Kansas Crimson

No time to investigate, just confirm him ASAP! #winning

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:51 am No time to investigate, just confirm him ASAP! #winning

No, you have it wrong - confirm ASAP, then investigate the women.

oh yamy bad, you’re right bro #maga

Like I said, I'm up for an investigation. It just has to investigate the right people.

Up until last week, Ms. Ramirez couldn't even remember for sure if Brett Kavanaugh was at a party where something clearly traumatic happened to her. She admits to being blackout drunk and not remembering much else about the night in question. I'm not sure how one goes about investigating any of this, since -- as with Dr. Ford -- all of the witnesses named have denied any knowledge of events (in Ford's case, under penalty of perjury) and since the only corroborating "evidence" comes from an unnamed source who heard something sometime about someone. But if you have any ideas, you can certainly suggest them.

Otherwise this is patent partisan hackery.

^^^

and after we get done investigating those wimmin, let’s reopen the case on Crooked Hillary too.

#lockherup

One of my least favorite news person talking heads is Chuck Todd. But, he stated the simplest and probably most true thing about sexual assault and all kinds of behavior that usually isn't talked about in public last week, saying, "You really don't know anyone, you really can't say what goes on with them."

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:59 am ^^^

and after we get done investigating those wimmin, let’s reopen the case on Crooked Hillary too.

#lockherup

LOL, we all should realize that none of the above is going to happen.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:51 am Like I said, I'm up for an investigation. It just has to investigate the right people.

Up until last week, Ms. Ramirez couldn't even remember for sure if Brett Kavanaugh was at a party where something clearly traumatic happened to her. She admits to being blackout drunk and not remembering much else about the night in question. I'm not sure how one goes about investigating any of this, since -- as with Dr. Ford -- all of the witnesses named have denied any knowledge of events (in Ford's case, under penalty of perjury) and since the only corroborating "evidence" comes from an unnamed source who heard something sometime about someone. But if you have any ideas, you can certainly suggest them.

Otherwise this is patent partisan hackery.

I think it's pretty far-fetched to play the "both sides" game on this. Crudely, I think one side's "patent partisan hackery" is tactical, and the other side's is strategic. The existence of bad acts on the Democrats' side does not excuse a pre-judged, thoughtless rush to appoint question-mark-pocked nominee.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:59 am ^^^

and after we get done investigating those wimmin, let’s reopen the case on Crooked Hillary too.

#lockherup

If by "wimmin" you mean Diane Feinstein, then, once again, I'm with ya.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:19 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:51 am Like I said, I'm up for an investigation. It just has to investigate the right people.

Up until last week, Ms. Ramirez couldn't even remember for sure if Brett Kavanaugh was at a party where something clearly traumatic happened to her. She admits to being blackout drunk and not remembering much else about the night in question. I'm not sure how one goes about investigating any of this, since -- as with Dr. Ford -- all of the witnesses named have denied any knowledge of events (in Ford's case, under penalty of perjury) and since the only corroborating "evidence" comes from an unnamed source who heard something sometime about someone. But if you have any ideas, you can certainly suggest them.

Otherwise this is patent partisan hackery.

I think it's pretty far-fetched to play the "both sides" game on this. Crudely, I think one side's "patent partisan hackery" is tactical, and the other side's is strategic. The existence of bad acts on the Democrats' side does not excuse a pre-judged, thoughtless rush to appoint question-mark-pocked nominee.

I mean...you know that the time from nomination to hearings for Kavanaugh was roughly fifty percent longer than for any of Obama'a appointments, right?

You also know that Senator Feinstein and Congreswoman Eshoo sat on the letter from Dr. Ford for more than six weeks, with the explicit intention of scuttling the process at the last minute?

I don't mind the demands for investigation. And I agree that Dr. Ford should have her story heard, at a bare minimum. But this trite talking point about a "pre-judged thoughtless rush" is frankly absurd and insulting. There never was a "rush." The pretense that there was is purely revenge-driven, the hope that the tables can be turned on the GOP for not consenting to Garland.

There's no "both sides' to this at all. One side declined to consent to an appointment, while the other has decided to scorch the earth.

I mean, there is a Merrick Garland-shaped glass house in which there's presently a lot of rock-fighting.

It is ludicrous to say there isn't a rush to confirm Kavanaugh, to "plow through" the proceedings, one might say. You cannot tell me that, were the midterms not right around the corner, there would be the same naked pre-judgment and willful disregard for a lot of very red flags.

Look, Raj Shah can't even pretend to bother to care: “We firmly believe in Judge Kavanaugh,” Shah said during an appperance on MSNBC. “We believe in his nomination. We think that he’s going to make a fantastic Supreme Court justice. .. We’re moving forward.”

They think he's going to be make a fantastic Supreme Court justice. That's all it's about. Which is, to use a popular phrase, sad.

It is ludicrous to say there isn't a rush to confirm Kavanaugh, to "plow through" the proceedings, one might say.

That's just patently false. Kavanaugh is now more than a week past the median wait time from nomination to vote.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:41 pm It is ludicrous to say there isn't a rush to confirm Kavanaugh, to "plow through" the proceedings, one might say.

That's just patently false. Kavanaugh is now more than a week past the median wait time from nomination to vote.

8 days past the median wait time from nomination to vote, oh the inhumanity! The man's life has been hanging in the balance!

What's the count on Garland?

Speaking of calculations, how convenient that Kennedy decided to retire just in time to get this done before the midterms. Maybe it was a miscalculation?

When it comes to not playing nice about scotus picks, GOP set the precedent.

to shrug off the Garland treatment then cry foul about this is, well, lulz?

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:54 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:41 pm It is ludicrous to say there isn't a rush to confirm Kavanaugh, to "plow through" the proceedings, one might say.

That's just patently false. Kavanaugh is now more than a week past the median wait time from nomination to vote.

8 days past the median wait time from nomination to vote, oh the inhumanity! The man's life has been hanging in the balance!

What's the count on Garland?

Speaking of calculations, how convenient that Kennedy decided to retire just in time to get this done before the midterms. Maybe it was a miscalculation?

Nobody said his life was hanging in the balance. Only that the "rushed" argument is untrue.

As for Kennedy, you disapprove of people who retire at the end of the Court's term? You'd rather they walk out in the middle? Or maybe just die, like Scalia did?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:02 pm When it comes to not playing nice about scotus picks, GOP set the precedent.

lulz

This guy says "fuck you!"

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:03 pm

As long as we're clear: You (and Ousie) don't really care how it's done, just so long as you get payback?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:02 pm When it comes to not playing nice about scotus picks, GOP set the precedent.

to shrug off the Garland treatment then cry foul about this is, well, lulz?

IIRC, nobody called Garland a drunk or a rapist. They just said "No, thanks." Not even close to the same thing.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:19 pm

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:03 pm

As long as we're clear: You (and Ousie) don't really care how it's done, just so long as you get payback?

Exhibit A

http://static2.businessinsider.com/imag ... 327996.jpg