|
Post by james on Sept 28, 2018 19:28:39 GMT -5
Rasmussen?
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 28, 2018 19:44:57 GMT -5
If this smear the nominee thing is the typical democrat MO all the time, how come it didn't swing into play with trump's first supreme choice?
Why, in contrast, did that one go down so quietly?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2018 19:46:53 GMT -5
If this smear the nominee thing is the typical democrat MO all the time, how come it didn't swing into play with trump's first supreme choice? Why, in contrast, did that one go down so quietly? Because this one actually moves the composition of the court in a more conservative direction.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 28, 2018 20:01:47 GMT -5
I would expect the Democrats to oppose anyone Trump would nominate. As a Democrat who remembers Merrick Garland, I can't really fault them for that.
But it's irrelevant. The Republicans have the votes. Opposition to a nominee by Democrats won't get anywhere unless some Republicans also have qualms. With a bulletproof conservative judge, that won't happen. I could give you two very good nominees from my own state. Although I like them, I wouldn't want to see them on the Supreme Court because I disagree with their judicial philosophy, but I'm going to disagree with the judicial philosophy of anyone Trump nominates and the current Senate confirms, and I'd rather see someone whose character isn't in doubt. Believe it or not, I'm an American first and a Democrat second or less.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 29, 2018 0:03:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 29, 2018 0:21:33 GMT -5
Two thoughts from the middle (honest, I'm in the middle)
- The Republican talking point that says, basically, "why didn't she report this at the time if it really happened"... Really truly, this is a bullshit talking point. It is a simple, overwhelming demonstrably true fact that most kids, which she was, don't report sexual abuse. The reasons are myriad: embarrassment, shame, self-blame, incomprehension, fear, confusion. And the reasons don't need to be named as the clear, overwhelming fact is that whatever they are, they exist. Kids don't report this shit.
Frankly, it is really disgusting when a national figure such as Trump says "If it happened, it was a crime so why didn't the kid report it if it really happened?". If he had been paying any attention at all these last thirty or forty years or so, he would know. For all kinds of reasons, most kids don't report sexual abuse (or sexual anything). They just don't.
- I have developed some conservative leanings over the last few years, but I am a middle of the road, independent, pragmatic, trustworthy fellow, overall, for the most part, and trust me, Amy Klobuchar is a dandy. I have no time for Elizabeth Warren. And that preachy female senator from Hawaii makes me gag. But I would regard this as one lucky nation if Amy somehow got the Democratic nod for prez and won. Yes, she is a Democrat, but she is smart, honest, pragmatic, and grounded. So, no matter where you are on the political spectrum, root, root, root, for Amy to somehow rise to the top of the Democratic heap.
(and if there is to be a Republican challenge to Trump, I hope Jeff Flake from Az is the one leading it. My confidence level in him is nowhere near the confidence I have in Amy, but he seems like a reasonable fellow. Though, I really wish he would have challenged the Trump dude in the primary. He should have gone down swinging, not quiting. That's a strike against him in my book.)
(If Nebraska dude has the balls to call Trump an incompetent nutjob braggart and challenge him, I will consider him as a rootable.)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 29, 2018 0:43:37 GMT -5
(and I will say there are some things Trump has done that I not only approve of, I am grateful for. But, man, the guy is an immature, arrogant, incompetent, unhinged braggart. And he is flat out nuts. And his juvenile screwball tweets... oh, sweet Agnes, his tweets...)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 29, 2018 6:23:59 GMT -5
Nobody is suggesting that Kavanaugh is owed the job. What is being suggested is that he is owed a fair hearing. And that suggestion isn't because I support his confirmation. It is because I fear for the confirmation process. It is deteriorating. He isn't owed a fair hearing because he is a rich kid frat boy silver-spoon-in-his ivy league mouth. He is owed a fair hearing because the hearing process is an important part of how our supreme court justices are confirmed and it is in America's best interest to have those hearings be fair. Kavanaugh isn't the one owed the fair hearing for Kavanaugh. America is. It's a very short memory that can't remember past Merrick Garland. You'd have to go back to Johnson to find a Democratic nominee who was rejected. Not so, Republican nominees. So ire is inflamed over the injustice of the Garland appointment. Join the ire club. We've enjoyed it for over 30 years. The history of senate votes demonstrates that the bar is higher for Republican appointees. Republicans are the reasonable bi-partisans that the Democratic hatchet men swear to be. www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htmI would still like to know how an innocent man -- any man (not Kavanaugh) -- is supposed to defend himself if the standards by which Kavanaugh is being judged remain the new rules. If the accuser is always a "victim" who must not be "re-victimized", just how exactly is one supposed to defend ones self? What? ....you don't care? ....or you don't care because you can't think past winning the Kavanaugh debacle?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Sept 29, 2018 7:08:03 GMT -5
I'm watching an interesting, to me anyway, thread on Facebook started by a life long Democrat relative explaining that he's seen all he can take and is switching to Republican. The interesting part is that several of his friends have responded that they agree and can't take the Democrat side anymore. The circus around this hearing has embarrassed them so they're leaving the party. These are people from Massachusetts of all Democrat states. I wonder how many people are feeling it. I guess we'll know come November.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 29, 2018 7:12:54 GMT -5
It might be nice if the other supremes could vote on BK.
