All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[JCAll]

There was a reason not to confirm Garland. They had the votes, and didn't want the court to go left. It was also less than an year prior to the presidential election, so they figured they could get away with it.

With reasons like "Because I can, and no one can stop me", are you starting to understand why some people are pants-shitting terrified of the GOP?

[zinderel]

There was a reason not to confirm Garland. They had the votes, and didn't want the court to go left. It was also less than an year prior to the presidential election, so they figured they could get away with it.

And here, Mets admits that party before people is a valid way to govern, and that he sees nothing morally or ethically wrong with it.

The argument on the investigation is that it's a waste of time, and that should the investigation turn up nothing, Democrats might try to take advantage of new political circumstances, especially if they take back the Senate.

Wait, so...Democrats might take advantage of a political scandal to get what they want...? STOP THE PRESSES! You suddenly have a problem with that, when it's Democrats doing it, but have no problem when it's your own party? Shocker.

This is a false dichotomy, as there are two alternatives (not knowing enough to say one way or the other, accepting the possibility she is mistaken.)

There is a rhetorical trick that I've noticed in arguments that is very unwelcome, where an ordinary word is given a new definition, but the connotations of the older definition are applied to someone making a more nuanced point.

When someone is lying, it means they are unintentionally spreading falsehoods.

No. Lying is deliberately telling a falsehood. A mistake is when you unintentionally spread a falsehood.

Example: 'I walked the dog today.' If you didn't walk the dog today, but say that you did, that is a lie.
'Matthew Perry plays Madea.' If you can't remember the actors name, but go with something close, that is a mistake.

Lying is not a mistake. It is a deliberate choice, a deliberate action. Republicans are not accusing Dr. Ford of a 'mistake'. They are accusing her of LYING. Despite her - and Ms. Swetnick - wanting a full investigation into the situation. Liars rarely ask for MORE investigations, Mets. Liars try to obstruct investigations, like your boy Kavanaugh and his defenders are doing when they aren't harassing and delivering death thrests to rape victims. See the difference?

The Vox article on the science of the mind has nothing to do with the gender of an individual making a statement years later.

No, and Paul wasn't referring to a Vox article in his speculation, he was clearly referring to real world mysogyny on display by your party, and it's tendency to listen to men and ignore - or attack - women.

You seem to still be doing ad hominem comments, rather than responding to the specific points. If we're talking about individual habits, I'm more likely to criticize my party from the center, and I'm pretty careful to use sources that aren't notoriously biased in favor of my group. Can you say the same for people for the liberals on the thread?

Is it an ad hominem attack to make an assertion based on evidence? Your posting history is VERY clear about where you stand on matters, and pointing that out is...hardly an attack. Nor is making a reasonable assumption based on past history.

An ad hominem would be if I called you 'a goddamn lying piece of shit Nazi rapist'. I wouldn't do that, and I don't believe you to be any of that, AND I doubt anyone else here does either. I think you are demonstrably wrong about a LOT of things, I think you move goal posts when you don't like the answer you get to a question, I think you avoid salient points that others make by playing at the socratic method to distract from what makes you uncomfortable. I think you argue disingenuously in defense of your party because you refuse to accept that you are supporting a criminal organization disguised as a political party. But I also think you are smart enough to know where to insert a question or comment to start a tangent, articulate in presenting your thoughts (even if I disagree with them), and clever enough to twist words into whatever shape you need them to fit to throw a monkeywrench into a conversation going a direction you don't like.

What you call ad hominem attacks, I see as passionate disagreement and frustration at your willful blindness to your party's wickedness and corrupt core.

[aja_christopher]

And here, Mets admits that party before people is a valid way to govern, and that he sees nothing morslly or ethically wrong with it.

One of the most telling "conservative" traits is a lack of real empathy for others.

Granted, that's disputable, but it puts everything in context (attacks on the civil and voting rights of "minorities", "illegal" child internment, lack of universal health care, LGBT discrimination, Islamophobia, food benefit reduction, etc).

