|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross.
From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience.
As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. )
|
On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. )
Lost your patience? It’s been like a week my guy. One more week won’t hurt anything. There is literally no rush. The woman can ask for the details of what is to take place at the hearing, rather than walking in blind.
Oh yeah, she isn’t holding up the nomination, Senators like Collins are.
|
On September 22 2018 11:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) Lost your patience? It’s been like a week my guy. One more week won’t hurt anything. There is literally no rush. The woman can ask for the details of what is to take place at the hearing, rather than walking in blind. Oh yeah, she isn’t holding up the nomination, Senators like Collins are.
She is, her delays are causing people like Collins to squirm. The woman had this letter written for months. Presumably before she wrote it, and certainly after she hired a lawyer, she had everything she knows on lock, what little that is. She's known for days, they've wanted to talk to her for days, now, today, we find out she doesn't want to a fly. A professor, who presumable goes all over the place for various events, doesn't want to fly, even for something this important. Days ago Grassley said we'll send people to you. Nope, not good enough. This from a woman who's plan was to stay anonymous the whole time, while stopping a Court nomination. If she doesn't want to talk, then she shouldn't. And just say it.
They are just dragging this out. her lawyer said 6 days ago she was ready. They invited her days ago. Now, when they were actually asked to come, they stall.
I may step out here again, I await more developments, and hopefully not more stalling.
Edit: your best argument is that they are haggling for better conditions (though that's not really for her to do, but whatever). But I think hours ago we knew what the Committee would agree to, what it would not. So decide.
|
On September 22 2018 11:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 11:04 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) Lost your patience? It’s been like a week my guy. One more week won’t hurt anything. There is literally no rush. The woman can ask for the details of what is to take place at the hearing, rather than walking in blind. Oh yeah, she isn’t holding up the nomination, Senators like Collins are. She is, her delays are causing people like Collins to squirm. The woman had this letter written for months. Presumably before she wrote it, and certainly after she hired a lawyer, she had everything she knows on lock, what little that is. She's known for days, they've wanted to talk to her for days, now, today, we find out she doesn't want to a fly. A professor, who presumable goes all over the place for various events, doesn't want to fly, even for something this important. Days ago Grassley said we'll send people to you. Nope, not good enough. This from a woman who's plan was to stay anonymous the whole time, while stopping a Court nomination. If she doesn't want to talk, then she shouldn't. And just say it. They are just dragging this out. her lawyer said 6 days ago she was ready. They invited her days ago. Now, when they were actually asked to come, they stall. I may step out here again, I await more developments, and hopefully not more stalling.
Grassley is trying to appear as accommodating as possible, because he knows he can’t strong arm her. So yeah, of course they are dragging it out. It means more Republicans and Trump make stupid comments. It allows them to get favorable terms for the hearing, which the republicans want her to come to. You’re blaming them for having a good plan to get what they want.
Edit: you are going to have to wait until tomorrow, she is asking for more day to decide.
Edit: it is totally her place to haggle, especially if they want her there. They cannforce her to testify if they really want, but they won’t.
|
|
|
On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. )
you losing your patience on the matter reads as tone deaf as the rest. the only rush here is on the partisan hacks.
it does suck. it is embarrassing for the candidate. if it turns out false, we should all hope she sees jail. is that your hope for Brett in the opposite instance? luckily the statue of limitations makes him invulnerable, so ultimately it makes no difference.
you losing your patience is ridiculous. it’s hard for me to have any soapbox here, it definitely blows. but you’ve lost your patience?
sure, it’s the bleeding heart liberals wet dream. but you still look like an asshole. idk, win win clearly. but people needn’t make it so easy.
|
On September 22 2018 11:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 11:04 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) Lost your patience? It’s been like a week my guy. One more week won’t hurt anything. There is literally no rush. The woman can ask for the details of what is to take place at the hearing, rather than walking in blind. Oh yeah, she isn’t holding up the nomination, Senators like Collins are. She is, her delays are causing people like Collins to squirm. The woman had this letter written for months. Presumably before she wrote it, and certainly after she hired a lawyer, she had everything she knows on lock, what little that is. She's known for days, they've wanted to talk to her for days, now, today, we find out she doesn't want to a fly. A professor, who presumable goes all over the place for various events, doesn't want to fly, even for something this important. Days ago Grassley said we'll send people to you. Nope, not good enough. This from a woman who's plan was to stay anonymous the whole time, while stopping a Court nomination. If she doesn't want to talk, then she shouldn't. And just say it. They are just dragging this out. her lawyer said 6 days ago she was ready. They invited her days ago. Now, when they were actually asked to come, they stall. I may step out here again, I await more developments, and hopefully not more stalling. Edit: your best argument is that they are haggling for better conditions (though that's not really for her to do, but whatever). But I think hours ago we knew what the Committee would agree to, what it would not. So decide.
