JayJay
121
That is not the argument McConnell made.
He did not say “they didn’t like who Obama proposed” (considering they had unanimously approved Garland for his district court appointment, such an assertion would have been a bald faced lie).
The argument was that in an election year, it was customary to give the people a voice in deciding, and so that was their justification for refusing to hold confirmation hearings.
And now in 2020 McConnell has stated that this “voice of the people” thing isn’t so important or “customary” anymore.
At least one poster here has admitted he’s fine with that bit of political gamesmanship…would be nice to see more people be that honest about it.
Nope. Not even close. Ford was not credible at all. I listened to the Senate hearings and a PhD was trying to act like a scared little girl. She was deliberately playing the victim and on questioning by senators, she was back and forth and couldn’t give basic answers. It’s been a while since I watched it but I just walked away thinking “What a lying hag”.
JayJay
123
And with that last comment I could just tell you went into the testimony ready to give Ford the benefit of the doubt.
Lol.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with your political learnings
I don’t agree with that. With Biden there are numerous video clips of touching, kissing and sniffing young girls in ways many, including myself, consider very inappropriate. As far as I’m concerned, objectively speaking, if he is doing that with young girls in public it’s not unreasonable to conclude that he likely did similar things or worse with grown women in private. Now to be objective that goes with ALL men in positions of power. What one cannot objectively conclude with Biden is how far he went. That being said one cannot prove it.
Regarding Kavenaugh there is absolutely nothing regarding his character that the Ford accusation has any merit. Also with Ford’s accusation, under scrutiny and analysis, had absolutely no merit and had various aspects that were highly suspect. If she had to present her story in a courtroom in front of a seasoned defense attorney her story would have been utterly shredded.
JayJay
126
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
I disagree with the notion that Biden’s public displays naturally make more aggressive sexual assaults a more plausible thing, and I disagree with the notion there was nothing in Kavanaugh’s character to suggest he wouldn’t have done this in his past.
It’s not so black and white.
At any rate, as I said, let’s give Ms. Reade all the latitude we gave Ms. Ford. On that I have been consistent.
It honestly doesn’t. I’ve said it multiple times, I think both cases stink to high heaven of dirty politics, though if you put a gun to my head and say “One is telling the truth, which one is it”, I’d have to answer Reade. I do find it absolutely hilarious that after saying “We believe all women”, all of the sudden, it’s not valid anymore. My position is consistent. If you didn’t think it appropriate to make a complaint within a reasonable period of time after the supposed assault, why on earth would we believe you 20+ years later? Good grief man, Ford couldn’t even recall the YEAR or how the hell she got home. That screams of fabricated nonsense. At least Reade knows when, where and has corroboration. Did exactly what she said happened? I have no idea and honestly, don’t care. It’s too late for me but again, I’m happy to point out the hypocrisy of the left on this issue.
Of COURSE I wasn’t willing to give her “the benefit of the doubt”. When someone is accused of a crime, the onus is on the accuser. I still believe in innocent until proven guilty and I’m approaching the Biden accuser in the same fashion. I’m quite simply saying that between the two, Reade has the more believable claim based on Bidens creepy history (Kavanaugh had ZERO), the specificity of the claim, the recollection of the claim and the corroboration of the claim. Again, I think both failed to make a claim while the statute of limitations was still in effect so you don’t get to come out and try to ruin their lives after without some extremely solid evidence… such as a stain on a dress. . . and even THEN, I thought impeachment was ridiculous.
JayJay
129
Show me that Biden’s “creepy history” is in any ways correlative with propensity for sexual assault.
Some peer reviewed psychological studies would be useful.
It’s EXACTLY the argument McConnell made. What reason would they have to stop a nominee if they liked him? It was simple. We’ll wait for the next President, even though they highly suspected it would be Hillary at that point.