Of course, if you lack empathy, then you likewise probably don't see a problem with lacking empathy, which is why it has to hit them hard as well (tarriffs and price hikes, for instance) before they understand the problem.

[zinderel]

One of the most telling "conservative" traits is a lack of real empathy for others.

Granted, that's disputable, but it puts everything in context (attacks on the civil and voting rights of "minorities", "illegal" child internment, lack of universal health care, LGBT discrimination, Islamophobia, food benefit reduction, etc).

Precisely. Mets is CLEARLY a smart man, and capable of nuanced thought and expression, but in all the time I have spent on this forum, I have not seen an ounce of empathy towards victims or the oppressed, only gamesmanship and running flak for his party, and that's disturbing, but...not unexpected.

[aja_christopher]

Precisely. Mets is CLEARLY a smart man, and capable of nuanced thought and expression, but in all the time I have spent on this forum, I have not seen an ounce of empathy towards victims or the oppressed, only gamesmanship and running flak for his party, and that's disturbing, but...not unexpected.

I set my watch by it at this point.

It's all just a political game for some people... until it finally hits home.

[Malvolio]

Well yeah, but they can. There was no reason to not confirm Garland, but they could, so they did. They view this shit as an ends justifies the means game. To them getting conservative control on the Supreme Court, getting Roe v Wade overturned after fighting for decades for it, and getting some conservative rulings on modern landmark cases is more important than making sure one of the guys facilitating it is of the best moral character.

Here's kind of a psychological philosophy, traditional people who lie tend to think everyone lies, people who cheat on their spouse tend to think everyone cheats. Republicans are amoral and view politics as a game and they tend to think everyone is amoral and views politics as a game.

There was no chance in hell they were going to allow an investigation if they thought it had any chance of hurting him getting confirmed. They merely did it so they can have a counter to the Democrats ("we did what you asked") and to give some cover to some more vulnerable members. He would be on the court right now if they thought an FBI investigation couldn't be contained to a fixed time period.

It is human nature to believe that others believe the same way you do. So Republicans lie and cheat to get what they want and believe that Democrats will do the same. But the difference is that liberals see politics as a necessary evil, while conservatives see politics as a game that they actually enjoy playing.

[numberthirty]

Something that sticks out about the "Swetnick" piece of this puzzle...

Unless I misunderstood the initial coverage, folks were saying that there was not a statute of limitation on the doctor's accusation if she had been raped.

If that is the case, is there a reason why they haven't tried to have state charges filed over the Swetnick accusation? From what I've read/seen, she is saying Kavanaugh was present when she was raped and that Avenatti has vetted the accusation.

[InformationGeek]

Well this saves me the time of waiting. Screw you Graham.

During an interview on 60 Minutes that is set to air Sunday night, Graham appeared with Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.

“Could either of you change your mind depending on what the FBI report comes back with?” host John Dickerson wondered.

“Of course,” Kennedy replied as Graham stared at him intently.

“Open mind?” Dickerson pressed.

“Of course,” Kennedy repeated. “I said going into the hearing, I’ve talked to Judge Kavanaugh. I called him after this happened, the allegations came out, [and I] said, ‘Did you do it?’ He was resolute, determined, unequivocal.”

Graham suggested that he had set the bar much higher for changing his mind.

“My mind’s made up about Brett Kavanaugh and it would take a dynamite accusation,” Graham opined. “Because, here’s the deal, Dr. Ford, I don’t know what happened but I know this, Brett denied it vigorously and everybody she named couldn’t verify it, it’s 36 years old.”

“I don’t see anything new changing [my mind],” he concluded.

[Mister Mets]

1. That's not a reason, that's a means. There's a difference. Based off how we the court has been handled for a long time now, there was no reason to not confirm Garland even if the Republicans didn't want to turn the court left. The proper and expected thing was always to confirm him. The Republicans used the new Senate rules as a way to manufacture a bs reason. And contrary to what you pointed out, there stated reason was "an election is coming up, the people should have a say". Which was never a consideration for this. And they held up the confirmation and absurd number of days just so they could get a conservative i there.