"Dragging this out"?
Why do Republicans show so much more respect to business leaders when organizing hearings than to a woman that is an alleged victim of sexual assault?
"Time sensitive" is a load of shit. There's plenty of time to take to thoroughly vet a candidate that is a lifetime appointment. Unless Republicans just want to jam this appointment in before the midterms. Something something blatant hypocrisy something something...
The character of an individual is extremely telling based on how they respond to this situation. The whole thing is sickening and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
|
On September 22 2018 12:02 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) you losing your patience on the matter reads as tone deaf as the rest. the only rush here is on the partisan hacks. it does suck. it is embarrassing for the candidate. if it turns out false, we should all hope she sees jail. is that your hope for Brett in the opposite instance? luckily the statue of limitations makes him invulnerable, so ultimately it makes no difference. you losing your patience is ridiculous. it’s hard for me to have any soapbox here, it definitely blows. but you’ve lost your patience? sure, it’s the bleeding heart liberals wet dream. but you still look like an asshole. idk, win win clearly. but people needn’t make it so easy.
I'm not under the false impression that the Democrats are in this for truth and justice.
The sanctimony would matter, but for a few things.
Because she had a traumatic event, the whole world must stop? A senator sits on this for weeks, only for her or a staffer to leak it right at the end. She decides to talk to the Washington Post. Then, after saying they'll talk, she gets an offer to talk, anywhere, public or private. And then they sit there stallibg and make last minute demands. She accused someone of a crime. They are trying to finish a months long confirmation process. She doesnt set the rules. If the GOP were to keep caving, this would go past election day, which is the whole point. That's the goal, and whether the Democrats are just using her or she/ her team is being demanding does no one any favors.
Somehow the repeated conclusion is "well, the Committee should give in again."
I feel bad for her, because I still think something happened. But these delay tactics are transparent and awful.
|
On September 22 2018 13:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 12:02 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) you losing your patience on the matter reads as tone deaf as the rest. the only rush here is on the partisan hacks. it does suck. it is embarrassing for the candidate. if it turns out false, we should all hope she sees jail. is that your hope for Brett in the opposite instance? luckily the statue of limitations makes him invulnerable, so ultimately it makes no difference. you losing your patience is ridiculous. it’s hard for me to have any soapbox here, it definitely blows. but you’ve lost your patience? sure, it’s the bleeding heart liberals wet dream. but you still look like an asshole. idk, win win clearly. but people needn’t make it so easy. I'm not under the false impression that the Democrats are in this for truth and justice. The sanctimony would matter, but for a few things. Because she had a traumatic event, the whole world must stop? A senator sits on this for weeks, only for her or a staffer to leak it right at the end. She decides to talk to the Washington Post. Then, after saying they'll talk, she gets an offer to talk, anywhere, public or private. And then they sit there stallibg and make last minute demands. She accused someone of a crime. They are trying to finish a months long confirmation process. She doesnt set the rules. If the GOP were to keep caving, this would go past election day, which is the whole point. That's the goal, and whether the Democrats are just using her or she/ her team is being demanding does no one any favors. Somehow the repeated conclusion is "well, the Committee should give in again." I feel bad for her, because I still think something happened. But these delay tactics are transparent and awful.
one need not remember so far back as only a few years ago when such an argument sounded good to republicans. so again, tone deafness doth reign supreme.
|
On September 22 2018 13:11 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 11:13 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 11:04 Plansix wrote:On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) Lost your patience? It’s been like a week my guy. One more week won’t hurt anything. There is literally no rush. The woman can ask for the details of what is to take place at the hearing, rather than walking in blind. Oh yeah, she isn’t holding up the nomination, Senators like Collins are. She is, her delays are causing people like Collins to squirm. The woman had this letter written for months. Presumably before she wrote it, and certainly after she hired a lawyer, she had everything she knows on lock, what little that is. She's known for days, they've wanted to talk to her for days, now, today, we find out she doesn't want to a fly. A professor, who presumable goes all over the place for various events, doesn't want to fly, even for something this important. Days ago Grassley said we'll send people to you. Nope, not good enough. This from a woman who's plan was to stay anonymous the whole time, while stopping a Court nomination. If she doesn't want to talk, then she shouldn't. And just say it. They are just dragging this out. her lawyer said 6 days ago she was ready. They invited her days ago. Now, when they were actually asked to come, they stall. I may step out here again, I await more developments, and hopefully not more stalling. Edit: your best argument is that they are haggling for better conditions (though that's not really for her to do, but whatever). But I think hours ago we knew what the Committee would agree to, what it would not. So decide. "Dragging this out"? Why do Republicans show so much more respect to business leaders when organizing hearings than to a woman that is an alleged victim of sexual assault? "Time sensitive" is a load of shit. There's plenty of time to take to thoroughly vet a candidate that is a lifetime appointment. Unless Republicans just want to jam this appointment in before the midterms. Something something blatant hypocrisy something something... The character of an individual is extremely telling based on how they respond to this situation. The whole thing is sickening and Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.