As to political gamemanship, that’s ALL politics in DC bud. EVERYTHING. From the Coronavirus response accusations of “unmitigated failure” to the BS impeachment over a damn phone call to the Russia collusion hoax to the birth certificate claims and impeachment over a lie to Congress over a question that everyone knew the answer to, it’s ALL politics. At the end of the day, we have two very different goals for this country. One side is hell bent on Socialism and the other would like to retain what BUILT this country to begin with. There is a middle ground and what you see in DC is the fringes of those policies. Of course, I’m about 3 miles to the right of Reagan but I’m extremely happy that the SC is in good hands for the next 20 years or so, even if RBG and Breyer get replaced by Biden if he were to get elected. /cringe.
WuWei
131
Can you show a post of yours supporting this claim please?
Those last 2 sentences are simply not true.
1 Like
JayJay
132
Nope sorry…not true.
“I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president,” McConnell said.
“The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let’s give them a voice. Let’s let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be,” McConnell said.
And remember my initial response in this thread was because you were so ardently defending that the principle of not confirming justices in an election year was a normal thing and not in any ways underhanded.
And yet here we see in 2020 McConnell doesn’t care about this principle at all…pretty much admitting he made it up to try and seize the “moral high ground” in 2016.
So why were you so ardently defending a principle that the person you were defending has categorically stated he will throw overboard to make sure another conservative justice will get nominated should the opportunity arise?
I expect our politicians to do this.
I don’t get why people who aren’t politicians try to defend them by bringing up principles the guy they’re defending doesn’t care about.
You folks and your “Peer reviewed” studies. Didn’t college teach you critical thinking? I don’t need a peer review if I have a good point. I can show you a bunch of peer review articles that ended up being completely false. How about the global cooling from the 70’s. That was peer reviewed. How about climate models that were peer reviewed, yet every single one of them have come up short on accuracy? I can go to Church and write an article about Christianity and have my peers review it. Does that make it correct?
Youtube is full of him being creepy. I don’t need a damn peer reviewed article showing a history of creepy behavior. If he’s willing to do that crap in public, what the hell do you think he’s willing to do when no one’s watching?
How would you like me to prove that?
Do you always ascribe motive to someone without asking their goals? I never said it was normal, I said it’s been done before, I said it’s well within the power of the Senate. What I’m pushing back on was that it was “underhanded”. No, it’s not. It was done in the open for all to see and no matter what your opinion is, they didn’t like the nominee so they wanted to wait for the next President. I suspect anyone that Obama put up would have met similar resistance as the Senate was just returned to Republican control and Obama was a lame duck but that doesn’t mean they were being underhanded or that they were even WRONG. They did the correct thing and if we had an opening today, I’d have the same opinion. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to confirm and if the people have put Republicans in charge of it while putting a Democrat in charge of the Presidency, then you don’t get to have a far left wing Justice, you’re going to have to find someone more moderate. As to NPR as a source, that’s cute but honestly, about as useful as using Rush Limbaugh as a source.
Here was what he actually said. This was about who Obama picked and about who he would pick. The people spoke and put Republicans in charge of the Senate so THEY get to decide who gets confirmed. I would bet money if Trump were reelected and the Senate went Dem, we would go the next 4 years without a SC replacement being confirmed.
Here’s what he actually said and notice it’s focused on Garland with the side note that yes, we need to let the people decide because it was just too controversial to put Garland on the SC. With Republicans in charge of the Senate & the White House, why on earth WOULD they wait for the next election? The people trusted them with both, so by all means, fill the vacancy. I think the voters would punish them for that but doesn’t change the fact that the senate has the responsibility to confirm the nominee.
He clearly identified that Garland wouldn’t be confirmed if Hillary were to be elected.
WuWei
138
The Kavanaugh hearing were after we moved to this board.
I wasn’t posting here then.
Would send you a fb chat I had with a friend where I said Believe all women was dumb but then what?
Would it change your mind? Would you think any different?
WuWei
140
No. I told one of my friends I’m tired of being mistaken for Brad Pitt.
