|
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 October 05 2018 20:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 19:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2018 05:14 JimmiC wrote:
To people happy that it looks like BK will be appointed. Why should I be happy with that, what is it about him that will make the supreme court better? I was very underwhelmed with his performance at the senate hearings and would love to hear what is great about him.
Dems please refrain from saying why you think the others are excited. I know why you are not. if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No, that is not fitting behavior. But neither is sitting/sleeping bored at a State of the Union that no one really gives a shit about comparable to flying off the rails at a hearing about your SC nomination. The two are radically different situations. But sure, feel free to message your representative and call on him/her to begin impeachment proceedings. It literally went from ‘He is a gang rapist’ to ‘He is an angry white man who threw ice cubes at someone in the mid 80’s’.In the space of three days! Can people see how maybe this whole thing has scared the shit out of some moderate democrat voters, especially ones with younger sons? This thing has backfired spectacularly on the Democrats.
Is this what they call alternative facts? I think literally every implication in this post is false/not supported by the facts. Impressive.
|
On October 05 2018 20:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 19:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:On October 05 2018 05:14 JimmiC wrote:
To people happy that it looks like BK will be appointed. Why should I be happy with that, what is it about him that will make the supreme court better? I was very underwhelmed with his performance at the senate hearings and would love to hear what is great about him.
Dems please refrain from saying why you think the others are excited. I know why you are not. if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No, that is not fitting behavior. But neither is sitting/sleeping bored at a State of the Union that no one really gives a shit about comparable to flying off the rails at a hearing about your SC nomination. The two are radically different situations. But sure, feel free to message your representative and call on him/her to begin impeachment proceedings. It literally went from ‘He is a gang rapist’ to ‘He is an angry white man who threw ice cubes at someone in the mid 80’s’.In the space of three days! Can people see how maybe this whole thing has scared the shit out of some moderate democrat voters, especially ones with younger sons? This thing has backfired spectacularly on the Democrats.
Citation needed. Outside your fantasy world on mars, that is.
How has this backfired on the Democrats, exactly?
Nevermind that all of your nonsense begins from the gross idea that an accusation of sexual assault shouldn't be investigated because reasons. Actually that's not true, I have no idea how far back your nonsense goes to actually get to the beginning. I'm guessing there's a lot of faulty suppositions before we get there though.
|
On October 05 2018 21:42 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 20:31 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 19:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 10:39 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 05 2018 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 05 2018 06:04 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 06:01 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2018 05:58 KR_4EVR wrote:On October 05 2018 05:55 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2018 05:24 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
if I remember I'll answer later. but quickly, he wasn't my favorite, but after this smear job he must be confirmed. This garbage cannot be rewarded. so in that sense, I will be very happy. and it seems like many agree, the right hasn't been this united in a while. Now, to keep it that way for the next month. There is no smear job when there's an unprecedented level of professional resistance (e.g. law professors, judges, former justices) against his confirmation. You just lack the intellectual integrity to see beyond your own pathetic bias. By your logic the Jews sent to the concentration camps had no right to complain about being abused because the universities had already certified that Jews were an inferior race. Law professors and former supreme court justices are the Nazi party now? Sure you don’t want to rethink this very bad argument? Let me rephrase things so we speak a less charged language. The original claim made was along the lines of: Since party A was maligned by party B AND party C also maligned party A, that absolves party B of maligning party A even if only party C is credible and party A isn't. I'm saying that's bogus. Each allegation needs to be dealt with on its own terms. Two half-credible objections do not add to a credible objection. There is only 1 objection needed and that stands entirely on its own. Kavanaugh acted unbefitting of a SC judge. The end. Ginsberg wasn’t Sober during the SOTU a few years back and even appeared to be sleeping through part of it! But because she votes “the right way” noone gives a damn? https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172Tick Tock Ginsberg!..... No, that is not fitting behavior. But neither is sitting/sleeping bored at a State of the Union that no one really gives a shit about comparable to flying off the rails at a hearing about your SC nomination. The two are radically different situations. But sure, feel free to message your representative and call on him/her to begin impeachment proceedings. It literally went from ‘He is a gang rapist’ to ‘He is an angry white man who threw ice cubes at someone in the mid 80’s’.In the space of three days! Can people see how maybe this whole thing has scared the shit out of some moderate democrat voters, especially ones with younger sons? This thing has backfired spectacularly on the Democrats. Citation needed. Outside your fantasy world on mars, that is. How has this backfired on the Democrats, exactly?
It hasn't. Nettles just needs to lie to himself to make himself feel better about supporting such a piece of trash SC nominee.
|
|
|
Police pay in the US isn't actually that bad - typically above average for the area, though maybe not quite high as in Canada. And the benefits are relatively good as well. One of the few professions where pensions are still common.
|
Rumor has it that McConnell doesn't have the votes yet.
|
|
|
On October 05 2018 22:55 farvacola wrote:
Rumor has it that McConnell doesn't have the votes yet.
I’m really hoping for a McCain 2.0 when someone pulls the rug right out from under them. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
|
|
|
Apparently late last night the WSJ released an op-ed by the Duffman himself called "I am an independent, impartial judge." He might have already been working on it in response to the law professors letter but I imagine having Justice Steven's call him out necessitated its immediate release.
Basically he says his performance was born from frustration and we can trust him fair going forward. Basically it's the Dems fault for making him mad. Let us not forget his initial partisan rant was prepared before hand and not a spur of the moment thing.
Because I know some people will bring it up, I think this event makes less relevant how he has carried himself in the past, which he discusses in the article. I think this is a pretty big point that hasn't been raised. Basically how he was in the past isnt comparable because he has never served as a judge post an event as caustic as this. We saw genuine hatred for Democrats last Thursday. If he was fair before, he has given us every reason to believe he wont be anymore going forward. Right or wrong, if he sees this as a Democratic ploy to ruin his life why would we expect him to not be partisan? Seems like pretty basic human nature.
|
On October 05 2018 23:26 On_Slaught wrote:
Apparently late last night the WSJ released an op-ed by the Duffman himself called "I am an independent, impartial judge." He might have already been working on it in response to the law professors letter but I imagine having Justice Steven's call him out necessitated its immediate release.
Basically he says his performance was born from frustration and we can trust him fair going forward. Basically it's the Dems fault for making him mad. Let us not forget his initial partisan rant was prepared before hand and not a spur of the moment thing.
Because I know some people will bring it up, I think this event makes less relevant how he has carried himself in the past, which he discusses in the article. I think this is a pretty big point that hasn't been raised. Basically how he was in the past isnt comparable because he has never served as a judge post an event as caustic as this. We saw genuine hatred for Democrats last Thursday. If he was fair before, he has given us every reason to believe he wont be anymore going forward. Right or wrong, if he sees this as a Democratic ploy to ruin his life why would we expect him to not be partisan? Seems like pretty basic human nature.
Anyone who blames other people for their own emotions is unfit for this position. This guy is just such a disaster.
Republicans can still appoint someone else god damn. This is just so stupid and frustrating.
|
That whole thing read like the judicial version of an abusive husband saying he was very sorry, but it wouldn’t have happened if he wife hadn’t made him so mad.
Edit: And Trump has evoked Soros, or as I like to call him: Rothschild 2.0.
|
On October 05 2018 23:31 Plansix wrote:
That whole thing read like the judicial version of an abusive husband saying he was very sorry, but it wouldn’t have happened if he wife hadn’t made him so mad.
Edit: And Trump has evoked Soros, or as I like to call him: Rothschild 2.0.
Got to love a conspiracy nut in the WH
|
On October 05 2018 23:31 Plansix wrote:
That whole thing read like the judicial version of an abusive husband saying he was very sorry, but it wouldn’t have happened if he wife hadn’t made him so mad.
Edit: And Trump has evoked Soros, or as I like to call him: Rothschild 2.0.
This, listing off the fact that he was a great athlete in high school who worked hard and a billion other pieces of garbage that came out of his mouth make an extremely convincing case for the idea that he feels like he should only be judged by the good he does.
