Inkbunny

In the extreme conspiracy theories I have heard, one involves a Time Traveler from 2038. And he spoke of this happening and Kavanaugh being put onto the supreme court by a slim margin. But then he spoke off Congress (being led by the Democrats) trying to impeach Trump after the election and many of them lost their seats so in a last ditch effort they tried to drag his ass down. It would fail and he would be reelected again and be more powerful than he is now. Then they would try to start civil war, which the Time traveler is trying to stop.

In my "dream", this war starts when somebody drives a tank onto the steps of congressional hall. Though this has happened before, (in the case of WWII, which as a demonstration of one tank over another and one vehicle over another - a tank and a jeep were driven up the steps of Congressional Hall. These two "items" became the defacto equipment standard in WWII.

It sickens me that the Dems would take it this far. But, as I call it - this is the "Age of Lillith," where women think they are empowered enough to try to overthrow man by any means necessary - including creating false stories of what happened years ago in order to disrepute the man. My favorite commentary on this was from Allisha Melanio (?spelling) when she was quoted in saying "The FBI did not interview me! They should have, and I would have given my OPINION ON THE MATTER and WHAT THEY SHOULD DO!" Well, Ms. Melanio - the FBI is interested in Truths and not Opinions.

Because of this, things are going to change, and for the worse. In trying to make a step forward, women are going to find out that they are going to slip back several steps. That is going to be a sad day when people realize what has happened.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ ElfenSciuridae

Not only what has happened, but what they actively made happen.
Tale solace in that, Hillary had less women vote for her than Obama did. xD

ElfenSciuridae

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

Hilary's mistake was to follow bad advice from Obama - "Get the majority vote from these 12 or so cities, and you will capture the electoral vote for that state!" It worked for Obama - twice! It failed for Hilary because those outside these cities realized that their vote did count and voted against her.

If it were a popular vote - all she needed was to win those 12 cities and she would have won the election. But because 12 cities does not represent the entire nation, Hilary lost. That is why we have the Electoral Vote, as it spreads out the vote across the nation and not concentrate them within the large population centers.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

I genuinely don't give much of a piss about Ford's testimony. You are right, that's clearly in the realm of he said she said. I'm far more concerned about how unfit he is to sit on the supreme court for other reasons.

Documents have come out that affirm Kavanaugh's hostility towards the separation of Church and State. He believes that the Constitution requires public funding for religious activities and fought to allow taxpayer-funded organizations to use religion to discriminate Americans under the Bush administration. Link

Senator Kamala Harris asked Kavanaugh whether or not he had discussed the Mueller investigation with President Trump's attorney's law firm but Kavanaugh refused to answer several times until he was saved by Republican Senator Lee who interrupted Senator Harris's line of questioning.Link

Kavanaugh refused to recuse himself from investigations into President Trump multiple times.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse alleges Kavanaugh may have a gambling problem. Link

Moreover, Kavanaugh gave false testimony in 2004 and 2006 to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings for the appeals court [Link]

Lying and perpetuate behavior should be disqualifying behaviors for a judge - Even Judge Kavanaugh agrees so when he made a speech at Columbia Law School in 2015
The speech

His frankly somewhat tinfoil hat sounding theory presented at his testimony alone is going to cause appeals from cases he has tried in the past, as settled cases will use his words here to paint that his judgement had a bias when he made them. After his above statement I can't help feeling discomfort that he will be detached and unbiased when a case comes before him that has a liberal slant or a lawyer he does not like.

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

Link

The National Council of Churches has called for Kavanaugh's nomination to be withdrawn. Link

650+ Law Professors are against Kavanaugh's confirmation. Link

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

Ultimately the court system, the supreme court in particular, depends on peoples faith that it works. If THIS MUCH of the country is so against it than even if he is placed in it lawfully it will undermine large portions of the countries faith in the government. Any judgement the court will make will have bias claimed. Every damned decision met with protests. I don't recall any figure appointed to such a position that was so controversial and simply due to the nature of how the courts work they SHOULD place someone who is marginally more acceptable to both sides of the aisle.

To place a figure without a single democratic vote; or the reverse without a single republican vote; is grossly in violation of the intention of congress; which was to force a compromise. Ever since the new rules were put in place to require 51 votes instead of the usual 60 this has been a shitshow of "My side vs Your side." I hope that the democrats will reinstate the rule once they next gain a majority as the GOP clearly will not; they have been using it to great effect squeaking every law through with the minimal 1 vote without a single democrat vote so they do not need to compromise and find a middle ground.

I don't give a piss about Ford's testimony. Frankly, she's a minor thing compared to so much of the REST that makes me concerned about him holding such a position. It annoys me that the media fixates on this one bone to chew on and barely gives a mention to any of the other controversial stuff about him.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

Correction, it's now 1700 law professors have signed the open letter opposing the nomination of Kevenaugh.

"	We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh. But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land.

link

It's now 1700 law professors, 100k churches, 48% disapproval of the voting public, at what point do they realize this is a really bad look? Link

EroKord

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Is it really surprising that professors in any college would be blatantly partisan liberal?

If he's such a terrible judge, why didn't we hear anything about him until Trump nominated him? He could have nominated the revived MLK jr. and hysterical irrational people would think this was some sort of evil ploy by "Drumpf" to undermine America. "How did they revive MLK jr!? I bet it's Russian cloning and they turned him evil!"

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Firstly, you want to dismiss all teachers at any college as blatantly bipartisan liberal? Even the law schools, the ones who TEACH AND TRAIN the lawyers and future judges. Do you think conservative judges just grow on trees? Or that they didn't have 'college professors' hammering the rules of the courts in their head? Law schools are full of liberal elites, it's up to conservative judges to protect us! And if the people who's entire career is involved in study of the law are to not be regarded, why the hell are you listening to their students?

As for why we didn't hear about it before: We did. Thus the lying to the senate committee in 2015. It wasn't much in the news because that's just appointment to be one of 18 judges as a appeals court judge for a single state. That doesn't exactly make headlines. Hell, the only time police ever make headlines is if someone dies. Anything less than that and no one bothers writing a article about police corruption exposed beyond the local news and is buried in a day or two. No one cares at that level, certainly not anyone outside of the state he's a judge in. Media make money by doing stories on things people care about. Thus why they are all on murders, corruption, etc and not on panda's being an endangered species. They take into account "Is anyone actually going to read this?" because if they don't they don't make money. Boring stories don't make headlines, it's that simple.

EroKord

5 years, 6 months ago

link

I said it's not surprising, not that they all are without exception. I think most conservative judges are older, before this marxist nonsense really took hold, and that even with marxist nonsense being shoved in everyone's faces, younger people of character can overcome that. A good example, though I'm not a big fan, is Ben Shapiro. He talks often about how he would speak up in class, but would get decent marks because the marks were attached to a non-identifiable ID and he would write the assignments in a way the liberal teachers would like.

And while I wouldn't say these professors aren't good at what they do, they are trained to be persuasive towards their own ends. A good lawyer can take a guilty man and paint the picture of a saint, case in point: Hillary Clinton defending a pedophile rapist by smearing the 12 year old victim as a slut who dolled herself up for older men. She knew he was guilty, and she laughed about being able to keep him out of jail.

A judge is supposed to be an unbiased executor of the law. Unfortunately no one is unbiased. lawmakers and judges have been arguing over every bit of legislation and language in the law books since the founding of the country. That's where the term "activist judge" comes from, you know, like the circuit judges who keep trying to undermine the president with ridiculous interpretations that eventually get shot down by higher courts. Because they know it won't stick. It's a stalling tactic to try and slow the president down so he is less successful at implementing his policies, so they can later say "Oh look how little he got done. you voted for him and he only did this much." Regardless, it's obvious whose side these guys are on, and why they want to play this game. If Trump gets more conservative judges it'll lock the supreme court to the right. This is why victory against Hillary was so important. A stacked leftist supreme court would've killed America.

Ok what 2015 lies are you talking about exactly? Are they in regards to this case? Because to the best of my knowledge, the only people to have prior notice of this were the democrats, and they intentionally held on to it until now to spring it on him during the hearing in a smear tactic. How Kavanaugh could have lied about something that didn't happen before it was even made up is beyond me. Regardless, none of the evidence matches up against Kavanaugh, and Ford keeps getting caught in actual lies. Like the lie about getting coaching. Or the more obvious lies about not knowing stuff about basic psychology when it's her area of expertise. Her little show has also been picked apart by body language and speech analysts that show, in hilarious fashion, how she tried to emotionally manipulate the committee during her testimony. It's rather funny in a disgusting way when it's all laid bare.

Or are you maybe talking about "memogate" a "nothingburger" of an accusation that's unprovable either way? If so, then it's a 50/50. Was it a lie? Was it the truth? Was it truth to the letter but not the spirit of his speech? If so, is being honest to the letter but using your words to hide a secondary truth actionable or just improper? We'll likely never know.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Wrong date, the 2004 and 2006 to the Senate Judiciary Committee was what I meant. Kavanaugh misled senators into believing he had no role in the selection and vetting process for three of Bush’s most controversial candidates for the federal courts: Jim Haynes, Charles Pickering and Bill Pryor. These were the major political points that were being argued over during the George Bush presidency; perticularly the Guantanimo bay related stuff as that was the time period it had just been made public and the same year the UN unsuccessfully tried to have it closed.

Jim Haynes had been general counsel of the Department of Defense and had recommended the use of “abusive interrogation techniques, like threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, and for forcing detainees into painful stress positions.

Pickering had asked lawyers who practiced in his court, including lawyers with pending matters, to send letters in support of his 5th Circuit nomination to the Judiciary Committee.

Pryor had called Roe v. Wade the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law,” had flippantly called the Supreme Court “nine octogenarian lawyers,” had criticized the court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, and had made critical remarks about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to nominate Justice David H. Souter to the court

Kavenaugh tried to distance himself from the political landmines after they were brought up. He's accused of misleading the senators by saying answers like "I was not one of the nominations I handled" in his 2004 hearing to give the impression he wasn't involved in it. The senator who asked the question even said that was the answer he had interpreted. Before he was pressed with specific 'yes or no' questions he couldn't deflect in the 2006 hearing would say he was involved. Along side emails that were found later with him stating “who has the qs [questions] about Haynes,” and he replied, “call me.”

The issue here is that Kavanaugh contradicted himself in between these disclosures and told Durbin he wasn’t involved. Durbin himself said after this was revealed that Kavanaugh's answer implied he had no involvement so they closed that line of questioning because they interpreted his answer as such.

Kavanaugh at the 2006 hearing told then-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) that he did not know Pickering had improperly asked lawyers to send letters in support of his nomination. “This was not one of the judicial nominees that I was primarily handling,” Kavanaugh said.

The NYTimes however found many emails showing glimpses of his involvement. When a room was being reserved for a Pickering event, it was Judge Kavanaugh who was consulted. When the White House press office needed materials about Judge Pickering, it was Judge Kavanaugh who asked the Justice Department for the files and relayed them. When a senator’s chief of staff was coming to the White House to discuss Judge Pickering and another nominee, it was Judge Kavanaugh who planned to meet with her.

The office of Sen.Booker has emails showing Kavanaugh “coordinated meetings with and about Pickering; drafted remarks, updates for members of Congress, and at least one op-ed for Alberto Gonzales about Pickering; met with Senate staffers about Pickering’s nomination; liaised with the Department of Justice (DOJ), Senate Judiciary staff, staff of Congressman Chip Pickering (the judge’s son), and other White House staff about Pickering; advised White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez [sic] on Pickering strategy; and more.”

In this one his choice of words is exacting that he didn't 'lead' this endorsement, but tried to downplay the significant work he did for the nomination making his statement misleading if technically correct.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

At the 2004 hearing, Kavanaugh said of Pryor, “That was not one of the people that was assigned to me.” Then he said, “I am familiar generally with Mr. Pryor, but that was not one that I worked on personally.” A bit later, he said, “I was not involved in handling his nomination.”

Kavanaugh once again spoke in terms of “assigned” nominees and noted that he wasn’t “handling” the nomination. But Sen. Kennedy was not asking Kavanaugh whether he had primary responsibility over Pryor’s nomination, but whether he had been involved in vetting Pryor.

At one point, Kavanaugh said “that was not one that I worked on personally,” when he had, in fact. He was even one of the ones who reccomended Pryor for the position.

https://twitter.com/SenatorLeahy/status/103778819946308... if you want to read the emails themselves.

In a December 2002 email, Kavanaugh wrote: “We perhaps should think about recommending Pryor for CA11 and Steele for one of the district court seats, which would be a very solid result on both CA11 and district court and avoid a potentially serious problem that we can discuss.”

He was also CCed in an email “There will be an emergency umbrella meeting tomorrow at 2:30 PM (right after the 1:30 call) at the law firm of Baker & Hostetler … We need to discuss nominee Bill Pryor’s hearing next Wednesday and there are important confirmation process issues with Judge Kuhl that need to be addressed.” and another he was CCed “We are having a 4pm conf call to discuss Pryor and coordinate plans and efforts. Let me know if you are not available.”

This kind of conflicts with his statement of “I was not involved in handling his nomination.”

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

"I'm far more concerned about how unfit he is to sit on the supreme court for other reasons."

