Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

Wrong - We Spent 10 Months Investigating Kavanaugh. Here’s What We Found.

Here's what I always come back to on this, which is that Ford gained NOTHING but ridicule and disgusting insult from the Right after coming out. However, as this story correctly points out, "To date, Ford has enjoyed no apparent financial gain as a result of coming forward." NO FINANCIAL GAIN.
“Last August, she passed a polygraph test focused on her Kavanaugh memories.“ lol lol lol lol. Her “polygraph test” consisted of a whopping three questions. And none of those were directly about the assault. Any polygraph test worth a damn will contain at least 20 questions. And she didn’t benefit financially? You mean other than the nearly $700k she got from the go fund me account that was setup for her?
 
Something like that. Trump being president is a required point to his actual request for your input however.
Maybe he should have asked me that instead of some remedial question about who the president is. I didn’t read all of his posts to everyone else, so I guess I can’t fault him for not knowing that the question he never asked me was addressed in one of my earlier posts. Oh well.
 
My point was why is it “hypocrisy” only on one side when the other side also took the complete opposite stance last time? Both the republicans and Dems are two sides of the same coin. Most of us are smart enough to know that
So you want to know why am I not ridiculing Democrats for the hypocritical actions that they haven’t taken but which you think they would, given the chance?

Most of us are smart enough to know why that didn’t get a real answer.
 
I agree. That's why I used it.

See we can get along. . .
I get along with everybody. 🥰

To me, your argument is barely different from the guy who basically said “but the Democrats really are bad” and then presented a totally made up platform with a bunch of fictitious planks to justify his emotional fervor; or the guy getting all worked up about how I’m not mad that the Democrats would hypothetically do the same thing if the roles were reversed.

These are all alternative realities constructed to preserve your respective peace of mind. Yours is far more grounded in reality than the others, but it still can only be maintained with a totally one-sided view of the facts.

It can’t be reconciled with the overwhelming and bipartisan confirmations of Kennedy and Roberts. Roberts in particular was a break in the chain of events, as your presented it.

And I’m not saying that confirmations have not been increasingly contentious for almost half a century, I don’t think anybody would say that, but it’s never been just blatant rank partisanship, until now. The opposition to Bork, Thomas, Miers, and Alito was bipartisan to varying degrees.

Also, what I remember of your characterization of Sotomayor’s confirmation is off. Her confirmation was every bit as contentious as Gorsuch, which is to say both were roughly on par with Alito. Remember “wise Latina woman?” That was back when I was still listening to Limbaugh; I remember he harped about that for weeks. Things were heated but roughly symmetrical, with both sides observing some measure of decorum, until Garland.

Since then (and before then on other matters) there has been an asymmetry to the naked partisanship in the Senate, and it starts with Mitch McConnel. That’s just reality. And the reason for it is obvious from recent electoral history and from this forum: a majority of Republican voters like it, the rest will justify it.

Meanwhile, Democrats just voted overwhelmingly to nominate a guy who campaigned on a reconciliation platform and leaned in to his record of bridging the aisle to explain how he would heal the partisan dysfunction.
 
Less is better.
More is worse.
Everyone will understandably have an easier time overlooking hypocrisy from their "side".

I've used this analogy before.
A football coach will yell and scream at the refs attempting to point out that the opponent's offensive line is constantly holding. When he notices his offensive line holding, he keeps his mouth shut and then discusses it quietly on the sideline directly with his team and other coaches.
Then I assume you must be quietly writing tons of letters to various Democrats expressing your extreme disappointment in their behavior. How many do you write to Biden in a day? Or are you sitting quietly on the sideline simply bellyaching about Trump?

Yeah, your analogy is horrible because we both know that no one is addressing the corruption on your chosen side. Hell, Tulsi tried, but it got her ridiculed and mocked, and amounted to nothing. Some people can't see, and some people choose not to see. When it comes to politics, most people choose not to see. I very much think you're one of those people.
 
I firmly believe that Hillary would have beaten any of the other Republican candidates in 2016.
I'm honestly still surprised she didn't beat Trump. I didn't want it to happen, but I thought a Hillary presidency was pretty much a certainty. It still sucks that she and Trump were our two choices, just like it sucks that Biden and Trump are our choices this go-around. Apparently, we're a nation of idiots that can't find an actual candidate worthy of the position to lead us. Dems talk about being embarrassed by Trump. I get it. What I don't get is how they're not embarrassed that the best candidate they could find to run against him is Joe Biden? It's quite sad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 37L1
I get along with everybody. 🥰

To me, your argument is barely different from the guy who basically said “but the Democrats really are bad” and then presented a totally made up platform with a bunch of fictitious planks to justify his emotional fervor; or the guy getting all worked up about how I’m not mad that the Democrats would hypothetically do the same thing if the roles were reversed.

These are all alternative realities constructed to preserve your respective peace of mind. Yours is far more grounded in reality than the others, but it still can only be maintained with a totally one-sided view of the facts.