This is like THE most absolutely clear case of an entitled shitbag feeling like the world owes him greatness. It is sickening to see this be presented as a viable option for the supreme court.
It feels like our country has become so partisan that all republicans can see is "must win, must win, must win" to the point where they are not even seeing what kind of person should be on the supreme court. Give me someone just as conservative as him, all the same rulings, just for the love of fucking god not Kavanaugh. He will permanently tarnish the court.
|
On October 05 2018 23:31 Plansix wrote:
That whole thing read like the judicial version of an abusive husband saying he was very sorry, but it wouldn’t have happened if he wife hadn’t made him so mad.
Edit: And Trump has evoked Soros, or as I like to call him: Rothschild 2.0.
so do we believe WSJ kavanaugh or senate judiciary hearing kavanaugh? i for one tend to find people tend to reveal who they really are under pressure.
|
On October 05 2018 23:39 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 23:31 Plansix wrote:
That whole thing read like the judicial version of an abusive husband saying he was very sorry, but it wouldn’t have happened if he wife hadn’t made him so mad.
Edit: And Trump has evoked Soros, or as I like to call him: Rothschild 2.0. Got to love a conspiracy nut in the WH
He just called a bunch of victims of sexual assault paid protesters while McConnel dumps on Ford and Ramirez on the Senate floor. The theater is over, now the naked disdain arrives.
On October 05 2018 23:41 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 23:31 Plansix wrote:
That whole thing read like the judicial version of an abusive husband saying he was very sorry, but it wouldn’t have happened if he wife hadn’t made him so mad.
Edit: And Trump has evoked Soros, or as I like to call him: Rothschild 2.0. This, listing off the fact that he was a great athlete in high school who worked hard and a billion other pieces of garbage that came out of his mouth make an extremely convincing case for the idea that he feels like he should only be judged by the good he does. This is like THE most absolutely clear case of an entitled shitbag feeling like the world owes him greatness. It is sickening to see this be presented as a viable option for the supreme court. It feels like our country has become so partisan that all republicans can see is "must win, must win, must win" to the point where they are not even seeing what kind of person should be on the supreme court. Give me someone just as conservative as him, all the same rulings, just for the love of fucking god not Kavanaugh. He will permanently tarnish the court.
You are right. It is both the money and the grievance politics they have been selling to the base for so long. They have found the siege narrative to be so effective at turning out voters, so they can’t back away now. And there is no thought given to the idea of what will happen if they no longer in power, which will happen at some point.
|
Hmm. Manchin voting yes on the cloture (forcing vote to next 30 hours), Murkowski no. Interesting, and I'm curious if this is an actual Manchin flip and an actual Murkowski no. Guess we'll find out tomorrow.
|
Manchin just did the thing every democrat new he was going to do. And he will likely win re-election because of it.
Edit: Final count shows it would have been 50 without him, so he didn’t really turn the tide. Just saved Pence a drive down to the senate.
|
On October 05 2018 23:45 Plansix wrote:
You are right. It is both the money and the grievance politics they have been selling to the base for so long. They have found the siege narrative to be so effective at turning out voters, so they can’t back away now. And there is no thought given to the idea of what will happen if they no longer in power, which will happen at some point.
What is interesting to me is to see what happened to the GOP, happening now to democrats. Myself and many others who always tried to stay on the side of civility are basically all in agreement with "burn this shit to the ground as soon as the pendulum swings". I have absolutely no good will left.
One thing I do credit the GOP for is recognizing that the civil war never actually ended. It has been in somewhat of a cold war this whole time, but it is a lot more obvious now. The right and left are legitimately enemies and trying to sidestep that isn't productive. Eat or be eaten. There is no real argument for collaboration or any of that shit at this point. We should always be doing absolutely anything (aside from violence) to fight the other side. It is hilarious to imagine what kind of victims the right are going to make themselves out to be when progressives overthrow establishment democrats, freshly energized by Trump, and show absolutely no mercy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
