New SCOTUS Judge

[Stacyhs]

Regnad Kcin masks the source URL in his post, even though the URL provides important information for judging the post. That is dishonest, in my opinion.

In addition, calling it out explicitly as fake news ensures that people just skimming the thread and confirming their biases have a fair shot and not accidentally believing it's a true headline.

I disagree. It wasn't "fake news" in the way that Trump and his supporters use it. It was satire.

It is sad that anyone would even have to ask it it's true or not. That says so much about the state of affairs right now.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Is it just me, or did the Republican senators pick the mildest conditions to concede on, while standing firm on the most contentious?

The demand that there only be one camera and that Kavanaugh is not in the room wouldn't seem like it would affect the hearings in a significant way, whereas the other demands (if not agreed to by the republicans) would give republicans an advantage.

Republicans don't want a hearing or investigation. Politically, they feel they have to at least offer her the opportunity to testify. But if it actually happens, they will be faced with two choices. Either discredit her, a la Trump, or try to write it off as excusable, a la Cramer. Both of which are politically harmful for the midterms.

How to push Kavanaugh through while minimizing political costs? Make your "accommodating" offer too much, so that you can say she declined to testify. Or, if it does happen, use an outside counsel to push the politically radioactive questioning.

The end result will always be "we can't know this accusation actually happened, it would be unfair to prevent him due to unproven accusations, and we have all this positive character testimony." The question is how to reach that while minimizing political costs.

 

[LSSBB]

Ahh, there is the racism.

wow.

That is EXACTLY what it is.

 

[LSSBB]

Doesn't he come from a tiny, insular, self-selected world of wealth and privilege? Moreso than most of the others?

I thought he was posting as Cain (in Poe mode) for a second.

 

[theprestige]

Republicans don't want a hearing or investigation. Politically, they feel they have to at least offer her the opportunity to testify. But if it actually happens, they will be faced with two choices. Either discredit her, a la Trump, or try to write it off as excusable, a la Cramer. Both of which are politically harmful for the midterms.

How to push Kavanaugh through while minimizing political costs? Make your "accommodating" offer too much, so that you can say she declined to testify. Or, if it does happen, use an outside counsel to push the politically radioactive questioning.

The end result will always be "we can't know this accusation actually happened, it would be unfair to prevent him due to unproven accusations, and we have all this positive character testimony." The question is how to reach that while minimizing political costs.

Probably the best solution would have been to reject the entire thing out hand.

"If the allegations were so important to Senator Feinstein, she should have brought it up in July. If these allegations were so important to Ms. Ford, she should have come before the committee in July. The vote to confirm will proceed as scheduled."

 

[Babbylonian]

Probably the best solution would have been to reject the entire thing out hand.

"If the allegations were so important to Senator Feinstein, she should have brought it up in July. If these allegations were so important to Ms. Ford, she should have come before the committee in July. The vote to confirm will proceed as scheduled."

"And we love rapists anyway."

 

[Lambchops]

Not all of us have mouse over available.

That does not mean the source URL was "masked" by Regnad Kcin.

But you already knew that.

 

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I had not considered that people on cellphones wouldn't be able to mouse over, so jokes should be labeled as such in some way, so theprestige has a point there. I clicked on it on my phone thinking it was going to be a real statement too.

I have gotten into the habit of long pressing links I see here. That pops up a window with the URL so I can see the source.

 

[Stacko]

Trump HUD Secretary Ben Carson claims Kavanaugh allegations are part of a centuries old socialist plot

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Dr. Ben Carson told an audience of conservative activists on Friday that the sexual assault allegations facing President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court are part of a plot by socialists to take over America that dates back more than a century.

"If you really understand the big picture of what's going on, then what's going on with Kavanaugh will make perfectly good sense to you," Carson said at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington. "There've been people in this country for a very long time, going all the way back to the Fabians, people who've wanted to fundamentally change this country."

The term "Fabians" refers to the Fabian Society, a British socialist organization that was founded in the 19th century, and which today functions as part of the UK's Labour Party. An American chapter of the Fabian society was established in 1895 in Boston, but it is no longer active in the United States.

