she was rocketed to the front of the line. But she was a darling of the Federalist Society, so...

But but, surely it’s just as credible to assume that the current nominee is somehow involved in the child pedo ring that Hillary and George Soros are running out of the nonexistent basement of a pizza parlour in dc? Isn’t it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

But but, surely it’s just as credible to assume that the current nominee is somehow involved in the child pedo ring that Hillary and George Soros are running out of the nonexistent basement of a pizza parlour in dc? Isn’t it?

---

Perhaps the current nominee should have started crying and talked about beer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Kavanaugh was credibly accused of sexual assault, and the 4500 tips the FBI received re his behavior were never investigated. Also. his whiny, erratic behavior suggested he doesn't have the self-discipline for the job.

---

I'm sure it seemed credible to everyone who wanted to believe it. It's too bad the accuser couldn't come up with a witness, a confidant she mentioned the event to or even a location where it occurred. True credibility does require a smidgen or two of evidence.

Quote:

---

What was it about the Coney-Barrett hearings that offended you?

---

Oh, I wasn't so much offended as amused at the attempts to brand her as a religious fanatic intent on damaging women's freedom through mandated childbearing, complete with Handmaid's Tale cos-players hanging out on the steps of the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm sure it seemed credible to everyone who wanted to believe it. It's too bad the accuser couldn't come up with a witness, a confidant she mentioned the event to or even a location where it occurred. True credibility does require a smidgen or two of evidence.
Oh, I wasn't so much offended as amused at the attempts to brand her as a religious fanatic intent on damaging women's freedom through mandated childbearing, complete with Handmaid's Tale cos-players hanging out on the steps of the Supreme Court.

---

I believe she is a religious fanatic of The Handmaid's Tale ilk, but then I'm disheartened that religious affiliation is still a factor, and that somehow we haven't had even one non-believer on the bench in my memory. As far as Kavanaugh is concerned, probably if Trump's FBI had done their job, there would be a lot more evidence of his unfitness.

At any rate, Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials, and exhibited near-superhuman restraint in the face of insulting Republican efforts to dirty her up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm sure it seemed credible to everyone who wanted to believe it. It's too bad the accuser couldn't come up with a witness, a confidant she mentioned the event to or even a location where it occurred. True credibility does require a smidgen or two of evidence.
Oh, I wasn't so much offended as amused at the attempts to brand her as a religious fanatic intent on damaging women's freedom through mandated childbearing, complete with Handmaid's Tale cos-players hanging out on the steps of the Supreme Court.

---

It will be interesting to see if she behaves ethically as she wrote about when she was a younger lawyer or if the trappings of power cause her to cast her ethics aside and use her religious beliefs in decisions involving abortion and the death penalty.

I read this book last week and found it helpful:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41qIlO0H15L.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

But but, surely it’s just as credible to assume that the current nominee is somehow involved in the child pedo ring that Hillary and George Soros are running out of the nonexistent basement of a pizza parlour in dc? Isn’t it?

---

Their obsession with pedophilia (not to mention cannibalism) is striking, to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

At any rate, Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials, and exhibited near-superhuman restraint in the face of insulting Republican efforts to dirty her up.

---

To be fair we’re talking about republicans that don’t even have the reading comprehension skills necessary to understand a children’s book. They really didn’t stand much of a chance of success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

At any rate, Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials,....

---

Well, I'm sorry, but...she went to Harvard. I mean, really! Well, at least it wasn't Yale.

KCLS has an available copy of the audiobook, so I have it in Overdrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Well, I'm sorry, but...she went to Harvard. I mean, really! Well, at least it wasn't Yale.

---

Clearly, you've found her Achilles' Heel. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm sure it seemed credible to everyone who wanted to believe it. It's too bad the accuser couldn't come up with a witness, a confidant she mentioned the event to or even a location where it occurred. True credibility does require a smidgen or two of evidence.
Oh, I wasn't so much offended as amused at the attempts to brand her as a religious fanatic intent on damaging women's freedom through mandated childbearing, complete with Handmaid's Tale cos-players hanging out on the steps of the Supreme Court.

---

Alan, I am sorry you were not convinced of Amy’s CB’s incompetence on the bench. You will remember that her “colleagues” gathered a petition among themselves to protest her appointment to the bench. Those colleagues were university librarians. Because they know everything and would of course be intimately familiar with her judicial record and professional practice.

