New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

Beelzebuddy said:
You aren't decrying tribalism, but celebrating it?
Click to expand...

Neither. Accepting that tribalism has, if not taken over at the very least informs all politics at this point, isn't celebrating it.

I'm decrying the tribes pretending they aren't being tribes, going through the motions of still playing a game that neither of them are still actually playing.

At best it's a colossus waste of time and resources, at worst functionally breaking the system.
 
The rise of the internet has caused fragmentation within our minds: we are members of many tribes simultaneously.
The problem comes when we have to map our ideas onto a two-party system which will never be a proper fit for anything.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Both tribes can accept a moderate as long as they get to define what a moderate is.
Click to expand...

Republicans said Obama wouldn't nominate an acceptable moderate candidate like Garland. He called their bluff and we all know how that turned out.

I mean the ACA was based on Romneycare and again we know how that turned out.

There always has been and always will be tribalism to some extent. However, Republicans went all in on tribalism and fighting everything to the death. What options were there other than fight back or roll over?
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Confused* Whatever the want to do.

Just stop pretending "coming to a compromise" is even an option that's on the table.

Fight to the bitter, bitter end. That's all you can do if you accept the other side is beyond reason.

I'm not going to argue with anyone in this political climate as to whether "Side A" or "Side B" is too far gone, there's no percentage in that.

But don't waste the people's time pretending the sides might come to a compromise that everybody knows is never going to come.

If you the other side has jumped the shark from political opponent to sworn enemy, fine that's not a decision I can make for you. But goddammit if that's what you think own it.

That's my issues. The tribes are in open warfare (or their members either think they are think they should be) at this point but still want to waste time pretending they are still doing the political dance.
Click to expand...

There really is no reconciling the two sides. I'm pro-choice, pro-science, pro-education and get your religion out of my face. I have no problem that people have an invisible friend, but people can go screw themselves if they want use that imaginary friend to tell me and others what to do or that science doesn't work.

Republicans talk about freedom, but mostly it seems as if they want the freedom to screw the rest of us economically and the freedom to discriminate. I wish it wasn't so. Take a look at Trump's new NAFTA. There may be some things about it that is marginally better, but clearly one of the biggest winners is unsurprisingly big Pharma and the biggest losers is any American who needs medicine.

Sensible legislation that hampers businesses from sodomizing American workers and consumers are fought tooth and nail by the GOP under their banner of freedom or liberty.

I can't remember a time where the Republican party stood on the side of workers against businesses. If you can, please feel free to cite it.

I can't remember when they said no to the pharmaceutical industry. Again, feel free to educate me.

They are against Net Neutrality which allows consumers to choose winners and losers on the net. No, they want to hand that choice to powerful gatekeepers.

Guns, God and Gays has been the GOP battle cry to rouse their base for 40 years. There has always been subtle racism as well. It's just not so subtle these days.

I'm always willing to compromise if it improves the overall conditions, but I'm never ever ever going to abandon the principle that we can help everybody not just white, rich male Americans.
 
acbytesla said:
There really is no reconciling the two sides. I'm pro-choice, pro-science, pro-education and get your religion out of my face. I have no problem that people have an invisible friend, but people can go screw themselves if they want use that imaginary friend to tell me and others what to do or that science doesn't work.

Republicans talk about freedom, but mostly it seems as if they want the freedom to screw the rest of us economically and the freedom to discriminate. I wish it wasn't so. Take a look at Trump's new NAFTA. There may be some things about it that is marginally better, but clearly one of the biggest winners is unsurprisingly big Pharma and the biggest losers is any American who needs medicine.

Sensible legislation that hampers businesses from sodomizing American workers and consumers are fought tooth and nail by the GOP under their banner of freedom or liberty.

I can't remember a time where the Republican party stood on the side of workers against businesses. If you can, please feel free to cite it.

I can't remember when they said no to the pharmaceutical industry. Again, feel free to educate me.

They are against Net Neutrality which allows consumers to choose winners and losers on the net. No, they want to hand that choice to powerful gatekeepers.

Guns, God and Gays has been the GOP battle cry to rouse their base for 40 years. There has always been subtle racism as well. It's just not so subtle these days.

I'm always willing to compromise if it improves the overall conditions, but I'm never ever ever going to abandon the principle that we can help everybody not just white, rich male Americans.
Click to expand...

And see your response is just to list off all the reasons you hate the other side.

I KNOW! Hell in your case I even (mostly) agree.

It's also monumentally beside the point.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
The rise of the internet has caused fragmentation within our minds: we are members of many tribes simultaneously.
The problem comes when we have to map our ideas onto a two-party system which will never be a proper fit for anything.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time for that EMP...

acbytesla said:
Republicans talk about freedom
Click to expand...

Their freedom, not yours.
 
acbytesla said:
There really is no reconciling the two sides. I'm pro-choice, pro-science, pro-education and get your religion out of my face. I have no problem that people have an invisible friend, but people can go screw themselves if they want use that imaginary friend to tell me and others what to do or that science doesn't work.

Republicans talk about freedom, but mostly it seems as if they want the freedom to screw the rest of us economically and the freedom to discriminate. I wish it wasn't so. Take a look at Trump's new NAFTA. There may be some things about it that is marginally better, but clearly one of the biggest winners is unsurprisingly big Pharma and the biggest losers is any American who needs medicine.

