|
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 28 2018 21:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists. The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all. For example: Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 years in prison at age 81. The woman who sparked Emmitt Tills murder is still free and walking around at age 83. She should be in prison as well. Cosby had multiple women come out and he got convicted. BK had multiple women come out and he's about to be a SC judge. See how this works?
Obfuscate or discredit? Who are these comments directed at?
Tho to answer your question generally, it isnt hard to be consistent when you accept that people aren't entitled to positions of power like this.
|
On September 28 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent.
So unhappy that he gave 4 minutes of his time to Kennedy to ask whether or not he believed in God.
|
On September 28 2018 21:59 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists. The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all. For example: Bill Cosby was sentenced to 3 years in prison at age 81. The woman who sparked Emmitt Tills murder is still free and walking around at age 83. She should be in prison as well. Cosby had multiple women come out and he got convicted. BK had multiple women come out and he's about to be a SC judge. See how this works? Obfuscate or discredit? Who are these comments directed at? Tho to answer your question generally, it isnt hard to be consistent when you accept that people aren't entitled to positions of power like this.
Obfuscate what BK was saying (he was unwilling to answer certain questions/could not answer) and discredit Ford by her flying to the meeting or that it was "35 years ago". It wasn't that hard to convict Cosby (imo, he probably did half of what he was accused of doing). Granted, two different yet similar circumstances where people place different priorities on who is guilty and who is innocent.
|
On September 28 2018 22:03 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent. So unhappy that he gave 4 minutes of his time to Kennedy to ask whether or not he believed in God.
It is really tough to call. I got the impression that he didn’t have any questions he wanted to ask or he had already made up his mind. If any republican is going to vote “no” this morning, it’s going to be him.
|
On September 28 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent.
I guaran-fuckin-tee he will vote yes today. He wants this to go to the main body so that the blame for this failing, if it does, doesn't fall squarely on his shoulders. He talks a big game but rarely backs it up. I hope he proves me wrong.
|
On September 28 2018 22:03 chocorush wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent. So unhappy that he gave 4 minutes of his time to Kennedy to ask whether or not he believed in God.
Yeah that was the usual appeal to "religious = ethical and moral human being", which was unnecessary because BK said (multiple times) that he regularly went to church. Like, did the Republicans miss the part where he partied and drank heavily, even as a minor?
Based on Brett Kavanaugh's testimony yesterday and reports from his friends and classmates about his perpetual drunken stupor as a high school and college student, I'd imagine his admissions interview at law school went something like this:
Interviewer: "Please tell me why you're interested in becoming a member of the Bar."
Brett: "Cuz I love beers! Beers, beers, beers!"
Interviewer: "That's... that's a different kind of Bar, Brett."
Brett: "I'm #1 at all the sports."
Interviewer: "Are you... *bigly* #1 at all the sports?"
Brett: "Beerly?"
Interviewer: "Sure. Welcome to Yale!"
|
On September 28 2018 21:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:56 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2018 21:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists. The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all. To be fair, basically the same thing was done with regards to Clarence Thomas, only Anita Hill had the disadvantage of being both black and a woman. Clearly, relatively little has changed since then. I think the more reasonable people have made that comparison and are shaking their heads. And you're right, it is relatively fair, taking time out of the equation. But the crux of the matter is, will this new standard be applied evenly through US politics? Will there be a judge somewhere in BFE USA, who thinks back on this when a student athlete is accused of rape and the person is lying, or vice versa, and will it be defended as hard or not?
I mean, I think you know my answer to that, whether or not someone gets the defense Kav got is going to depend on a host of variables and you're not wrong to point out that race is still one of them.
|
On September 28 2018 22:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 28 2018 21:56 farvacola wrote:On September 28 2018 21:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On September 28 2018 21:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 28 2018 21:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
I hope, the next time there is injustice against a brown/black skinned person, you fight the truth as hard as you all have fought this. What does race have to do with this? Both Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are white; I don't see a reason to propose that a racial bias exists. The veracity that BK was defended and Ford was considered not credible. When there is a POC up for some charge or office, I want to see the same tenacity to either obfuscate or discredit. That is all. To be fair, basically the same thing was done with regards to Clarence Thomas, only Anita Hill had the disadvantage of being both black and a woman. Clearly, relatively little has changed since then. I think the more reasonable people have made that comparison and are shaking their heads. And you're right, it is relatively fair, taking time out of the equation. But the crux of the matter is, will this new standard be applied evenly through US politics? Will there be a judge somewhere in BFE USA, who thinks back on this when a student athlete is accused of rape and the person is lying, or vice versa, and will it be defended as hard or not? I mean, I think you know my answer to that, whether or not someone gets the defense Kav got is going to depend on a host of variables and you're not wrong to point out that race is still one of them.
I do. This was more directed towards the Rs here.