Nonetheless, Carson vividly described what he claimed the ideological descendants of the Fabians were plotting, and how Professor Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party in the 1980s fit into the plot.

Only the best people...

 

[Stacyhs]

Trump HUD Secretary Ben Carson claims Kavanaugh allegations are part of a centuries old socialist plot



Only the best people...

Ben Carson is a perfect example of how a person can be both intelligent and an idiot at the same time.

 

[Lambchops]

Trump HUD Secretary Ben Carson claims Kavanaugh allegations are part of a centuries old socialist plot



Only the best people...

Wow. It's like reality just does not matter anymore.

 

[The Big Dog]

Republicans don't want a hearing or investigation. Politically, they feel they have to at least offer her the opportunity to testify. But if it actually happens, they will be faced with two choices. Either discredit her, a la Trump, or try to write it off as excusable, a la Cramer. Both of which are politically harmful for the midterms.

How to push Kavanaugh through while minimizing political costs? Make your "accommodating" offer too much, so that you can say she declined to testify. Or, if it does happen, use an outside counsel to push the politically radioactive questioning.

The end result will always be "we can't know this accusation actually happened, it would be unfair to prevent him due to unproven accusations, and we have all this positive character testimony." The question is how to reach that while minimizing political costs.

Some would say that her requests for accommodations were totally unreasonable.

They have continued it twice.

The accuser wants to testify after the accused and not give him the chance to respond.

That is totally outrageous. Completely unacceptable.

Why make idiotic demands if she was serious about wanting to testify?

Zero corroboration.

 

[Lambchops]

Some would say that her requests for accommodations were totally unreasonable.

And some would say that they were totally reasonable.

So where does that leave us?

 

[theprestige]

"And we love rapists anyway."

Haters gonna hate. Let me know when you're ready to present a rational argument.

 

[The Big Dog]

And some would say that they were totally reasonable.

So where does that leave us?

Some, like Me, would show why they were totally unreasonable.

Some would not.

So where we are is they are totally unreasonable.

 

[Lambchops]

Some, like Me, would show why they were totally unreasonable.

Some would not.

So where we are is they are totally unreasonable.

You never showed any such thing.

And some would show why they were totally reasonable.

So where are we again?

 

[The Big Dog]

Senate deadline comes and goes.

They agree to extend it again.

Until 10 Eastern time tonight.

Kavanaugh has already given a statement under oath (Ford has refused)

She doesn’t agree, then they are going to vote Monday.

 

[Mumbles]

It depends on my definition of an oreo. Not all rich old white men are part of the problem. Thomas isn't a white black man. He's one of those ******* old rich white men like the rest of them.

I'd ask that you not refer to him as such unless you are yourself a black American.

Having said that...

Yeah, lots of people call him that, and he obviously does openly work against civil rights for other black Americans. I don't use that sort of term myself, but I must admit that the shoe does fit rather nicely on him.

 

[phiwum]

I think the point of the "Yes Means Yes" campaign is to answer that question in a definitive way.

"There's a lot of ways to confirm consent besides a literal, explicit, 'yes'."

"There's also a lot of rape excused as 'but I thought I had consent'."

"Yeah, it's a difficult problem."

"Not really. If you need a yes, get a yes. Don't get a 'but I thought going to a party and getting drunk means yes."

"So... You're saying that yes means yes?"

"Yes."

I totally understand what they're trying to say, but "yes means yes" doesn't say it. What they mean is "Only yes means yes." Obviously, "yes means yes", but that's not the issue. The issue is whether other things might mean yes.

Of course, "Only yes means yes" is a little asinine, too. When actual adults indulge themselves, they don't ask for yes for each step. But the point is nonetheless taken. You ought to have some sign of consent along the way, even though it's silly to think that it will always be a verbal "yes".

 

[LSSBB]

I'd ask that you not refer to him as such unless you are yourself a black American.

Having said that...

Yeah, lots of people call him that, and he obviously does openly work against civil rights for other black Americans. I don't use that sort of term myself, but I must admit that the shoe does fit rather nicely on him.

I find the term offensive no matter who utters it in the pejorative sense. As offensive as a white person calling someone a mudshark.