|
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 23:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Maybe, but that is a very partisan look at it. I don't believe they are all evil or something. I think many of them think of themselves as honorable and law abiding. I would think proving that he is a good candidate and shoving that in the dems face would be worth something. It is the not knowing if he is, or isn't that is throwing me for a loop. Really?
You've seen them act all the way through the Trump administration and you still think they are honorable people just trying to do the best for the American people?
They don't want to prove Kavanaugh is a good candidate, because they know he isn't. That's why they tried to rail-road his confirmation through before all this stuff would come out.
|
On September 28 2018 23:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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? The Judiciary committee vote is today, I don't think the Senate itself has a date yet (it needs to leave the committee first)
|
today is the vote to get Kav out of committee. tomorrow is anticipated to begin debate on the floor. monday is expected to be the confirmation vote.
|
The dems are walking out apparently
|
|
|
On September 28 2018 23:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. Maybe, but that is a very partisan look at it. I don't believe they are all evil or something. I think many of them think of themselves as honorable and law abiding. I would think proving that he is a good candidate and shoving that in the dems face would be worth something. It is the not knowing if he is, or isn't that is throwing me for a loop.
I am sure they many of them believe that this is what is best for the country and that the charges against him are made up by people upset any number of reasons. But they are all long time political operators that know this nomination is unpopular, polarizing and a wedge in this country. He will be the most unpopular nominee appointed to the court with the slimmest margin in a century. They are sending a clear sign they don’t care about that and want to use their majority while they have it.
It is a mistake to search for some good faith reason why they are doing this. They should present that up front if they cared about winning over the opposition. They don’t. Things are partisan because that is the way the Republicans want it. It lets them act like they are under siege when they are not. It lets them yell about conspiracy theories about the Clintons attacking this nominee some version of Alex Jones and not be laughed out of the room. Its time to stop giving a shit about how these people justify their actions to themselves and call them the hacks they have been for 20 years.
|
On September 28 2018 23:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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?
It isn’t a confirmation vote. It is to vote it out of committee, which is the first step in starting the confirmation vote before the full senate.
|
Apparently Flake said that in another era Kavanaugh would have gotten 90+ votes. Is that supposed to be a good thing that there was a time nobody cared about accusations of sexual assault? He is stupider than I thought.
|
On September 28 2018 23:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2018 23:06 JimmiC wrote: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. 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. Maybe, but that is a very partisan look at it. I don't believe they are all evil or something. I think many of them think of themselves as honorable and law abiding. I would think proving that he is a good candidate and shoving that in the dems face would be worth something. It is the not knowing if he is, or isn't that is throwing me for a loop. Really? You've seen them act all the way through the Trump administration and you still think they are honorable people just trying to do the best for the American people? They don't want to prove Kavanaugh is a good candidate, because they know he isn't. That's why they tried to rail-road his confirmation through before all this stuff would come out. Yes I think some are, and that they think the bad stuff they have to do is justified by the good stuff they will do. Much like how I've read 100's of times in this thread different versions of "its time to get in the mud with them, better to win then be honorable" I think it is sad that is more about the fight, it is more tribalism than anything at this point. It is getting bonkers. People really need to stop thinking of their side as the good guys and the other as bad guys. There are good and bad people on both sides. The difference is political leaning.
You do realize that this call for bipartisanship on your part comes from a place of relative privilege given that you are not directly affected by any of the policies that serve as the basis for many folks' ostensibly tribalistic impulses? For many, this is not a hypothetical game of tit for tat, its life and death, don't take my children stuff we're talking about.
|
On September 28 2018 23:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:11 Gorsameth wrote:On September 28 2018 23:06 JimmiC wrote: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. 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. Maybe, but that is a very partisan look at it. I don't believe they are all evil or something. I think many of them think of themselves as honorable and law abiding. I would think proving that he is a good candidate and shoving that in the dems face would be worth something. It is the not knowing if he is, or isn't that is throwing me for a loop. Really? You've seen them act all the way through the Trump administration and you still think they are honorable people just trying to do the best for the American people? They don't want to prove Kavanaugh is a good candidate, because they know he isn't. That's why they tried to rail-road his confirmation through before all this stuff would come out. Yes I think some are, and that they think the bad stuff they have to do is justified by the good stuff they will do. Much like how I've read 100's of times in this thread different versions of "its time to get in the mud with them, better to win then be honorable" I think it is sad that is more about the fight, it is more tribalism than anything at this point. It is getting bonkers. People really need to stop thinking of their side as the good guys and the other as bad guys. There are good and bad people on both sides. The difference is political leaning.
If one side thinks it's sad that we're fighting and the other side fights, I know which side is going to win.
Your assumption that some of them are honest actors and are motivated by the good that they'll do is hard to substantiate because the party is ideologically bankrupt. Behind almost all of their policy positions you can see a political or financial gain for the politicians themselves or the party.
|
On September 28 2018 23:21 On_Slaught wrote:
Apparently Flake said that in another era Kavanaugh would have gotten 90+ votes. Is that supposed to be a good thing that there was a time nobody cared about accusations of sexual assault? He is stupider than I thought.
Flake is a fucking moron with a selective memory. This nomination would never would have happened in the 1990s.
|
On September 28 2018 23:09 On_Slaught wrote:
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:
He still has a chance for the McCain moment, which was to vote yes on closing deliberation, and voting no on the actual nomination. But there's no real reason to believe that Flake will do such a thing.
|
On September 28 2018 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Things are partisan because that is the way the Republicans want it. It lets them act like they are under siege when they are not.