/sarcasm

I saw at least one mainstream media report call these yo-yos her “colleagues. “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

but then I'm disheartened that religious affiliation is still a factor, and that somehow we haven't had even one non-believer on the bench in my memory.

---

Not sure we haven't had a non believer. Publicly saying one thing, is not the same as believing it, nor is believing in religion the same as believing in a deity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToomuchStuff

Not sure we haven't had a non believer. Publicly saying one thing, is not the same as believing it, nor is believing in religion the same as believing in a deity.

---

I would suspect that we’ve had a lot, or at least a few, non believers who claimed to be believers because it was politically expedient. And as we learned from the last president it’s not even necessary that they ever attended church or behaved in the way one would expect of a believer. All they need to do is put ‘true believers’ on the Supreme Court so that the rest of us will have their beliefs crammed down our throats with their decisions.

I believe the very first Senate confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee were held in 1916, when President Woodrow Wilson (Princeton) nominated Louis Brandeis (Harvard) to the Court. Apparently Brandeis had planned poorly and wasn't Christian.

Before that shocking nomination, I don't think they had hearings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

At any rate, Judge Jackson has impeccable credentials, and exhibited near-superhuman restraint in the face of insulting Republican efforts to dirty her up.

---

I'm disappointed that Republicans in recent years have started treating Democratic nominees in the same manner Democrats have treated Republican nominees for at least the last four decades. I'd like to see them do better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I'm disappointed that Republicans in recent years have started treating Democratic nominees in the same manner Democrats have treated Republican nominees for at least the last four decades. I'd like to see them do better.

---

Which Republican appointment 40 years ago first triggered this opinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

Which Republican nominee 40 years ago first triggered this opinion?

---

The first one I noticed was about 35 years ago, Robert Bork, can't speak for prior nominees since we didn't have 24 hour a day news coverage and cameras in every hearing. I think Bork may have been the victim of the first Senate approved performance art exhibit, followed a few years later by Clarence Thomas's high tech lynching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

The first one I noticed was about 35 years ago, Robert Bork.

---

So you were cool with his opinion that southern states should be able to prevent blacks from voting? If that’s what the ‘states rights’ folks are going to hang their hat on they shouldn’t be surprised why the rest of us consider the Republican Party to be the white supremecist party. We all understand exactly what ‘states rights’ actually means to republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

. We all understand exactly what ‘states rights’ actually means to republicans.

---

No, I don't think you do.

We also understand that Bork didn’t fail just because of democrats. Only 40 republicans were willing to go full racist back then. Today I assume he would’ve gotten a 100% republican yes vote for his racism from republicans.

I always thought that “credibly accused”, at least in the context used here, was a weasel term people use to try to add a little gravitas to unsubstantiated allegations. Sort of like “fake but accurate”. The credibility depends on the credulity of the listener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

I always thought that “credibly accused”, at least in the context used here, was a weasel term people use to try to add a little gravitas to unsubstantiated allegations. Sort of like “fake but accurate”. The credibility depends on the credulity of the listener.

---

Again, if the FBI had done its job, we would probably know for sure.

My daily humor a few days ago were headlines saying the GOP promised not to make a circus out of the nomination. Then the clowns showed up. When you open the article, there's a photo of Ted Cruz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

Again, if the FBI had done its job, we would probably know for sure.

---

Or they could have expended as many man hours as the Mueller investigation and come up with similar results. But even then, I doubt the true believers would be satisfied.

That’s why these hearings are more performative than informative. The only fact actually revealed here was that the nominee is not a biologist.

We also learned the fact that several republican senators are shamelessly willing to spew the Qanonsense about all democrats being pedophiles if they think it will play well with their voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jp1

We also learned the fact that several republican senators are shamelessly willing to spew the Qanonsense about all democrats being pedophiles if they think it will play well with their voters.

---

oh! I didn’t know it was ALL Democrats!

Guess I’d better check my Q anon subscription to make sure it’s up-to-date

I heard a new term recently for the practice of identifying the looniest possible member of a group and trying to generalize their craziness to the entire group: “nut-picking”. Sort of a variation on “cherry-picking”.