Re: SCOTUS Watch
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:53 am
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.“The way they really tortured him and his family, I thought it was a disgrace. I thought it was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen. So I have been hearing that, that now they’re thinking of impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax, that was set up by the democrats. Using the democrats’ lawyers…”
“It was all made up. It was fabricated. And it’s a disgrace. I think it’s going to really show you something come November 6th.”
No, no, no. We're just disagreeing.
Will have to look this up and get context later when I have time. The newslet talks about Ford before and after quote. But do not say how POtuS draws Ford from this quote. He's a piece of shit and you damned well that's the inference being set up but is the inference being set up by him or by a quote out of context.Skinypupy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:13 pm While he's been strongly hinting at it, Trump is now just flat-out accusing Dr. Ford of making the whole thing up.
Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.“The way they really tortured him and his family, I thought it was a disgrace. I thought it was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen. So I have been hearing that, that now they’re thinking of impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax, that was set up by the democrats. Using the democrats’ lawyers…”
“It was all made up. It was fabricated. And it’s a disgrace. I think it’s going to really show you something come November 6th.”
The video is right there. Start at 2:26, he flat-out claims that all of the accusations are fabricated and made up.LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:28 pmWill have to look this up and get context later when I have time. The newslet talks about Ford before and after quote. But do not say how POtuS draws Ford from this quote. He's a piece of shit and you damned well that's the inference being set up but is the inference being set up by him or by a quote out of context.Skinypupy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:13 pm While he's been strongly hinting at it, Trump is now just flat-out accusing Dr. Ford of making the whole thing up.
Fuck this guy and every single person who supports this.“The way they really tortured him and his family, I thought it was a disgrace. I thought it was one of the most disgraceful performances I have ever seen. So I have been hearing that, that now they’re thinking of impeaching a brilliant jurist, a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax, that was set up by the democrats. Using the democrats’ lawyers…”
“It was all made up. It was fabricated. And it’s a disgrace. I think it’s going to really show you something come November 6th.”
In context, it's conceivable he is ripping the Democratic leadership for the way they handled while concurrently addressing the credibility other accusers, allowing the audience to conflate his meaning. It's not like he never ever ever does that. I think his cries of fake news, while not justified, require the author and reader to practically be lawyers when consuming news from or about this administration.
Feel better now?Paingod wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:28 pmNo, no, no. We're just disagreeing.
This is normal. /facepunch
This is normal. /facepunch
Just a disagreement. /kneegroin
Be cool. Just relax. /uppercut
We're in charge now. /throatchop
See? Just a little disagreement. Can't we be civil? The GOP isn't doing anything wrong. /roundhousekick
Personally, I'd be happy to have a reasonable *conservative* party as a counterbalance to whatever the Democrats become. But the Trumpist deplorable core that dominates the "Republican" primaries right now? Yep, I want 'em marginalized, ignored and stuffed back into whatever hole they came from.
I want to be part of that counterbalance (with a few very "progressive" exceptions and the recognition and a few commonsense ones too)geezer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:24 pm Personally, I'd be happy to have a reasonable *conservative* party as a counterbalance to whatever the Democrats become. But the Trumpist deplorable core that dominates the "Republican" primaries right now? Yep, I want 'em marginalized, ignored and stuffed back into whatever hole they came from.
Problem is that it can't win without the deplorables.Kraken wrote:Another center-right party will emerge eventually, whether from the ashes of the GOP or anew. But the GOP has to fall before that can happen. The way things are going now, that might take a very long time.
Yeah. What was I thinking? Trump and his GOP loyalists and enablers and the significant portion of the population that supports them are so irredeemably evil, why bother critically examining anything that is said or done so long as it’s in furtherance of the Resistance? It’s time to focus on the ends. To hell with consideration of the means. Just a bunch of “both sides” crap, right?GreenGoo wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:42 pm Yawn.
Call me when Sepiche has access to the WH twitter account.
Until then keep your "both sides" crap to yourself while the GOP prez is busy victim shaming a sexual assault victim to the whole world because she messed with his political SCOTUS nomination, which was his least shameful thing he did this week while representing your country.
When he gets reeled in, then we can talk about who's doing more damage to politics in that country. Otherwise leave Sepiche be. I think he's earned his spite.
Call it what you will: whataboutism, moral equivalence, two-wrongs. There are a thousand names for it, but one idea: my side is not subject to the same moral laws as the other guy. There are excusing factors. The gigantic scale of the other guy’s mistakes make mine irrelevant.