Totally false.
Things are partisan because the democrats have become so much more extreme the past 20 years.
All you need to do is watch Clintons 1995 state of the union.
Democratic policies on illegal immigration and other things are not the best policies for America, they're just designed to create a one party system via demographic change.
See also California Prop 187 - passed but never implemented.
Any wonder the US state with the highest poverty rate is.... California?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.html
Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?
The state and local bureaucracies that implement California's antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It's as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.
|
On September 28 2018 23:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Things are partisan because that is the way the Republicans want it. It lets them act like they are under siege when they are not.
Totally false. Things are partisan because the democrats have become so much more extreme the past 20 years. All you need to do is watch Clintons 1995 state of the union. Democratic policies on illegal immigration and other things are not the best policies for America, they're just designed to create a one party system via demographic change. See also California Prop 187 - passed but never implemented. Any wonder the US state with the highest poverty rate is.... California?
There isn't a single way in which I would call democrats 'extreme'.
|
On September 28 2018 23:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Things are partisan because that is the way the Republicans want it. It lets them act like they are under siege when they are not.
Totally false. Things are partisan because the democrats have become so much more extreme the past 20 years. All you need to do is watch Clintons 1995 state of the union. Democratic policies on illegal immigration and other things are not the best policies for America, they're just designed to create a one party system via demographic change. See also California Prop 187 - passed but never implemented. Any wonder the US state with the highest poverty rate is.... California? http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-jackson-california-poverty-20180114-story.htmlShow nested quote +Why is liberal California the poverty capital of America?
The state and local bureaucracies that implement California's antipoverty programs, however, resisted pro-work reforms. In fact, California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It's as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place. Immigrants are falling into it: 55% of immigrant families in the state get some kind of means-tested benefits, compared with just 30% of natives.
What is this dumb ass conspiracy theory you are peddling? A multi-generational plan to change demographics to win elections under the dumb ass idea that all children of illegal immigrants will vote democrat? Really? Was Reagan also part of this plan? Because he was all about helping illegal immigrants gain a path to citizenship.
Also, why is someone from Australia telling me about the history of the country I live in? Do you also go to the UK thread and explain the Thatcher era to them?
|
Nettles doesn't really believe what he's saying. His positions, as presented in most of his posts, are senseless. He has made it clear countless times that he has no interest in whether what he says is backed up by reality or not.
|
|
|
On September 28 2018 23:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On September 28 2018 23:19 Plansix wrote:
Things are partisan because that is the way the Republicans want it. It lets them act like they are under siege when they are not.
Totally false. Things are partisan because the democrats have become so much more extreme the past 20 years. All you need to do is watch Clintons 1995 state of the union. Democratic policies on illegal immigration and other things are not the best policies for America, they're just designed to create a one party system via demographic change. See also California Prop 187 - passed but never implemented. Any wonder the US state with the highest poverty rate is.... California? There isn't a single way in which I would call democrats 'extreme'.
If you vote republican, you should be the last to talk about one-party systems. GOP did not win a single popular vote election, but still has double majority and the president. Bush got popular with latinoes, it is not the only viable option to fight solely for white privilege.
Also, no, compared to Europe, most of the Democrat party would be placed centre-right, with Sanders in the Social democrat labour party (typically the biggest one along with the conservatives.) It is nothing extreme about them, other than the ways they are forced to fight politically by an opponent who notoriously abuse the system.
|
As far as an investigation goes one thing to consider is that it is possible the second and third accusers were recruited by their lawyers. The second accuser went from uncertain about whether it was Kavanaugh to certain "after speaking with her lawyer for 6 hours." The third accuser is from Michael Avenatti, who refuses to disclose evidence prior to the hearing. He wants to run in 2020, and has his issue positions pinned on his Twitter. Consider the precedent set by a per se rule that an allegation should be fully investigated. There is such a thing as frivolous allegations, and there is such a thing as lawyers recruiting clients to bring a case to serve the interests of the lawyer.
That said, I can see the argument for an investigation on par with that done in Anita Hill's case, that is, interviewing the relevant parties and then submitting transcripts of their interviews. At that point, the overall evidence will be far from conclusive, meaning Kavanaugh shouldn't be denied on the basis of the allegations. Otherwise, the system we have for nominations is unfair.
|
On September 28 2018 23:54 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2018 23:20 Plansix wrote:On September 28 2018 23:10 plasmidghost wrote: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. 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? It isn’t a confirmation vote. It is to vote it out of committee, which is the first step in starting the confirmation vote before the full senate. Thank for clarifying. Once debates start, I think it's going to be a huge political theater and I bet that Booker, Harris, and/or Warren are going to gain a lot of points by passionately debating why Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed. The cynic in me thinks that they'll be doing it just for their 2020 runs, but at least it'll be the right thing to do
I wouldn’t be that cynical about it. Of course they are going to be pushing their image to national stage, but the Democrats need that. They don’t have a deep bench right now, so they need that sort of exposure. People crap on politicians running for president, but its really hard to pull off and takes years of preparation. I have no doubt they still really care about this issue and think it’s a nightmare that this guy will be confirmed.
And if anything, they can set the stage for what happens after November. If the Democrats win the House, I wouldn’t be shocked if they open up an investigation into Kavanaugh. The gloves are off going forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