I didn't use the phrase "time sensitive," why is it in quotes?
let's cut to the chase. of course this is about the midterms. That's why the letter wasn't leaked until the very end. That's why her lawyer has been hemming and hawing for days. one party wants to this to go past the midterms so they can claim a mandate to oppose a nominee.
because you are potential a victim doesn't mean you get to set the agenda, especially when you thought that you could get to your goal by written a letter and assuming an anonymous accusation would count for jack-all. She may have never wanted to come forward, but as soon as she spoke to the WP, that was it. She's had weeks, she hired a lawyer some time ago (before she apparently took the polygraph). This isn't a bolt from the blue, entirely.
|
On September 22 2018 13:21 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 13:15 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 12:02 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:57 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 10:52 brian wrote:On September 22 2018 10:26 Introvert wrote:On September 22 2018 09:59 Womwomwom wrote:On September 22 2018 09:46 Plansix wrote:Or she flew for a job opportunity and isn’t going to do that for the Senate because they are definitely not going to pay her or improve her resume. Again, they want her to testify. She didn’t ask to. Edit: also I love that you are complaining about stall tactics when like it matters. Who cares? Stall tactics are part of politics. Complaining about them is like complaining about getting 6 pooled in Starcraft. It’s the nature of the game. Or even took a cruise ship if she didn't want to deal with the stress of flying. But that shit is irrelevant, the articles themselves also point out that she's able to fly on planes but finds them stressful and doesn't want to deal with it. In this situation, she can damn well set the terms of her testimony. Like you point out Plansix, she's the one asked to testify not the other way around. She's not even asking for them to delay the hearing indefinitely, she's asking for a few days to get her affairs in order which I think is fair because people are literally sending her death threats over the internet. Like, what the hell is with a certain contingent of conservatives automatically dismissing this woman as a bloodsucking vampire trying to abuse this situation for personal gain. She's being asked to testify because she accused a man of attempted rape and thinks that she can just throw it out there and stop a Supreme Court nomination. But she doesn't have to go. Grassley offered to send staff to California, anyways. IIRC, her lawyer didn't even answer them back for like 24-36 hours this week. She didn't think they'd ask her to talk; her team thought they could just throw a bomb out there and the gutless Republicans would balk. So far everyone else has spoken the Committee with risk of some sort of legal penalty. She is the only one who hasn't. all the things you’ve have typed here are true for sure. but it sounds to me like you think it’s ridiculous. i think you should reflect on that. it’s a shitty situation all around for sure, but the dumb shit ive read here (this has become unpersonal, i haven’t read anything else from introvert) is really gross. From the very start I've said I believe something happened to her, and I said this situation sucked. I am, however, losing my patience. As I've said before, she doesn't have to talk. But from the very start, when she agreed to talk to the Washington Post, she must have known that she had only two choices: speak the Senate in some way, or let Kavanaugh through. Either that or her lawyer made a terrible miscalculation (of course her lawyer said she was ready to talk, last Saturday. ) you losing your patience on the matter reads as tone deaf as the rest. the only rush here is on the partisan hacks. it does suck. it is embarrassing for the candidate. if it turns out false, we should all hope she sees jail. is that your hope for Brett in the opposite instance? luckily the statue of limitations makes him invulnerable, so ultimately it makes no difference. you losing your patience is ridiculous. it’s hard for me to have any soapbox here, it definitely blows. but you’ve lost your patience? sure, it’s the bleeding heart liberals wet dream. but you still look like an asshole. idk, win win clearly. but people needn’t make it so easy. I'm not under the false impression that the Democrats are in this for truth and justice. The sanctimony would matter, but for a few things. Because she had a traumatic event, the whole world must stop? A senator sits on this for weeks, only for her or a staffer to leak it right at the end. She decides to talk to the Washington Post. Then, after saying they'll talk, she gets an offer to talk, anywhere, public or private. And then they sit there stallibg and make last minute demands. She accused someone of a crime. They are trying to finish a months long confirmation process. She doesnt set the rules. If the GOP were to keep caving, this would go past election day, which is the whole point. That's the goal, and whether the Democrats are just using her or she/ her team is being demanding does no one any favors. Somehow the repeated conclusion is "well, the Committee should give in again." I feel bad for her, because I still think something happened. But these delay tactics are transparent and awful. one need not remember so far back as only a few years ago when such an argument sounded good to republicans. so again, tone deafness doth reign supreme.
if you are referring to Garland, then I will repeat that this has nothing to do with Garland. I know the Democrats want to pretend the two situations are the same, but they are not. I won't rehash this again so recently.