2. Yeah the argument against the investigation is a time based one. They don't want to wait because it hurts their chances of getting it done before someone can stop it.

The key point is none of those are good reasons. The Republicans acted in bad faith with Garland and broke protocol as part of a political man

---

euver.

I may have been unclear. The reason wasn't that they could. The reason was that they disagreed with him politically.

The "they had the votes" part was in contrast to Democrats, half of whom voted against Roberts and most of whom voted against Alito, but lacked the votes to get any substantial concessions.

With reasons like "Because I can, and no one can stop me", are you starting to understand why some people are pants-shitting terrified of the GOP?

See above. My bad.

Precisely. Mets is CLEARLY a smart man, and capable of nuanced thought and expression, but in all the time I have spent on this forum, I have not seen an ounce of empathy towards victims or the oppressed, only gamesmanship and running flak for his party, and that's disturbing, but...not unexpected.

I've talked about the oppressed and expressed concern on occasion, although I don't do it as often as others. The main reasons are that I don't see a need to talk about things everyone here probably agrees with, it doesn't get to the ways to make things better, and appeals to emotion have often been done by bad actors. Actions have unintended consequences, and things that fix one problem can ultimately end up causing more harm.

Something that sticks out about the "Swetnick" piece of this puzzle...

Unless I misunderstood the initial coverage, folks were saying that there was not a statute of limitation on the doctor's accusation if she had been raped.

If that is the case, is there a reason why they haven't tried to have state charges filed over the Swetnick accusation? From what I've read/seen, she is saying Kavanaugh was present when she was raped and that Avenatti has vetted the accusation.

That's a good point. They could go to the local prosecutor, and give a list of witnesses/ perpetrators.

[numberthirty]

That's a good point. They could go to the local prosecutor, and give a list of witnesses/ perpetrators.

While I could see people not wanting to come forward, this person has.

It seems like a straight path to an investigation where the possibility of the FBI not doing a really complete investigation is out the window. Just take them out of the equation.

It could also create a case for impeachment should he wind up being put on the court.

[aja_christopher]

(Deleted.)

[Carabas]

While I could see people not wanting to come forward, this person has.

It seems like a straight path to an investigation where the possibility of the FBI not doing a really complete investigation is out the window. Just take them out of the equation.

It could also create a case for impeachment should he wind up being put on the court.

Gosh, you make it sound like getting conviction on a rape case in even the best of circumstances with tons of credible witnesses and even video of the crime is easy.

[Tami]

Something that sticks out about the "Swetnick" piece of this puzzle...

Unless I misunderstood the initial coverage, folks were saying that there was not a statute of limitation on the doctor's accusation if she had been raped.

If that is the case, is there a reason why they haven't tried to have state charges filed over the Swetnick accusation? From what I've read/seen, she is saying Kavanaugh was present when she was raped and that Avenatti has vetted the accusation.

An investigation could take a long time, the Senate Republicans could push through Kavanaugh's nominiation in much less time. Avenatti and his client have taken the position that, once on the Supreme Court, Kavanugh would be harder to prosecute. If he he doesn't get the position, it will be easier for them to press legal charges later.

[numberthirty]

Gosh, you make it sound like getting conviction on a rape case in even the best of circumstances with tons of credible witnesses and even video of the crime is easy.

Entirely separate issue.

My mom was raped. The folks involved were tried, and never did a day of time. Obviously, a conviction is never a foregone conclusion.

That said, they have been talking in terms of wanting an investigation. While it's not the investigation that they seem to want, a state level investigation would be one that they can probably get.

[numberthirty]

An investigation could take a long time, the Senate Republicans could push through Kavanaugh's nominiation in much less time. Avenatti and his client have taken the position that, once on the Supreme Court, Kavanugh would be harder to prosecute. If he he doesn't get the position, it will be easier for them to press legal charges later.

If any of the elements of her accusation actually warrant any sort of a state/local level investigation, isn't it less likely that he would wind up being confirmed?