Thread for obviously newsworthy stuff

[Proteus_MST]

...
Things have changed, Gian. It used to be that the democrats respected the competence of nominees irrespective of parties. It used to be that they would routinely vote to confirm a justice based on their experience. Now? They don't care. ...

If you make this accusation, maybe you should look at the GOP first.
To be more exactly the nomination of Merrick Garland, who was rejected by the GOP for no reason other than that they wanted to keep the supreme court spot vacant in hope of a victory of Trump (so Trump would later be able to fill the spot with a conservative nominee)

One of the republicans in the judiciary committee, IIRC Grassley, even told the republicans proudly, that he blocks the nomination for no other reason than to keep the spot open for a nomination by Trump.

See also here for the "proud history" of nominee blocking by the GOP:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/09/ben-cardin/did-senate-republicans-filibuster-obama-court-nomi/

Under Obama, 79 presidential nominees were blocked (i.e. by the GOP) whereas in the years before Obama (dating back to the 1960s) only 68 nominees were blocked at all
To sum it up ... if there is a party of obstructionists for political purposes, it surely is the "modern" GOP

[Giancarlo]

Democrats never understand the consequences.

You republicans never understand any type of consequence. That's how we ended up with body bags coming back from Iraq and the 2008 recession.

Well... enjoy November... few weeks away. I'll be sure to order you some tissues.

[Kidlicious]

Also, the word out on Kavanaugh prior to the hearing is identical to what Susan Collins said. This is how the democrats created Clarence Thomas. He's been an implacable enemy for almost 30 years now. Pushing him further to the right by calling him a serial rapist isn't exactly the best move. We'll take a clone of Thomas who's 15 years younger though!

Democrats never understand the consequences.

[Giancarlo]

Good luck with that. You'll need 67 votes. Seems like a winning issue to run on going into the midterms about how Kavanaugh is an illegitimate nominee and how you're going to overturn the nomination.

What you seem to forget is the amount of ground that the democrat party has lost since they decided to Bork. They used to dominate the House and the Senate, having controlled both for half a century. 67 would have been a not exceptional number in the 60s and 70s. Now? Democrats have never had more than 60 at any point in some 30 years. The world has changed.

You had 60 from July to August of 2009, and again from the end of September to February of 2010. That was your high water mark.

Perhaps you should look in a mirror to try to understand how you went from dominating American politics to running behind the Republicans?

Considering there is a lot of substance regarding those stolen memos that ended up in Kavanaugh's possession, you may want to rethink that.

Kavanaugh is not legitimate, nor is he mentally stable to hold the office.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/05/american-bar-association-reevaluate-kavanaughs-high-rating-citing-his-temperament/?utm_term=.16f67238d38b

It's so bad the American Bar Association is now re-evaluating his rating because of his temperament.

https://www.kcci.com/article/iowa-law-professors-concerned-over-kavanaughs-temperament/23603874

Previously apolitical law professors have also questioned his temperament. In other words, he's mentally unstable.

Republicans have had what as a high water mark? Your party is nearing demographic collapse because older voters are doing what they do as prescribed by nature. Basically dying off.

[Giancarlo]

Like you I talk to folks, and that's what I'm hearing. Folks like me who didn't support Trump are on board, especially some young folks that are #walking away because they are disgusted with the conduct of the Democrat party and their perpetual smears.

If the best thing you have in your quiver is to accuse someone of gang rape some 35+ years after it, then that's a pretty empty quiver.



LOL. How many polls have been taken of justices prior to their nomination? How are they conducting the survey to ensure that the samples remain relatively comparable?

Things have changed, Gian. It used to be that the democrats respected the competence of nominees irrespective of parties. It used to be that they would routinely vote to confirm a justice based on their experience. Now? They don't care. So, by comparison even if you showed that there were a difference it would indicate that something in the politics have changed. This is something that's long been observed over the last some, 30 years so you're a little bit late to this party. I could touch on the increasing politicization of the Supreme court starting with justice Warren, but I doubt you have anything to contribute to that discussion so I'm not going to bother with that.



Yawn. Like I said. All you have are smears. I have in fact changed quite a bit over the years. Just not in the direction that you would like. Back in 2003 or so I scored about a moderate left on the political compass. Only took Poly about a year or so with folks like you and the rest to push me over to about a -2 social and +5 econ. Yes, Gian, I'm basically a libertarian at heart.

More stupidity from Ben.

Where have you been the past few months that you simply decided to rear your ugly face on here?

You're pathetic. I don't even know why I entertain you.

People on here tell me Kidiot is just trolling (badly). The sad part is you actually believe the garbage you write.

Hey, here is a fact for you... democrats are still going to take the House and they have a solid chance now to take the Senate.

You brought this on yourself!

The polls are accurate, and have been done before on justices.

Yes, things have changed. You apparently are simply too stupid to see it. There were no smears. Just honesty and victims coming forward. But hey, those stolen memos that ended up on Kavanaugh's desk will come up after the democrats retake the midterms. You'll see an investigation. I suppose you still supported Roy Moore even after his kiddie diddling from 35 years ago came out. So you would be okay if someone committed murder 35 years ago, and ran as a republican? I'm sure it all flies by you. I'm sorry, but once a rapist always a rapist.

You're a dumbass. You've always have been one.

You're a morally bankrupt tool who has never been politically left.

[Ben Kenobi]

Enjoy the impeachment and removal.

Good luck with that. You'll need 67 votes. Seems like a winning issue to run on going into the midterms about how Kavanaugh is an illegitimate nominee and how you're going to overturn the nomination.

What you seem to forget is the amount of ground that the democrat party has lost since they decided to Bork. They used to dominate the House and the Senate, having controlled both for half a century. 67 would have been a not exceptional number in the 60s and 70s. Now? Democrats have never had more than 60 at any point in some 30 years. The world has changed.

You had 60 from July to August of 2009, and again from the end of September to February of 2010. That was your high water mark.

Perhaps you should look in a mirror to try to understand how you went from dominating American politics to running behind the Republicans?

[Ben Kenobi]

LOL No. He did not. Get a ****ing grip please. You're completely ignorant on this matter.

Like you I talk to folks, and that's what I'm hearing. Folks like me who didn't support Trump are on board, especially some young folks that are #walking away because they are disgusted with the conduct of the Democrat party and their perpetual smears.

If the best thing you have in your quiver is to accuse someone of gang rape some 35+ years after it, then that's a pretty empty quiver.

I already posted a 538 link showing his support is the lowest it has ever been for a judge. Lots of young folks are clearly against him.

LOL. How many polls have been taken of justices prior to their nomination? How are they conducting the survey to ensure that the samples remain relatively comparable?

Things have changed, Gian. It used to be that the democrats respected the competence of nominees irrespective of parties. It used to be that they would routinely vote to confirm a justice based on their experience. Now? They don't care. So, by comparison even if you showed that there were a difference it would indicate that something in the politics have changed. This is something that's long been observed over the last some, 30 years so you're a little bit late to this party. I could touch on the increasing politicization of the Supreme court starting with justice Warren, but I doubt you have anything to contribute to that discussion so I'm not going to bother with that.

He is a piece of hypocritical crud, just like you are. You have NEVER changed. You are sitll the same decrepit loser who is out of touch with younger generations. Not only that you are a moral degenerate.

Yawn. Like I said. All you have are smears. I have in fact changed quite a bit over the years. Just not in the direction that you would like. Back in 2003 or so I scored about a moderate left on the political compass. Only took Poly about a year or so with folks like you and the rest to push me over to about a -2 social and +5 econ. Yes, Gian, I'm basically a libertarian at heart.