But this is nonsense. “Whataboutism” is a propaganda term. There’s not one law for the goose and one for the gander. Moral rules apply across the board. That’s what makes them rules. Crime is crime. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, wherever it applies.
...
What we cannot do, what we should not do, is junk the search for moral truth as “moral equivalence.” The accusation of “whataboutism” is different than context-hunting: it dismisses out of hand the possibility of moral critique. It rejects the idea that moral comparison is possible. But when we speak of power, moral comparison must always be possible.
...
It will be true when the Democrats are in power again, and when Donald Trump is retired – or, hopefully, in prison. It will be true when the next far-right jackass takes the White House, and makes Trump look dignified in comparison. It will be true when America is no longer powerful, and some other country has its hands on the wheel. That’s the nice part about ethical truth: it doesn’t go away when it stops being convenient for you and yours. Now, what about that?
I wouldn't call them irredeemably evil - but I do feel they're completely selfish and opposed to the way humanity needs to move as a whole for the world to get beyond infighting and into the next stage of social evolution, where humanity has a shot at surviving a global cataclysmic event, like another meteor strike.
Was it repealing EPA rules to protect wildlife? Was it trying to kill ACA? Was it ripping families apart at the border? Is it trying to cut off the flow of refugees coming into the country? Was it pouring trillions into the pockets of the super-rich? Was it installing a proven liar and possible sex offender into the highest court in the land? Was it saying liberals killed by right-wing racists during a protest were partly to blame for their own deaths? Was it releasing a memo basically saying "The world is fucked, let's party" in regards to climate change? Is it our orange baby-man leader picking on victims of sexual assault, mocking handicapped people, shitting on our allies, destroying trade agreements, envying dictators? Is it covering up or ignoring his thousands of lies? Is it trying to marginalize his scandals and crimes? Is it the way they're claiming liberals want to burn the world while they're pouring gasoline on everything?
This is ultimately the problem - whatever is happening here is happening all over the world right now. It is happening in the UK. It is happening in Eastern Europe. The world is re-ordering itself along ghastly mostly authoritarian lines and many people are simply not getting it. They keep using the norms of the past to measure this era. And that is naive now. This whole ordeal proved that. There was almost no way Kavanaugh makes it through a confirmation process pre-2016.Paingod wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:53 amI wouldn't call them irredeemably evil - but I do feel they're completely selfish and opposed to the way humanity needs to move as a whole for the world to get beyond infighting and into the next stage of social evolution, where humanity has a shot at surviving a global cataclysmic event, like another meteor strike.
I'm with you on this anger too. Your excellent list left off a big one which was that the goddamn President of the United States is on tape basically espousing he is ok with sexually assaulting people and a dozen women came forward to complain about his conduct too. We are living with monsters of human beings running the world, which admittedly is probably not entirely new, but they were at least shackled by social convention. Now they are pretty much off the hook. What conduct is off the table? We can't know because we never find a bottom. Yet we are supposed to worry about the people without power? I don't know about that.Was it repealing EPA rules to protect wildlife? Was it trying to kill ACA? Was it ripping families apart at the border? Is it trying to cut off the flow of refugees coming into the country? Was it pouring trillions into the pockets of the super-rich? Was it installing a proven liar and possible sex offender into the highest court in the land? Was it saying liberals killed by right-wing racists during a protest were partly to blame for their own deaths? Was it releasing a memo basically saying "The world is fucked, let's party" in regards to climate change? Is it our orange baby-man leader picking on victims of sexual assault, mocking handicapped people, shitting on our allies, destroying trade agreements, envying dictators? Is it covering up or ignoring his thousands of lies? Is it trying to marginalize his scandals and crimes? Is it the way they're claiming liberals want to burn the world while they're pouring gasoline on everything?
What, exactly, is the GOP doing right now that warrants critical examination?
Yes, I'm angry. That doesn't preclude me from wanting to see a silver lining somewhere. I'm just not seeing it, is all. Please show me.
It is pretty fantastical to think the GOP will ever be a sane, functioning party again too. Looking down the timeline into the future what mechanism will feasibly restrain them? Here is a basic war game on this. An ever shrinking minority will likely retain control of the Senate. The House will likely switch hands but will that remain so through 2020? That will come down to redistricting which will be happening generally under the supervision of a possibly partisan Supreme court. Maybe the Dems eventually get control the House in a semi-permanent or stable state for a near future. Then there will almost certainly be war between the chambers. As we saw with Obama, the President often then steps into the leadership void. That isn't a great future either because the Presidency probably will still teeter back and forth. And the electoral college is still balanced in favor of the shrinking minority. Add in that any Presidential action is generally ephemeral via the rules making processes at the moment. That is horrendous for policy continuation reasons and stable governance but still better than the alternative which is autocracy. Either way this set of circumstances hardly speaks to a restraining force on the GOP to be sane. They face little meaningful competition on the whole.Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:04 amOn (1), we need two sane, functioning political parties for our system to work. Until there’s some hint that there’s a viable third party option, the GOP is what we’ve got to deal with. Talk of leaving it in a smoldering heap of ash is both fantastical and counter-productive.