Sensible legislation that hampers businesses from sodomizing American workers and consumers are fought tooth and nail by the GOP under their banner of freedom or liberty.

I can't remember a time where the Republican party stood on the side of workers against businesses. If you can, please feel free to cite it.

I can't remember when they said no to the pharmaceutical industry. Again, feel free to educate me.

They are against Net Neutrality which allows consumers to choose winners and losers on the net. No, they want to hand that choice to powerful gatekeepers.

Guns, God and Gays has been the GOP battle cry to rouse their base for 40 years. There has always been subtle racism as well. It's just not so subtle these days.

I'm always willing to compromise if it improves the overall conditions, but I'm never ever ever going to abandon the principle that we can help everybody not just white, rich male Americans.
Click to expand...



Which laws specifically do you feel help only rich American white males? Also, which laws specifically work against any other American citizens?

How do you feel about affirmative action?
 
Last edited:
Avenatti unlocked his twitter account, where we can all now see an anonymous declaration of someone who claims to have known Ford (51 years old went to private school in Bethseda, lived in California since 1988) and Swetnick (55 years old, went to public high school in Gaithersburg) for "decades."

Small world

Oh yeah, he would not give the name to anyone but the FBI. Sounds totes legit
 
JoeMorgue said:
And see your response is just to list off all the reasons you hate the other side.

I KNOW! Hell in your case I even agree.

It's also monumentally beside the point.
Click to expand...

I don't hate the other side. I simply was pointing out what is irreconcilable. If you or any of our Republican members can point out where my conclusions might be wrong, I'm always willing to consider them. But come loaded with citations. BTW, I don't trust the Democrats in power either even though I usually vote for Democrats.

Here's a Democrat I really respect.

 
acbytesla said:
I don't hate the other side. I simply was pointing out what is irreconcilable. If you or any of our Republican members can point out where my conclusions might be wrong, I'm always willing to consider them.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that you declaring the other side irreconcilable doesn't make them go away or reduce the amount of political power they have.

It's politics. You can't act shocked when the other side starts winning because you stop engaging them.
 
Back on topic, Kavanaugh sure looks like a dumpster fire made out of used condoms right now. Even Lindsay Graham's shlepped out to a conference somewhere to do damage control.
 
The_Animus said:
I mean the ACA was based on Romneycare and again we know how that turned out.
Click to expand...
Not only was the ACA based on Romneycare, but the Democrats held hours and hours of hearings and debates in multiple committees to allow for Republican input.

By comparison, the republicans attempted to cram through their health care bill with pretty much no discussion before hand.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/aca-versus-ahca/
 
Might it be the case that if Republicans drop Kavanaugh now, they fear that voters will take that as an implicit admission that they've nominated a sexual predator?
Or are they just scared of their Evangelical base?
 
River said:
Which laws specifically do you feel help only rich American white males? Also, which laws specifically work against any other American citizens?

How do you feel about affirmative action?
Click to expand...

Right to Work and other anti labor laws such as Taft Hartley, fighting minimum wage increases, promoting exemptions against minimum wages such as the common practices of calling employees managers so they can pay them beneath the minimum wage or making them contractors.

Trying to destroy safety nets, anti-consumer protection laws. Banking Modernization and Insurance Modernization Acts. Abandoning Glass Steagall

Want more? I got more. But you answer my question. Name some legislation where Republicans stood up for American workers against their employers?
 
Trump Tweets

"I see it each time I go out to Rallies in order to help some of our great Republican candidates. VOTERS ARE REALLY ANGRY AT THE VICIOUS AND DESPICABLE WAY DEMOCRATS ARE TREATING BRETT KAVANAUGH! He and his wonderful family deserve much better."
 
acbytesla said:
Right to Work and other anti labor laws such as Taft Hartley, fighting minimum wage increases, promoting exemptions against minimum wages such as the common practices of calling employees managers so they can pay them beneath the minimum wage or making them contractors.

Trying to destroy safety nets, anti-consumer protection laws. Banking Modernization and Insurance Modernization Acts. Abandoning Glass Steagall

Want more? I got more. But you answer my question. Name some legislation where Republicans stood up for American workers against their employers?
Click to expand...

He's going to ask how these benefit white Americans, which will open up a complex conversation he can probably dismiss.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Might it be the case that if Republicans drop Kavanaugh now, they fear that voters will take that as an implicit admission that they've nominated a sexual predator?
Or are they just scared of their Evangelical base?
Click to expand...
They're certainly behaving as if this is their only chance. "Put a rapist on the Supreme Court" is going to play very, very badly for anyone in office, but they seem committed to that bit.

My guess is Trump would refuse to nominate anyone who won't promise to protect him beforehand, maybe even on the record for his insurance, and aside from Kavanaugh that's proven to be beyond the pale for everyone else. So it's him or nobody.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I'm saying that you declaring the other side irreconcilable doesn't make them go away or reduce the amount of political power they have.

It's politics. You can't act shocked when the other side starts winning because you stop engaging them.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying the individuals are irreconcilable. And that isn't the reason the other side ever wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom