If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Mark Kelly (D) is expected to win his special election in Arizona, for Sen. John McCain's seat. Because it's a special election, he will be seated on November 30, while other election winners wait until January.
Mark Kelly is leading his appointed (R) opponent by double digits. So if the confirmation attempt goes past Nov 30, it will be 52-48. Before any Republican holdouts.
--------------
There's another possible (R) holdout: Lindsey Graham in South Carolina. He's in a dead heat with his (D) opponent. And in 2018, Sen. Graham announced he would not seat a SCOTUS pick in an election year, if it's after the primaries. In fact, he invited people to record his statement, and use it against him in future. Should he violate his promise.
As Sen. Graham has announced he supports seating someone, The Lincoln Project has taken up his invitation. Replaying Sen. Graham's promise in support of his opponent. Expect such commercials to air non-stop in South Carolina up to the election. Sen. Graham will be under intense pressure to pull back, if he wants to avoid honest employment for another 6 years.
(
Last edited by reader50; Sep 20, 2020 at 07:46 PM.
Reason: fixed some wrong state info)
Mark Kelly (D) is expected to win his special election in Arizona, for Sen. John McCain's seat. Because it's a special election, he will be seated on November 30, while other election winners wait until January.
Mark Kelly is leading his appointed (R) opponent by double digits. So if the confirmation attempt goes past Nov 30, it will be 52-48. Before any Republican holdouts.
--------------
There's another possible (R) holdout: Lindsey Graham in South Carolina. He's in a dead heat with his (D) opponent. And in 2018, Sen. Graham announced he would not seat a SCOTUS pick in an election year, if it's after the primaries. In fact, he invited people to record his statement, and use it against him in future. Should he violate his promise.
As Sen. Graham has announced he supports seating someone, The Lincoln Project has taken up his invitation. Replaying Sen. Graham's promise in support of his opponent. Expect such commercials to air non-stop in South Carolina up to the election. Sen. Graham will be under intense pressure to pull back, if he wants to avoid honest employment for another 6 years.
They’ve got dirt on Lindsey. Totally fabulous dirt.
(
Last edited by reader50; Sep 20, 2020 at 07:46 PM.
Reason: fixed an error in my quote)
fyi, I've removed my paragraph about Alabama. The senate election in Alabama is a regular election - winner to be seated in January. The other Senate special election is in Georgia. Which was held by a Republican, and expected to be won by a Republican. So that special election will not affect the Senate balance. Apologies for the error.
That’s what I was getting at by accusing her of running a protection racket. Mitch pays-up, and her “promises” conveniently go missing.
I don’t know about that. If she is, it’s the world’s most unsuccessful protection racket. In a protection racket you buy protection from the same party against wanton destruction. With Collins I just don’t see any danger whatsoever.
She never stuck her head out when it mattered, unlike, say, John McCain who singlehandedly killed the Republican’s (catastrophic) idea on healthcare “reform”. Voting against Kavanaugh would have been the equivalent. So McConnell knows she is a pushover. A more cynically minded person might say it was kabuki theater for her voters, but I don’t want to go that far.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I’ve been reading Coney Barrett’s stuff. She’d be like Roberts. I know that’s not ideal for everyone, but you could do a lot worse.
She won’t flip Roe or Casey, because she knows that would be a total shitshow. In fact, I’d say her personal opinion about abortion is at the cynical end of pro-choice.
Laughing at others' concerns fails to address them. I never worked in Kavanaugh's law office, so I have no personal knowledge. But the Senate only listened to the first witness, ignoring all the others. Apparently Kavanaugh's word (as a male) was worth more than their words (all female). My impression is the Senate held a sham investigation.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Sep 23, 2020, 12:50 PM
Remember everyone: A Democrat once did a thing that's bad. Because of this, pointing out that a Republican has done something bad has no merit and makes you a hypocrite, because we disregard context, magnitude, and responsibility when it comes to justifying continual support of Republicans.
The eternal mantra of Republicans:
"Democrats suck!"
But what about the objectively terrible actions of these Republicans?
"Both sides suck! (but I'm still voting Republican)"
Remember everyone: A Democrat once did a thing that's bad. Because of this, pointing out that a Republican has done something bad has no merit and makes you a hypocrite, because we disregard context, magnitude, and responsibility when it comes to justifying continual support of Republicans.
The eternal mantra of Republicans:
"Democrats suck!"
But what about the objectively terrible actions of these Republicans?
"Both sides suck! (but I'm still voting Republican)"
This is so general I don’t even know what it’s referring to.
oh, subego, the babylon bee? oh dear. that's where my cousin gets all his pro christian trump memes.
Are any of them any good? With the fake headlines I come across in the wild, I’d say 1 in 10 are gold, which is pretty damn good for right-wing, Christian comedy.
Laughing at others' concerns fails to address them. I never worked in Kavanaugh's law office, so I have no personal knowledge. But the Senate only listened to the first witness, ignoring all the others. Apparently Kavanaugh's word (as a male) was worth more than their words (all female). My impression is the Senate held a sham investigation.
They listened to Ford because she was willing to testify.
Ramirez refused. What should they have done instead?
Swetnick was so full of it, in the end, the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the DoJ to prosecute her.
Laughing at others' concerns fails to address them. I never worked in Kavanaugh's law office, so I have no personal knowledge. But the Senate only listened to the first witness, ignoring all the others. Apparently Kavanaugh's word (as a male) was worth more than their words (all female). My impression is the Senate held a sham investigation.
Well, in hindsight, Blasey Ford's story was made up. I don't believe the bandwagon accusations following her were ever credible. There were no coherent details and no proof.
Well, in hindsight, Blasey Ford's story was made up. I don't believe the bandwagon accusations following her were ever credible. There were no coherent details and no proof.
-t
I find what her friend claimed to be plausible. Ford was indeed the victim of an attempted rape, but her memory of it is faulty.
Well, in hindsight, Blasey Ford's story was made up. I don't believe the bandwagon accusations following her were ever credible. There were no coherent details and no proof.
-t
What proof would you expect to find for an incident that happened decades ago? In a time when rich, white, male republicans were even more likely to A) Get away with rape, and B) Shame the victim than they still are today?
Well, in hindsight, Blasey Ford's story was made up.
I have considered this but there is no coherent details and no proof so you just made it up.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
What proof would you expect to find for an incident that happened decades ago? In a time when rich, white, male republicans were even more likely to A) Get away with rape, and B) Shame the victim than they still are today?
I wouldn’t expect to find proof, but I’d expect to find people able to corroborate basic facts. Every single witness she named contradicted her.
Further, it is extremely unusual for a violent rapist not to make a habit of it. There wasn’t even hearsay to this effect.
I wouldn’t expect to find proof, but I’d expect to find people able to corroborate basic facts. Every single witness she named contradicted her.
Further, it is extremely unusual for a violent rapist not to make a habit of it. There wasn’t even hearsay to this effect.
He had two other accusers did he not?
She said there was four people there and two of them were implicated, the other two would not necessarily have witnessed anything memorable enough to indicate anything out of the ordinary took place.
She passed a polygraph test.
It was decades ago. I don't remember stuff that happened last week. And I wasn't drunk last week.
Going back to the pattern of behaviour, I don't know how wealthy his family was at the time but he has certainly been wealthy and influential for a long time by now. Don't such offenders typically pay off victims and witnesses? And/or intimidate them? Like the guy who nominated him for example.....
I'm not seeing a whole lot of convincing discrediting here.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Let me guess: you also still believe in the Russia collusion ?
The Senate intelligence committee believes in Russian collusion in the 2016 election. As that committee is majority Republican-controlled, I'm not sure how much more proof is needed. They determined that Paul Manafort (Trump's campaign manager) colluded with a Russian GRU agent, among many other contacts.
The report (PDF) has been released to the public, with some redactions.
Are you living in the past ? Have you not followed the various things that Durham / Barr have found ?
I can only shake my head. Propaganda indeed is effective. Repeat a lie long enough and it becomes “truth”.
In case you haven't heard: the Steel dossier in its entirety has been discredited.
Everything downhill from there was just a political act to hurt Trump.
That link goes to polling results in March 2019. ie - 18 months ago. The Senate report I linked is approximately one month ago (Aug 18, 2020).
The Reuters article covers polls taken after Barr released a deceptive summary of the Mueller report, while refusing to release the actual report. A story about polls does not prove or disprove much.
The Senate committee continued the investigation up to the present. Its' report is the latest version. And an assortment of Russians will be arrested if they set foot within US jurisdiction. Felony indictments are waiting for them.
Based on your loose standards of proof, you should be absolutely convinced that Biden is a serial women sniffer and groper.
Do you ?
-t
Probably. But hey, it doesn't matter if the president is a serial rapist does it? We're talking about the supreme court.
Under the circumstances there is more than enough evidence to call his suitability for the highest court into question. Shouldn't there be a really high standard for a position like that? I don't think we should need enough to get a conviction in this instance.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....