You know, after his 'testimony', would they really want him as a part of the group?
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,025
|
Post by Dub on Sept 29, 2018 10:36:48 GMT -5
"And in Our system, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. "Yes, this circus isn't 'real court' it's supposedly a job interview but it's in front of Congress where lies carry the threat of legal prosecution; at my last job interview there was no such equivalency. "And, presumption of innocence doesn't mean 'well he probably did it but we can't prove it so let's not charge him but let's also not give him the job'. It means he is innocent and should bear no penalty nor endure any discrimination - such as withholding a job for which he is qualified." I intended to leave this thread alone but I think this is a key point. Jeff expressed somewhat similar views. I could not disagree more completely, and the disagreement isn't technical. The question is who should fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The only interests that really matter are the country's. We don't owe Judge Kavanaugh anything. I'd have typed that sentence in all capitals but that's annoying. He has no more entitlement to the position than I do. There are any number of highly qualified, conservative judges of unquestionable character and integrity who could be selected instead of Judge Kavanaugh. Why should we select someone who would come in under a cloud and diminish public confidence in our nation's highest court? Kavanaugh doesn't have to be convicted of anything to be rejected. The Senate simply has to conclude that the country would be better off with someone else. Unless I'm missing something, epaul is quite correct. There's time to change nominees and get a different person confirmed before there are any changes in the makeup of the Senate. I think it would be politically advisable for the Republicans, and certainly better for the country, to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination and pick someone without his baggage. I think this point is key because I keep hearing about fairness to Kavanaugh from people who support his confirmation. I think that puts the focus on the wrong set of interests. Brilliant, Don. Thank you.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,025
|
Post by Dub on Sept 29, 2018 10:45:01 GMT -5
. There are any number of highly qualified, conservative judges of unquestionable character and integrity who could be selected instead of Judge Kavanaugh. Why should we select someone who would come in under a cloud and diminish public confidence in our nation's highest court? Because everyone else you can name who’d fit the bill would come in under a similar cloud. The Dems will see to it. Let us watch and wait: if another nomination comes up under 45, I won’t be proven wrong on that. I agree that anyone Trump is likely to nominate is likely to come under some cloud. Still, in my naivety, I think there may be qualified, conservative jurists who lack the serious character flaws that seem to make candidates attractive to Trump.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 20,025
|
Post by Dub on Sept 29, 2018 10:49:14 GMT -5
Two thoughts from the middle (honest, I'm in the middle) … My guess is the each of us believes he or she is politically “in the middle.”
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Sept 29, 2018 10:49:36 GMT -5
Kavanaugh isn't the one owed the fair hearing for Kavanaugh. America is. QFT
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 29, 2018 11:11:18 GMT -5
Kavanaugh isn't the one owed the fair hearing for Kavanaugh. America is. QFT Quality Football Time? What the heck does that have to do with anything, or are you just rubbing a Colts fan's nose in it? That is not nice. Marty, put an eyeball on this guy.
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 29, 2018 11:43:43 GMT -5
Ah! That's a relief. I was concerned that I'd be a little out of my depth if the thread lurched off into a discussion of Quantum Field Theory
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Sept 29, 2018 12:55:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 29, 2018 13:25:27 GMT -5
I'm disappointed. I was sure it had something to do with quidditch.
|
|
|
Post by james on Sept 29, 2018 13:35:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Sept 29, 2018 13:50:43 GMT -5
As we were driving to the cities today I mentioned to my wife that tomorrow is the UCI Worlds professional bicycle road race in Switzerland . She is NOT a bike racing fan.
In the late 80's the worlds were in Colorado Springs and the road course was at the Air Force Academy. We went and stayed with a physician friend in the Springs. She went out to the Academy with me but after a while got bored and went back to the car and worked crossword puzzles.
I watched the whole six hr race and remember everything. It was a big deal for me.
When I mentioned it today she had no recollection that it ever happened. She didn't remember a single thing, even staying at my friend's house.
Our adult kids frequently bring up events that were a huge deal for them that we have no recollection of.
For Kav and his buddy it was a blip on the radar,soon forgotten among many. For Ford a life changing experience.
If he admitted to the possibility it could have happened and apologised if it did, and admitted he was less than candid about his HS and college drinking habits he just might salvage his nomination.
Oh what a tangled web we weave.
|
|