Anyway, I've given this too many brain cells, so I'm gonna wait for the next opportunity to comment. I'll go back to my lurking status.
|
On September 28 2018 22:06 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent. I guaran-fuckin-tee he will vote yes today. He wants this to go to the main body so that the blame for this failing, if it does, doesn't fall squarely on his shoulders. He talks a big game but rarely backs it up. I hope he proves me wrong.
I just remembered that he's not running for reelection this year, so I think there's a good chance he votes no here and sticks it to Trump
|
On September 28 2018 22:28 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 22:06 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent. I guaran-fuckin-tee he will vote yes today. He wants this to go to the main body so that the blame for this failing, if it does, doesn't fall squarely on his shoulders. He talks a big game but rarely backs it up. I hope he proves me wrong. I just remembered that he's not running for reelection this year, so I think there's a good chance he votes no here and sticks it to Trump
presumably this isn’t his last job, so i don’t think he’d be too eager to start burning bridges.
|
On September 28 2018 22:30 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 22:28 plasmidghost wrote:On September 28 2018 22:06 On_Slaught wrote:On September 28 2018 21:58 Plansix wrote:
And now all eyes are on Flake, who did not appear happy with yesterday’s performance by Brent. I guaran-fuckin-tee he will vote yes today. He wants this to go to the main body so that the blame for this failing, if it does, doesn't fall squarely on his shoulders. He talks a big game but rarely backs it up. I hope he proves me wrong. I just remembered that he's not running for reelection this year, so I think there's a good chance he votes no here and sticks it to Trump presumably this isn’t his last job, so i don’t think he’d be too eager to start burning bridges.
Voting no today wouldn’t do much for his ability find a job as a conservative lobbyist or something else like that. Being a former senator gives him access that no one will ever be able to obtain(like parts of the senate were only senators and former senators are allowed).
|
So Flake is going to vote yes on Kavanaugh. I guess it all comes down to Murkowski and Collins now
|
Flake flaked, as expected.
|
|
|
Called it. Guy is all talk and the definition of feckless. Cant wait to see him gone.
It all comes down to Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin (who technically hasn't made his view clear... my guess is he will vote as Collins and Murkowski do for cover). If they are going to be consistent with their statements to this point then they are no votes. I guess the question is how much pressure they get from the party. Perhaps most important is what their constituents tell them over the weekend.
Blumenthal raised the motion to have Mark Judge subpoenad. Ofc it lost.
Edit: this is what Flake ran into on the way to the committee after he announced he would vote yes.
|
|
|
They are going to try and move it forward to have a full vote next week. We will have to see what drama results in the next 7 days.
On September 28 2018 22:55 JimmiC wrote:
Here is what I don't get, why wouldn't the Reps do a quickie investigation just to CYA. Like they hire a impartial dude (even make sure he votes repub) give him 3 days to talk to judge and the other people Ford named, and check out the basic info on the other accusations. In the mean time have BK take a poly.
After that you could say, we did our investigation, nothing provable came up and BK passed his poly. There is no reason not to move forward with the vote, thank you.
You would rob the Dems of all the righteous indignation, and get your guy through. And if by chance there was something provable that came up you wouldn't have near the egg on your face because either your guy caught it, OR you could be like well our investigator missed it how were we to know?
Because the investigation would kill the nomination and getting a conservative majority on the bench is too important for them. They assume that life time appointments means the Democrats will just suck it up for the next generation and deal the federal government losing its ability to regulate anything. In short, they don’t believe actions have consequences, or that these consequences will be minor.
|
|
|
It's a good time to remind people that Flake wrote this book. A rejection of destructive politics my ass. Part of me honestly thought he would use this as his McCain moment, thumbs down and all.
Linking tweet just for the book cover pic:
|
On September 28 2018 22:56 Plansix wrote:They are going to try and move it forward to have a full vote next week. We will have to see what drama results in the next 7 days. Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 22:55 JimmiC wrote:
Here is what I don't get, why wouldn't the Reps do a quickie investigation just to CYA. Like they hire a impartial dude (even make sure he votes repub) give him 3 days to talk to judge and the other people Ford named, and check out the basic info on the other accusations. In the mean time have BK take a poly.
After that you could say, we did our investigation, nothing provable came up and BK passed his poly. There is no reason not to move forward with the vote, thank you.
You would rob the Dems of all the righteous indignation, and get your guy through. And if by chance there was something provable that came up you wouldn't have near the egg on your face because either your guy caught it, OR you could be like well our investigator missed it how were we to know? Because the investigation would kill the nomination and getting a conservative majority on the bench is too important for them. They assume that life time appointments means the Democrats will just suck it up for the next generation and deal the federal government losing its ability to regulate anything. In short, they don’t believe actions have consequences, or that these consequences will be minor.
I saw last night that the Senate confirmation vote was scheduled for tomorrow, was that changed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
