New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Ziggurat]

Ah, the old cherry picking strategy of "Ima focus on Democrat issues and forbid you to bring up Republican issues. It's the only way I can make a point!!".

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.

The argument put forth is that Republicans are different than Democrats in trying to force party members to toe the party line. But that's really not true. The fact that Republicans do so is not in dispute, but it's not peculiar to them. It's a general feature of politics, and always has been.

I will note that you didn't object to the accusation that Republicans have to worry about the threat of being put in concentration camps (which is even internally inconsistent, since that threat should be greater for Democrats if there was actually a danger it could happen). So really, you're not actually objecting to disingenuity at all. You just don't like contrary arguments.

 

[Belz...]

The argument put forth is that Republicans are different than Democrats in trying to force party members to toe the party line. But that's really not true. The fact that Republicans do so is not in dispute, but it's not peculiar to them. It's a general feature of politics, and always has been.

A feature I despise, I have to say.

 

[Cabbage]

The argument put forth is that Republicans are different than Democrats in trying to force party members to toe the party line.

OK. To counter that argument, let's see you demonstrate an example of Democrats in large numbers changing their own principles to throw in their support for a president they had previously derided as being completely unfit for office.

Because it looks to me like you're comparing apples and oranges with that penny ante dispute over a Democrat in Arizona.

I will note that you didn't object to the accusation that Republicans have to worry about the threat of being put in concentration camps (which is even internally inconsistent, since that threat should be greater for Democrats if there was actually a danger it could happen). So really, you're not actually objecting to disingenuity at all. You just don't like contrary arguments.

Ah, yes, whataboutism, one of my favorites! Strike two against you, and we haven't even completed a full page since my accusation of disingenuity against you. Dude, that accusation wasn't even on my radar; I neither condoned nor condemned it. It's not my obligation to be the policeman for every single act of disingenuity here or anywhere else.

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.

Please stop with the repeated accusations of disingenuity.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[JoeMorgue]

Doctor: "I'm afraid you have cancer."
Patient: "But Doctor... don't you have cancer?"
Doctor: "Well yes I'm in remission and undergoing treatment, but don't worry I'm still fully capable of providing you with adequate treatment and support..."
Patient: "HA! I knew it! You're nothing but a hypocrite! I'm cured! I'm cured!"

 

[Ziggurat]

A feature I despise, I have to say.

I get that, I do. But the incentive to do it is built into human nature, not just our politics. You can constrain the kind of pressure that gets applied, but you can't get rid of it completely.

There were two threats that were explicitly mentioned: primarying politicians and putting people in concentration camps. The first one is pretty normal, and while I may object to specific uses of that threat on the grounds that I might think the subject doesn't deserve it, the tool itself is well within the bounds of normal politics, and is as old as our electoral system. In fact, it would be rather anti-democratic to suggest that you can't threaten an incumbent with being primaried. The second one is simply dishonest. The people making that accusation don't even believe it themselves.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is yet another example of using an analogy because you can't make a coherent argument about the actual subject on its merits.

Okay.

When the Democrats do something bad, it doesn't make the Republicans right.

There, simple enough for you?

 

[xjx388]

Okay.



When the Democrats do something bad, it doesn't make the Republicans right.



There, simple enough for you?

But that isn’t the argument. It has been put forth that Republicans are unique and it’s germane to show that no, they aren’t.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But that isn’t the argument. It has been put forth that Republicans are unique and it’s germane to show that no, they aren’t.

No that's the argumentatives that the tribe's fanboys always hijack the argument with, not the argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay.

When the Democrats do something bad, it doesn't make the Republicans right.

There, simple enough for you?

Yes, that's simple and direct, which is good because now we can examine it.

I never said it did make Republicans right. But the claim went beyond Republicans having done something bad. The claim was basically that Republicans were doing something uniquely bad. But they aren't. This is the normal slime of politics. You don't have to like it, you can certainly object to it, but it isn't new, and both sides have been doing it forever. So there's nothing to panic about.

 

[Belz...]

I get that, I do. But the incentive to do it is built into human nature, not just our politics.

Yeah, I get that too.

I just wish when I elect a representative, that they don't stop representing me when they're in front of the other members of their country club.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes, that's simple and direct, which is good because now we can examine it.

I never said it did make Republicans right. But the claim went beyond Republicans having done something bad. The claim was basically that Republicans were doing something uniquely bad. But they aren't. This is the normal slime of politics. You don't have to like it, you can certainly object to it, but it isn't new, and both sides have been doing it forever. So there's nothing to panic about.

Because we can't criticize the Republicans without one of their fanboys running into demanding we prove some uniquely bad thing as uniquely bad things are the only bad thing.

I'm sick of nothing getting better because nobody can pass a purity test to criticize anyone else.

Not every discussion is or needs a meta-discussion about the moral purity of the person that brought up the problem in the first place.

If the person telling you that you've got spinach in your teeth beats his wife... you still got got spinach in your teeth. Why is this such a hard concept?

 

[Ziggurat]

Because we can't criticize the Republicans without one of their fanboys running into demanding we prove some uniquely bad thing as uniquely bad things are the only bad thing.

I'm sick of nothing getting better because nobody can pass a purity test to criticize anyone else.