See, right there. That would be a better discussion to have instead of trying to punish someone without due process.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Most of those reasons are not actually disqualifying to sit on the seat is the problem. He can wear a KKK outfit, pronounce himself a satan worshiper and feel all gays will burn in hell. However, none of those are actually DISQUALIFYING for sitting on the court. Those are considered partisan issues. If you get 51 votes, that KKK Satan worshiper will sit on the seat. There are actually a pretty short list of things that would prevent you from getting on the seat if you are nominated; you don't even need any experience in law or as a judge.

They are focusing on the rape thing because if they can prove that it's a disqualifier that will actually block him from getting on.I'm more appalled that the GOP are brushing off all the 'partisan' issues like his previous misleading answers under oath in 2004, 2006 and now in 2018. The fact he's been caught either fanegaling the truth to outright lying and being CAUGHT at it no less than 3 times under oath should be a deal breaker. However they are ignoring it, so the dems are grasping at straws that can't be ignored and steamrolled over.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

I'm not giving my opinion about the guy, if he should have that seat or not. I'm simply pointing out my problem with the lack of due process in the minds of too many people in this country. People believe you should automatically believe her because she's accusing him of rape, and not to believe her is to be a rape apologist. Imagine how that country would look like. o_o

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

That sadly more of an after effect of the political situation. It's not about whether he did or didn't, it's about if your red or blue. Since the GOP is pulling so hard right, the left has become more and more hard left as a result because they can't compromise on a middle. With nothing to take they have no reason to offer anything to the right, it would just be a 1 sided victory for one side and nothing to show for it for the other. So neither side will give at all; and that gets reflected with the voters.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

and just how 'HARD RIGHT' is the right overall really when the left now thinks Bernie Sanders is too far right? How "HARD RIGHT" is the right really when people like the KKK (non issue today) get told down by the right? I'm just curious what your answers are to this. I'm not a Democrat or Republican.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

My answer would be confusion. Where do you see Sanders as being 'too hard right?'

I don’t know where you’ve been listening that there are a lot of people railing on him for being ‘too right.’ Do you have any articles of senators or organizations denouncing things he’s done as ‘too conservative?’ The only stuff I've seen have been fluff opinion pieces by random journalists, not any polls or individuals of note like a congressmen.

What do you mean the right tells down the KKK? Where have the KKK been active and when have the right been saying “No no we’re not with them!” ? The only thing I can find even sort of recent was August where they had a former KKK grand wizard planned to speak at “unite the right” rally.

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/local-news/unite-the-right-...

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

"My answer would be confusion. Where do you see Sanders as being 'too hard right?'"

Look, when I say someone like Sandres is a Socialist, I am literally speaking as someone against what the Nazi's did in World War 2. And YET, those against Nazi's, as I define them aka those from the 1940 plus..... Since I am not a Leftist on the political repctrum in the US, I am not one you need to justify if Sanders is TOO FAR RIGHT, rather you need to ask those leftists whom are saying Sanders is not a Socialist enough to be considered a leftist.

You need to understand the far right, aka the KKK non issue, those that even remotely MIGHT believe teh Final solution was morallly good, the RIGHT are beating their ideals into a pulp. Yet if HIleray Clinton or Sanders are too far right for the left today? MAYBE you might want to address actual sexism, and racism that the left are openly expressing today.

I don’t know where you’ve been listening that there are a lot of people railing on him for being ‘too right.’ Do you have any articles of senators or organizations denouncing things he’s done as ‘too conservative?’ The only stuff I've seen have been fluff opinion pieces by random journalists, not any polls or individuals of note like a congressmen.

What do you mean the right tells down the KKK? Where have the KKK been active and when have the right been saying “No no we’re not with them!” ? The only thing I can find even sort of recent was August where they had a former KKK grand wizard planned to speak at “unite the right” rally.

EDIT: I just now clicked your link, You brought me to FOX NEWS?! Really? you seriously think i'm going to care what a biased shit like fox news has to say on the topic? Why didn't you link me to the Washington mutual, which is where fox gets its news from? Or did you not know that? xD

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

You need to understand the far right, aka the KKK non issue, those that even remotely MIGHT believe teh Final solution was morallly good, the RIGHT are beating their ideals into a pulp. Yet if HIleray Clinton or Sanders are too far right for the left today? MAYBE you might want to address actual sexism, and racism that the left are openly expressing today.

Okay, again, Strawman. But lets backtrack. Original statement: Right dug its feet and refuses to pass anything using a bush era procedure to block everything Obama does for 8 years. This causes the left to do the same because they have no reason to meet a middle ground when the right refuses to. Both sides go to more extreme.

