Res Ipsa wrote:Every time Grassley etc. selectively released information that they felt would help K.
And you are changing the subject in Ramirez. If, as you said, the FBI interviewed the guy who told the other guy, then the contents of that leak were leaked by a Republican.
Do you have a specific example of the leaks you refer to? This sounds more like sour grapes. Ds leaked. Ds misrepresented confidential material in possession. To set the record straight Relief Society would continuously release new information both as they received it and as it was relevant to allow the public to evaluate allegations.
Re Ramirez, I believe I misspoke there. Stuff got jumbled in the radio commentary. I'm not sure if FBI spoke to the particular person cited by the New Yorker or not. It would appear not so. But also not relevant or necessary, by their own account. FBI talked to Ramirez and followed that rabbit hole to 4-5 other people and called it done.
As a reminder, for those arguing the "FBI investigation" is insufficient. Ford can stroll into Maryland PD offices any time she likes and file paperwork. She has even been extended an invitation by them to do so, who have said publicly that statute of limitations isn't expired and that they would open an investigation. Have fun. Then you can get the man impeached, disbarred, and jailed. These are nothing but delay tactics. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. Even Amy Schumer.
EAllusion wrote:Kanavaugh is reliably partisan. His rant is a virtue for what they want, not a vice.
We're heading quickly to a reality that a President gets whomever they want on the bench when their party controls the Senate and nothing when they don't. We're also heading quickly to a reality where a tiny % of the population controls the vast majority of the Senate due to disparities in population unforeseen in the 1700's. That disparity by historical coincidence is strongly favoring Republicans. Democrats keep lucking into good election cycles for the Senate, but Republicans have a substantial edge in the partisan Senate math now. The net result of those two trends is a realistic chance Republicans dominate the courts.
A more hidden trend is that conservative jurisprudence keeps getting more radical. There's a feedback loop where conservative legal theorists seeming out there chases away young intellectuals, which further concentrates the radicalism, which chases away even more intellectuals. The pool of people who are naturally qualified to be judges is overwhelmingly liberal, but Republicans get half, and maybe much more than that in the future, of all appointments. It's like affirmative action for conservative radicalism. It's not implausible that in the not too distant future, a small minority of the population is controlling the US court system with unusually conservative legal views. That feels dangerous for the health of the democracy.
This is interesting. How do you see "conservative legal theorists" chasing away "intellectuals?" Also, how do you define a "conservative" legal theorist?
I don't disagree that the Senate may be shaping in conservative favor. Too early to tell, but I can go along with the outlook as far as comparing House vs. Senate electoral dynamics. You categorize this as leading to a kind of "affirmative action" because the courts will be controlled in a way that is less democratic. But, isn't that a feature, not a bug? Which is to say, as designed? The Senate was given authority over judicial nominees for a reason... you seem to be lamenting that and wishing that it were the House instead? Because it's more dynamic and affected by population shifts. That instability is precisely why the authority was left with the Senate, because it's the more stable body.
Res Ipsa wrote:In one of these threads, you made the claim that there are far more false claims of sexual assault than real ones, and obviously so. I asked you how you got to that conclusion, but I don’t think you responded. Would you mind doing so?
I think you have that one backward. As far as the rest goes I don't really know what to tell you. You have your perspective and I have mine. Personally, I think there are posters on this forum with HUGE blindspots, but I don't really know what to say to people who can never, under any circumstance, admit they might be wrong. I'm not including you on that last statement, but it's fairly obvious who they are.
- Doc
You’re right. I read it backwards. My apologies.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Every time Grassley etc. selectively released information that they felt would help K.
And you are changing the subject in Ramirez. If, as you said, the FBI interviewed the guy who told the other guy, then the contents of that leak were leaked by a Republican.
Do you have a specific example of the leaks you refer to? This sounds more like sour grapes. Ds leaked. Ds misrepresented confidential material in possession. To set the record straight Relief Society would continuously release new information both as they received it and as it was relevant to allow the public to evaluate allegations.
Re Ramirez, I believe I misspoke there. Stuff got jumbled in the radio commentary. I'm not sure if FBI spoke to the particular person cited by the New Yorker or not. It would appear not so. But also not relevant or necessary, by their own account. FBI talked to Ramirez and followed that rabbit hole to 4-5 other people and called it done.
As a reminder, for those arguing the "FBI investigation" is insufficient. Ford can stroll into Maryland PD offices any time she likes and file paperwork. She has even been extended an invitation by them to do so, who have said publicly that statute of limitations isn't expired and that they would open an investigation. Have fun. Then you can get the man impeached, disbarred, and jailed. These are nothing but delay tactics. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. Even Amy Schumer.
LOL. When a Democrat selectively releases information it’s a leak. When an R does it, it’s just setting the record straight. Got it.
Yeah, you “misspoke.” You breathlessly reported two things about the FBI investigative report that were flat ass wrong. And, not coincidentally, you misspoke in favor of your stated position. And it’s not the first time. You rush in here like a big ole puppy tripping over his big ole paws, yapping about the latest bone you’ve dug up on Fox or Breitbart or wherever. And when someone shows you that it’s a turd and not a bone, you don’t even pause. You just run back to WND or wherever and reappear with a new “bone.”
What’s on our plate isn’t a criminal investigation. It’s whether to give K a lifetime appointnent on the nation’s highest court. There is no reason on earth why the FBI couldn’t have interviewed the two parties, then followed up with interviewing potential corroborating witnesses. But I think they couldn’t for the same reason Graham threw his phony hissy fit— The Relief Society know that K lied to the committee under oath, but they won’t let a little thing like that rob them of a win.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Water Dog wrote:Truth be told I didn't pay attention to any of this pre-Ford. I started to pay attention at the very beginning, but then Democrats engaged in those procedural shenanigans. Drowning out discussion with noise and interruptions, constantly invoking motions and such in the middle of questioning just to be obnoxious. I watched in awe for like 30 minutes, shook my head, and never paid attention again until the Ford stuff.
If somewhere in the first 30ish hours of questioning Kavanaugh lied about something, I have no idea what that's about. Given how the latest round has gone I doubt there's any truth to it. I'm sure partisan people "think" he lied about something, a subjective interpretation of some case he was involved with. An absurd line of questioning from a grandstanding senator trying to set a trap and get reelection soundbites.
Yes, it is blazingly obvious that you haven't been paying attention to the main point of my OP, and the subsequent posts that addressed that point, that point being that Kavanaugh has been caught lying under oath to Senate hearings on several occasions. That much is convincingly established, regardless of the merits of Christine Blasey Ford's accusation of sexual assault. The desperation of the Republicans and Trump to undermine the credibility of her accusation and even her character is, in large part, a disingenuous attempt to deflect attention from the much more firmly established but embarrassing fact of Kavanaugh's previous dishonesty before the Senate. Even Judge Stevens' expressed opinion of Kavanaugh's unsuitability for Supreme Court had nothing to do with the alleged sexual assault.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
We're at a point now where arguing with "conservatives" is tantamount to a debate with creationists. It's a waste of time to argue with delusional people, and it only serves to legitimize their idiotic perspective.
Drumpf fans are dishonest people who think poorly. They do not deserve to be considered seriously, except in a laboratory. They are dragging down the discourse in this country. Every time you answer one of their moronic questions, another cluster of brain cells dies.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