This is a misrepresentation of McConnell's (terrible) position. His "policy" is that when POTUS and the Senate are of different parties, no SCOTUS nominees should be discussed during an election year. 2020 would be POTUS and Senate (if McConnell is still in charge) of the same party, so 2016's "tradition" wouldn't apply.
Maybe, but I don't think that's true. Who do you foresee seizing and abusing power like that on the Dem side? Pelosi? She's not half as ruthless, despite Rep assurances that she's twice as bad. She makes deals with the other side of the aisle all the time. At least she calls out bullshit when she sees it, which is more than I can say for most politicians on either side.
I think this is a direct outcome of politics but more importantly conflict making for profitable media, and that conflict being stoked by media organizations. Decades and decades of us vs. them reporting. Fox news absolutely tells their viewers what to think about the news they report. I'm sure other organizations do too, although I don't think it's fair to say that other organizations are as guilty of it as Fox is, and that's not even talking about the more outrageous right wing blogs and personalities that are used by more main stream media to get their message out there, and spring board off of them.
Has there been an escalation I didn't miss, or did this just rocket out of right field? I mean - like - did the Right say "1.5" and then the Left said "1.75" so the Right said "2.0" and the Left Said "2.3" and then the Right went all "11.2" ... or was it more gradual? I feel like Trump and the GOP just turned it up to 11 since 2016, but things before that were like pissing back and forth - normal politics.
It is only a 'misrepresentation' of the *latest version* which of course changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. The change about a different President he just made up on the fly *again* this week. The below is from an interview during the Gorsuch nomination process in 2017.pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:06 pmThis is a misrepresentation of McConnell's (terrible) position. His "policy" is that when POTUS and the Senate are of different parties, no SCOTUS nominees should be discussed during an election year. 2020 would be POTUS and Senate (if McConnell is still in charge) of the same party, so 2016's "tradition" wouldn't apply.
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: You don’t fill Supreme Court vacancies in the middle of a presidential election. That’s what Joe Biden said back in 1992. And he’s the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
CHUCK TODD: So is this the policy? Should that be the policy?
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: We knew exactly —
CHUCK TODD: Should that be the policy going forward? Are you prepared to pass a resolution that says, “In election years, any Supreme Court vacancy,” and have it to be the sense of a Senate resolution that say, “No Supreme Court nominations will be considered in any even-numbered year.” Is that where we’re headed?
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL: Chuck, with all due respect, that’s an absurd question. We were right in the middle of a presidential election year. Everybody knew that neither side, had the shoe been on the other foot, would have filled it. But that has nothing to do with what we’re voting on this year. Why don’t we talk about what we’re voting on this week. And that’s this extraordinarily well-qualified nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.
I'm far from a political historian, but over the last few years I've come to believe that this is all the culmination of a movement that started in the 1970s (possibly earlier), with respect to the ultimate direction of our country. I think that having Obama elected was the lightning strike that was needed to finally galvanize the deplorables into mask-off Trump fever in 2015/16.
GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:26 pmMaybe, but I don't think that's true. Who do you foresee seizing and abusing power like that on the Dem side? Pelosi? She's not half as ruthless, despite Rep assurances that she's twice as bad. She makes deals with the other side of the aisle all the time. At least she calls out bullshit when she sees it, which is more than I can say for most politicians on either side.
Maybe.
Perhaps. I think it was certainly a stepping stone. Between the Iraq war and passing an irresponsible tax cut, they were able to con the traditional conservatives and steamroll the liberals.GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:28 pmMaybe.
I think there's a reason we're talking about this now and not during Obama's stint, or even Bush's stint (I fully admit we talked about his misleading the country re:starting a shooting war in Iraq) although I'm sure the Rips and Msd's of the world see it differently. I think objectively though, that the two are not equatable.
I threw in a bit more in my original post.noxiousdog wrote: ↑Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:31 pm Perhaps. I think it was certainly a stepping stone. Between the Iraq war and passing an irresponsible tax cut, they were able to con the traditional conservatives and steamroll the liberals.