[Giancarlo]

Also, the word out on Kavanaugh prior to the hearing is identical to what Susan Collins said. This is how the democrats created Clarence Thomas. He's been an implacable enemy for almost 30 years now. Pushing him further to the right by calling him a serial rapist isn't exactly the best move. We'll take a clone of Thomas who's 15 years younger though!

Enjoy the impeachment and removal.

BTW, Clarence Thomas isn't exactly the best man to cite.

https://www.newsweek.com/clarence-thomas-impeachment-perjury-sexual-harassment-812953

He's still at it.

[Giancarlo]

Kavanaugh had pretty broad support across the board for his confirmation. Lots of young folks, especially young men and women see that the smears against him could easily be used against them too. Nobody likes seeing their families drug through the muck as a political power move.

The best move for the Democrats would have been to confirm Kavanaugh as well qualified back in July and then move on. Instead, they drug out the process and turned it into an election issue.

LOL No. He did not. Get a ****ing grip please. You're completely ignorant on this matter.

I already posted a 538 link showing his support is the lowest it has ever been for a judge. Lots of young folks are clearly against him.

He is a piece of hypocritical crud, just like you are. You have NEVER changed. You are sitll the same decrepit loser who is out of touch with younger generations. Not only that you are a moral degenerate.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-senate-votes/

WEAK, very WEAK public support. This does not bode well for you.



Yeah folks... across the board support lmao.



Under water with independents...

He's under water.

Prior to confirmation, one key poll had public support for Kavanaugh at 33%.

But hey 33% is "pretty broad support" for Benny Boy. What a putz.

[Uncle Sparky]

They should have walked out and refused to vote. And dragged out the WV Democrat before kicking him out of the party.
You're thinking of Cosby drugging people... or do you have insider info on Judge Groper?

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, the word out on Kavanaugh prior to the hearing is identical to what Susan Collins said. This is how the democrats created Clarence Thomas. He's been an implacable enemy for almost 30 years now. Pushing him further to the right by calling him a serial rapist isn't exactly the best move. We'll take a clone of Thomas who's 15 years younger though!

[Ben Kenobi]

This may have motivated some evangelicals, but will have more blowback. You just sacrificed younger voters and independents. Enjoy it before the destruction in november.

Kavanaugh had pretty broad support across the board for his confirmation. Lots of young folks, especially young men and women see that the smears against him could easily be used against them too. Nobody likes seeing their families drug through the muck as a political power move.

The best move for the Democrats would have been to confirm Kavanaugh as well qualified back in July and then move on. Instead, they drug out the process and turned it into an election issue.

[Giancarlo]

Susan Collins will be fired in 2020.

[Kidlicious]

Slate says that Susan Collins "cruelly attacked" CBF.

When she did, she went on an excruciatingly cynical and unnecessarily cruel rant about the unbelievability of Christine Blasey Ford’s story, a diatribe that was utterly unconcerned with the psychology of traumatic memory recall and the specifics of Ford’s allegations.

In her soliloquy, Collins listed every reason she doubted Ford’s sworn testimony that Kavanaugh had tackled her on a bed, covered her mouth, and attempted to rape her at a high school gathering in the early 1980s. “The four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred,” Collins said. “None of the individuals professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night.” She listed the people who denied the assault took place—Kavanaugh and alleged participant Mark Judge—and those Ford said were there but have professed they can’t remember any such party. Collins said it was telling that even Ford’s friend, Leland Keyser, said she didn’t know Kavanaugh or remember any such gathering. Collins implied that it was fishy that, though Ford said she couldn’t remember how she got home immediately after the alleged assault, no one has come forward to say they drove her home. Finally, she noted with audible suspicion that Ford had said she’d fled the gathering abruptly, yet no one called her the next day to ask if she was OK, “not even her closest friend, Ms. Keyser.”

[Giancarlo]

Well the DNC officially announced that they do not believe women. They say the case against Ellison is inconclusive.

You voted for the pussygrabber. Spare us. 20+ women. You called it lies. You support judge groper. 4 women. You called it lies. **** off please.