Not every discussion is or needs a meta-discussion about the moral purity of the person that brought up the problem in the first place.

If the person telling you that you've got spinach in your teeth beats his wife... you still got got spinach in your teeth. Why is this such a hard concept?

This is a thread about Kavanaugh, and yet Trump keeps getting dragged into it, with accusations that he might put political opponents in concentration camps. And even Kavanaugh himself keeps getting called a rapist. Are you seriously confused about why these debates get so polarized? Do you actually expect people to not push back against the perpetual Orange Man Bad^TM choir?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, I get that too.

I just wish when I elect a representative, that they don't stop representing me when they're in front of the other members of their country club.

"It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money honest politicians. And I guess that's what I like about it. It's easy. Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money honest politicians." - Apologies to Jack Handy

 

[Segnosaur]

This is a thread about Kavanaugh, and yet Trump keeps getting dragged into it, with accusations that he might put political opponents in concentration camps.

Yes, Trump gets dragged into discussions about Kavanaugh. Because he is relevant to the situation. Trump nominated him. He is acting to defend him. And the presence of Kavanaugh on the bench is both a symbol of the disregard Trump has for the norms of civilization, and a way for him to push through an agenda that would be rejected by rational thinking people.

And even Kavanaugh himself keeps getting called a rapist. Are you seriously confused about why these debates get so polarized?

I think that says something about the quality of those defending Kavaugh....

They complain that he's getting called a 'rapist' when a more accurate term might be 'attempted rapist'. A normal person would look at that and say "Rapist or attempted rapist, he's still a scumbag and shouldn't be on the supreme court". A Trump supporter looks at it and says "Well, he only ATTEMPTED to rape Ford. Nothing wrong with that".

I mean, Attempted rape... what type of crime is that? Do they give a nobel prize for attempted chemistry?
(With regards to Sideshow Bob)

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, Trump gets dragged into discussions about Kavanaugh. Because he is relevant to the situation.

Are concentration camps relevant to the situation?

They complain that he's getting called a 'rapist' when a more accurate term might be 'attempted rapist'. A normal person would look at that and say "Rapist or attempted rapist, he's still a scumbag and shouldn't be on the supreme court". A Trump supporter looks at it and says "Well, he only ATTEMPTED to rape Ford. Nothing wrong with that".

Why do expect us to believe Ford? Hell, why on earth would you believe Ford? She's a fraud.

 

[Belz...]

Why do expect us to believe Ford? Hell, why on earth would you believe Ford? She's a fraud.

I get that the allegations, while credible, are unproven, but why do you call her a fraud?

 

[Segnosaur]

Are concentration camps relevant to the situation?

You mean other than the fact that having Kavanaugh on the bench makes it more likely that the supreme court will allow concentration camps to continue to exist, should any relevant court cases make it to the supreme court?

Why do expect us to believe Ford? Hell, why on earth would you believe Ford? She's a fraud.

"I don't think she's uncredible...I think she's an attractive, good witness."
- Orin Hatch (Republican)

Hey, would it help at all if she committed perjury during her testimony, like Drunky McRapeface did? Would that make her more credible?

Hey, the Democrats wanted things investigated fully. Kavanaugh avoided any sort of call for a complete investigation, and the white house limited the subsequent FBI investigation to only a few days and a small number of witnesses (despite witnesses volunteering to come forward, and despite other potential witnesses being offered.) Not sure about you, but if I'm going to trust anyone, its the people that are pushing for things to be fully investigated, rather than the people who want to cover things up.

But hey, by all means, keep defending Kavanaugh. I'm sure the republicans appreciate the support.

 

[applecorped]

You mean other than the fact that having Kavanaugh on the bench makes it more likely that the supreme court will allow concentration camps to continue to exist, should any relevant court cases make it to the supreme court?

"I don't think she's uncredible...I think she's an attractive, good witness."
- Orin Hatch (Republican)

Hey, would it help at all if she committed perjury during her testimony, like Drunky McRapeface did? Would that make her more credible?

Hey, the Democrats wanted things investigated fully. Kavanaugh avoided any sort of call for a complete investigation, and the white house limited the subsequent FBI investigation to only a few days and a small number of witnesses (despite witnesses volunteering to come forward, and despite other potential witnesses being offered.) Not sure about you, but if I'm going to trust anyone, its the people that are pushing for things to be fully investigated, rather than the people who want to cover things up.

But hey, by all means, keep defending Kavanaugh. I'm sure the republicans appreciate the support.

 

[Ziggurat]

I get that the allegations, while credible, are unproven, but why do you call her a fraud?

Because she's lied about some fundamental aspects of her story.

Her first version of the story (which differed in key details from her latest) was told to her therapist. She claims that her insistence on installing another door on her house for safety is what prompted her to revisit that past trauma. But that's a lie, and renovation records prove it. The second door was added to the house so that the previous owner, who did private therapy at the house, could continue to use part of the house to hold those therapy sessions. It provided a separate entrance to that space so the business could operate independently from the rest of the house. It had nothing to do with her alleged claustrophobia.

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean other than the fact that having Kavanaugh on the bench makes it more likely that the supreme court will allow concentration camps to continue to exist, should any relevant court cases make it to the supreme court?

And you expect anyone other than the Orange Man Bad Brigade to take this complaint seriously... why?