It can’t be reconciled with the overwhelming and bipartisan confirmations of Kennedy and Roberts. Roberts in particular was a break in the chain of events, as your presented it.

And I’m not saying that confirmations have not been increasingly contentious for almost half a century, I don’t think anybody would say that, but it’s never been just blatant rank partisanship, until now. The opposition to Bork, Thomas, Miers, and Alito was bipartisan to varying degrees.

Also, what I remember of your characterization of Sotomayor’s confirmation is off. Her confirmation was every bit as contentious as Gorsuch, which is to say both were roughly on par with Alito. Remember “wise Latina woman?” That was back when I was still listening to Limbaugh; I remember he harped about that for weeks. Things were heated but roughly symmetrical, with both sides observing some measure of decorum, until Garland.

Since then (and before then on other matters) there has been an asymmetry to the naked partisanship in the Senate, and it starts with Mitch McConnel. That’s just reality. And the reason for it is obvious from recent electoral history and from this forum: a majority of Republican voters like it, the rest will justify it.

Meanwhile, Democrats just voted overwhelmingly to nominate a guy who campaigned on a reconciliation platform and leaned in to his record of bridging the aisle to explain how he would heal the partisan dysfunction.
I'm not so sure that your characterization is much different than mine except you lean more towards the Democrats as being more reasonable given the examples you used and ignored others that I see as important. I suppose we both have done that.

To lay the cutting edge of partisanship on McConnell for not bringing Garland to a vote, is an example of ignoring the actions of Harry Reid when he was the leader of the Senate. Do I really have to bring those up? I'm sure you are quite aware of them. Having said that, McConnell's actions are blatantly partisan and unfair. Garland should have been brought to a vote and defeated if that was in the cards. It wasn't and here we are. That still does not excuse behavior that has occurred before and since his nomination.

As far as Democrats behavior in the Senate regarding SCOTUS nominees, show me the extent of character assassination that the Republican Senators have engaged in to match or even come close to what the Democrats did with Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. The Democrats generally behave themselves when a nominee appears middle of the road but if there is any hint of a threat to their dogma, they will stop at nothing to destroy that candidate through attacks on his/her character rather than on the basis of prior rulings/statements.

It's shameful when they were going to vote "No" no matter what the nominee said in the hearings. In order to sway more "No" votes they tried to make the candidate out as a morally corrupt person because they didn't have enough or anything at all to sway votes on the basis of the nominee's actions from the bench.

It's sickening to me.

You listened to Rush Limbaugh? Why?
 
... but Democrats are the radical extremists, right? That redstate crap really doesn't serve your side very well. Not sure why you would bring that here and act like you're proud of it.

It’s brutal but most truths are . Why would he not bring in a critique of a very public SCJ that is supposed to be neutral in every aspect of her job, but obviously wasn’t ? Can you argue that the facts of the article are wrong , or are we just going to go off of our feelz about it ? I for one agree with the article about SCOTUS as a whole and that includes each member and how they allow themselves to be seen publicly, that’s why doing interviews, SNL skits and voicing their own options on political hot potato’s is at the minimum ..a bad idea .
 
I can find millions of people who would disagree with that first sentence, especially minorities. He has made their lives miserable with his racist and divisive statements and actions.
People worrying about words are stupid.... what actions has he made that are bad for minorities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
Update on breakdown of Senators who may vote against a Trump appointee, based on comments that I'm aware of since:

Opposed to confirmation:

Collins (ME)
Murkowski (AK)

No public declaration yet, but possibly opposed to confirmation:

Romney (UT)
Gardner (CO)
Grassley (IA)

Publicly supported confirmation:

Alexander (TN)

Others:

Graham (possibly - in tough re-election and on a 2018 tape stating he would never support a SCOTUS nomination so close to the election)
Rand (possibly - wildcard)
Sasse (possibly - but unlikely)
Cruz (likely will support nomination now)

Bottom line is the up/down vote right now is 51-49 in favor of GOP (assuming all Dems and Inds vote to oppose).

Tie breaker is broken by Pence, so 2 more Senators must flip to stop nomination process.
 
Lol..roe vs wade isn't getting flipped. Jesus..yall scared AF over nothing...


Well..not nothing, but you can still get your abortions..trust me..all part of the plan.

"Collins has long championed her moderate credentials; she supports abortion rights, for example, and has also voted in favor of Supreme Court nominees chosen by presidents of both parties. But the stakes are perhaps the highest they have been for the future of abortion rights in the United States.

She’s also facing pressure from fellow Republicans. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, a hard-line conservative who himself is on Trump’s short list for the Supreme Court, issued a direct plea to Republican senators like Collins, tweeting on Saturday: “Two months ago, I pledged to vote only for #SCOTUS nominees who understand and acknowledge that Roe was wrongly decided. I stand by that commitment, and I call on my fellow Republican senators to take the same stand.”
 