You follow up by shouting that the right isn’t very right. And people think sanders is not left enough. Which is neither here nor there for the original statement.

I ask you to provide some source for your two statements.

You reply that once again Hillary and sanders are too far right, once again an opinion without a source showing this to be a commonly held belief by the left; and then something about the Nazis and socialism that I am not following as the Nazi’s were not socialist. They were at WAR with the socialists. And you are also saying I don’t need to ask you to justify your statement, but I need to go ask to people who made the statement. The ones I am asking you ‘who the hell is saying that?’ That’s…not how an argument works.

And then dismiss my asking for sources on the right denouncing the KKK, and say “The only thing you could find relating to my statement was from fox news. How pathetic of you.”

I am making the argument that the only thing I can find to support your statement is a blurb story from fox news. So yes, that is pathetic, as it is a discounting of YOUR statement, not a supporting of mine.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

I feel compelled to give you my own opinion here. I do not normally do this. :3

I'm not in favor of a two party system. ^_^ It has never worked throughout history, and this country is going the exact same way for the exact same reasons.

There. Now you can respond to my actual view on something. ^_^

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Sadly that system is pretty much what it will always be barring a change in rules for how we tally votes. As long as you can only choose one candidate and not a ranking system or something it'll usually boil down to that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo Good video on why independent parties end up faring so poorly in the long run.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Ah CGP Grey. I do enjoy his works.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

By the way, that argument there? That's called a appeal to strawman. The image comes from setting up a scarecrow so you can attack it like a pinata. Its a argument fallacy of giving the impression of refuting an opponents argument; while not actually refuting anything that the original person presented as an argument. You are creating a new argument with different grounds than what I was saying so you can attack it; not addressing the original argument.

Example: Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless.

Another example: Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Donald Trump's positions have merit. Professor says he can't believe that the student believes in support racism.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

"By the way, that argument there? That's called a appeal to strawman. "

So I guess you do not know what a "Strawman" is in Philosophy. A Strawman is when someone misrepresents the others arguements, and then counters that instead of the actual points raised.   I unlike you, try to make sure I do not do that. How do I do that? by representing what is actually said, not meant. so if you MEANT something else, please please please state is so I can reply to your actual arguments (as your side never has any)  because I would LOVE to have SOMETHING to reply to!

"The image comes from setting up a scarecrow so you can attack it like a pinata. Its a argument fallacy of giving the impression of refuting an opponents argument; while not actually refuting anything that the original person presented as an argument."

Not actually correct which stuns me but here... this is relateable     https://youtu.be/-mTUmczVdik

"You are creating a new argument with different grounds than what I was saying so you can attack it; not addressing the original argument."
CITATION NEEDED!   Sorry but I'd hate to think I am ignoring an argument you are making!

"Example: Senator Smith says that the nation should not add to the defense budget. Senator Jones says that he cannot believe that Senator Smith wants to leave the nation defenseless."

Sorry, I didn't realize you thought of politics as being so binary. Either way non sequesters....

"Another example: Student tells his professor that he thinks some of Donald Trump's positions have merit. Professor says he can't believe that the student believes in support racism".

Uhh again,  non sequesters  but even worse, are you trying to imply that Donald Trump is Racist? o_O  you are beginning to make me think you are not taking this conversation seriously.

Sasparillafizz

5 years, 6 months ago

link

"	Not actually correct which stuns me but here... this is relateable https://youtu.be/-mTUmczVdik

"The term's origins are unclear. The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw that is easy to knock down or destroy—such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy."
Damer, T. Edward (1995). Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments. Wadsworth. pp. 157–159.

"	Sorry, I didn't realize you thought of politics as being so binary. Either way non sequesters....

"	Uhh again, non sequesters but even worse, are you trying to imply that Donald Trump is Racist? o_O you are beginning to make me think you are not taking this conversation seriously.

THAT IS LITERALLY A STRAW MAN. I provide a example of what a straw man is, an example you might find in a textbook explaining how a strawman works. And you present the statement that I am presenting a black and white fallacy, and that I am implying Trump being racist.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

I did not represent it that way, I ASKED if you were representing it that way. Sorry, didn't realize by asking a question I an making a statement about your beliefs. I of course understand a question can make such a suggestion, I was not. I was asking a question, not assuming your position. ^_^""

EroKord

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 5 years, 6 months ago by Owner

wrong reply area

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link

Pardon?

EroKord

5 years, 6 months ago

link

I meant to reply to another post, but I made a generic reply. so I redid the reply appropriately and edited that one to say I replied in the wrong area.

CrystalMendrilia

5 years, 6 months ago

link