I also have made no argument about how the Court "cannot function," either. That is not my concern, just in case that is what Stratos is referring to.
On September 22 2018 13:26 hunts wrote:
Oh man the poor republicans, it must feel so awful to have their supreme court nominee not get voted on right away. I wish I had known how much they cared about having timely votes on supreme court nominees, I really had no idea.
They would have voted Garland down. The lack of a hearing didn't matter in the slightest. Every use of "but the votes" is either dishonest or ignorant.
|
Oh man the poor republicans, it must feel so awful to have their supreme court nominee not get voted on right away. I wish I had known how much they cared about having timely votes on supreme court nominees, I really had no idea.
Seriously are we in the fucking twilight zone right now? They're bitching about this delay, after what they did with garland? They have the gall to complain? I sincerely hope that enough of the voting base wakes up after this and makes sure that not a single another republican ever gets voted into office again for the next generation or two.
It sounds like without a hearing they don't have the votes to get their rapist appointed to the court either, so I guess they just have to suck it up and wait, don't they?
|
Yeah, with Garland there was zero reason to hold up the nomination. Here there is at least one. Conservatives just don’t like Garland being brought up because ruins any delusion that this is about fairness. They would shame Kavanaugh through right now if they could. They don’t have the votes for this unpopular and Grassley knows it.
|
On September 22 2018 13:26 hunts wrote:
Oh man the poor republicans, it must feel so awful to have their supreme court nominee not get voted on right away. I wish I had known how much they cared about having timely votes on supreme court nominees, I really had no idea.
Seriously are we in the fucking twilight zone right now? They're bitching about this delay, after what they did with garland? They have the gall to complain? I sincerely hope that enough of the voting base wakes up after this and makes sure that not a single another republican ever gets voted into office again for the next generation or two.
Acting aggrieved and wronged it a tactic. Don’t see it as anything more than that.
|
Garland would not have gotten 51 votes. It is mind-blowing that we're still pretending anything else mattered in that scenario.
|
On a lighter note, if a mod will allow it, here is a tweet from Chairman Grassley that I see people guessing looks like it was meant to be a text message. It really does read like one. This him granting what is, hopefully, the final extension before her decision to testify:
Given the tweet he put out before it, I think it was meant to be a tweet but it's still weird. It also matches his style, but that last line and the address to Kavanaugh is...odd.
|
On September 22 2018 13:31 Introvert wrote:
Garland would not have gotten 51 votes. It is mind-blowing that we're still pretending anything else mattered in that scenario.
We also would never know beacuse Obama decided not to nominate anyone anyway. Republicans threw a softball about a nomination being weak in a presidents final year and Democrats decided to just let the matter drop for no reason.
|
On September 22 2018 14:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2018 13:31 Introvert wrote:
Garland would not have gotten 51 votes. It is mind-blowing that we're still pretending anything else mattered in that scenario. We also would never know beacuse Obama decided not to nominate anyone anyway. Republicans threw a softball about a nomination being weak in a presidents final year and Democrats decided to just let the matter drop for no reason.
Do you want to fact-check this yourself or should I do it for you?
|
On September 22 2018 13:31 Introvert wrote:
Garland would not have gotten 51 votes. It is mind-blowing that we're still pretending anything else mattered in that scenario.
And it sounds like kevinaugh doesn't have the votes either right now, so why should he even get a hearing?
|
Okay, I'll fact-check the post for you Sermokala.
+ Show Spoiler +The following is largely drawn from the relevant Wikipedia page, which I found after a Google search requiring approximately two seconds.
On September 22 2018 14:28 Sermokala wrote:
...
We also would never know beacuse Obama decided not to nominate anyone anyway.
This is simply not true. See for example:
Nomination record from the official website for U.S. federal legislative information.
Speech transcripts of Obama and Garland upon Garland's nomination.
Republicans threw a softball about a nomination being weak in a presidents final year
This is a subjective statement and so harder to call untrue but I find it difficult to describe the following as a softball:
Letter from Republican members of Senate Judiciary Committee
and Democrats decided to just let the matter drop for no reason.
After making the nomination the ball was in McConnell's court; the Democrats could do nothing more than pressure him. I could probably find sources to show that that pressure occured. It is not necessary to do so, because the simple fact that Garland was nominated already demonstrates this statement is inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