She probably believed in a higher ideal and time when these appointments actually weren't political in nature, but that died a while ago.
The appointments have been political in nature since the beginning of the republic. Congress rejected George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge as Chief Justice over Rutledge's political opposition to a treaty while he was in Congress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
So you want to know why am I not ridiculing Democrats for the hypocritical actions that they haven’t taken but which you think they would, given the chance?

Most of us are smart enough to know why that didn’t get a real answer.



The problem here is ( as we all know ) it isn’t really that hypothetical. Just like tweets .. there’s usually a YouTube video for every occasion. This is Joe Biden telling everyone how the Senate should handle a SCOTUS nominee anytime one is selected by a POTUS and regardless of who controls the Senate .
 
“Last August, she passed a polygraph test focused on her Kavanaugh memories.“ lol lol lol lol. Her “polygraph test” consisted of a whopping three questions. And none of those were directly about the assault. Any polygraph test worth a damn will contain at least 20 questions. And she didn’t benefit financially? You mean other than the nearly $700k she got from the go fund me account that was setup for her?
Try again: "Her security costs were handled by a crowdsourced GoFundMe account. The money left over once her expenses were paid has been designated for trauma survivors."

This is the biggest issue right-wingers have never been able to explain on this because she benefited in no way from this and actually suffered tremendously due to the unrelenting ridicule and insults she received from the Right.
 
Try again: "Her security costs were handled by a crowdsourced GoFundMe account. The money left over once her expenses were paid has been designated for trauma survivors."

This is the biggest issue right-wingers have never been able to explain on this because she benefited in no way from this and actually suffered tremendously due to the unrelenting ridicule and insults she received from the Right.
And the adulation and well wishes from the left.

Some dolt actually rented a plane that flew a banner thanking her.

Banner in support of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford flying in Palo Alto

Christine Blasey Ford Receives ACLU Award for Courage - Variety

Blasey Ford Receives 'Empowerment Award,' As Harris Calls For Another Kavanaugh Investigation

In March, Blasey Ford was named Person of the Year by an anti-sexual assault group called Raliance, Newsweek reported.

She was also tapped by Sports Illustrated in December to present the magazine’s Inspiration of the Year Award.
Christine Blasey Ford Wins Another Award, Gives Acceptance Speech


And thank you, Kamala

https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2019/5567675/christine-blasey-ford/
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Try again: "Her security costs were handled by a crowdsourced GoFundMe account. The money left over once her expenses were paid has been designated for trauma survivors."

This is the biggest issue right-wingers have never been able to explain on this because she benefited in no way from this and actually suffered tremendously due to the unrelenting ridicule and insults she received from the Right.

It’s not hard to explain , she’s a crazy left wing activist with heavy ties to DC and the left coast that thought she “ could make a difference “ . The eyes never lie .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 1972 Grad
It’s not hard to explain , she’s a crazy left wing activist with heavy ties to DC and the left coast that thought she “ could make a difference “ . The eyes never lie .
But the laughter indelible in the hippocampus. Too bad, the who, what where, when wasn't indelible in the hippocampus as well.

Can I have a cup of coffee, was the most intelligent statement she made.
 
But the laughter indelible in the hippocampus. Too bad, the who, what where, when wasn't indelible in the hippocampus as well.

Can I have a cup of coffee, was the most intelligent statement she made.

I especially enjoyed the fake dirty glasses they made sure she wore , it was a very nice touch . This is her when she isn’t trying to look like she’s too depressed and emotionally scarred to clean her glasses..

8F01E0B0-9543-4A73-B9F0-515B84DD94FC.jpeg
 
Maybe he should have asked me that instead of some remedial question about who the president is. I didn’t read all of his posts to everyone else, so I guess I can’t fault him for not knowing that the question he never asked me was addressed in one of my earlier posts. Oh well.
Is that in reference to me? You should probably refresh yourself if so. I never asked if Trump is the president.
 
The problem is this. If the Republicans jam this through going against the rule they made up last go round and the democrats take the majority in the Senate... you will see some actions taken that weaken our democracy. Whether it is enlarging the Court or abolishing the filibuster, representation will not be about representing the will of the people, but rather for grabbing as much power as you can for your side while able.
 
The problem is this. If the Republicans jam this through going against the rule they made up last go round and the democrats take the majority in the Senate... you will see some actions taken that weaken our democracy. Whether it is enlarging the Court or abolishing the filibuster, representation will not be about representing the will of the people, but rather for grabbing as much power as you can for your side while able.

Uh oh. The Dems may start playing dirty pool.
 
The problem is this. If the Republicans jam this through going against the rule they made up last go round and the democrats take the majority in the Senate... you will see some actions taken that weaken our democracy. Whether it is enlarging the Court or abolishing the filibuster, representation will not be about representing the will of the people, but rather for grabbing as much power as you can for your side while able.
Nothing will change..... they already do stuff like that
 

VN Store



Back
Top