Yup. Am I a *little* nervous that Manchin and/or Sinema will fuck this up? Sure, I've given up on depending on them to do sensible / logical things. Is it a high risk? No. And like you say, Manchin would really only fuck this up if he's actively planning on switching parties.malchior wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 3:03 pmIf Manchin does kill this then he might as well get it over with and switch parties. And that's mostly glib but I don't even want to think through all the dem in disarray shit posting that'd occur.Alefroth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 2:52 pmYou have that much confidence in Manchin?Kurth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:08 pmThis circus is just for show. She is as good as confirmed.malchior wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 9:34 pmI don't think this type of transparent bullshit moves the needle against her. It more bolsters Hawleys creds with the smooth brains.Alefroth wrote: Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:02 pm There is no way she gets confirmed. Once they have you defending apparent sympathy to child pornographers, it's over.
SCOTUS Watch
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
- El Guapo
- Posts: 42136
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Black Lives Matter.
- Max Peck
- Posts: 15306
- Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:09 pm
- Location: Down the Rabbit-Hole
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I would like to think that it doesn't come down to just a couple of unreliable DINO senators. Are there really no GOP senators who will vote to confirm her on her merits?
"What? What? What?" -- The 14th Doctor
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
It's not enough to be a good player... you also have to play well. -- Siegbert Tarrasch
- Daehawk
- Posts: 65965
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am
Re: SCOTUS Watch
hahhahahahahahaa oh wait you're serious. Dude I wouldn't even count on Manchin at this point.Max Peck wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:29 pm I would like to think that it doesn't come down to just a couple of unreliable DINO senators. Are there really no GOP senators who will vote to confirm her on her merits?
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
- Skinypupy
- Posts: 21275
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
- Location: Utah
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I don’t believe there have been any indications of defectors, but someone like Romney voting to confirm wouldn’t terribly surprise me.Max Peck wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:29 pm I would like to think that it doesn't come down to just a couple of unreliable DINO senators. Are there really no GOP senators who will vote to confirm her on her merits?
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
- Alefroth
- Posts: 9362
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
- Location: Bellingham WA
Re: SCOTUS Watch
And risk being painted with the soft on child pornographers brush? I don't think so, but I really hope I'm wrong.Max Peck wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:29 pm I would like to think that it doesn't come down to just a couple of unreliable DINO senators. Are there really no GOP senators who will vote to confirm her on her merits?
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I think this is down the wrong track. They won't vote for her because she isn't on their team. There isn't calculus required beyond that. They don't actually care about the child porn stuff. Otherwise they'd shun Gaetz or Hastert.Alefroth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:08 pmAnd risk being painted with the soft on child pornographers brush? I don't think so, but I really hope I'm wrong.Max Peck wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:29 pm I would like to think that it doesn't come down to just a couple of unreliable DINO senators. Are there really no GOP senators who will vote to confirm her on her merits?
- Holman
- Posts: 30097
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Voting for a liberal to replace a liberal on a 6-3 court is the easiest political move in the world. "They always say we're not bipartisan, but look how bipartisan we are!"
If it comes down to 51/50, that probably means Clarence Thomas is on a ventilator.
If it comes down to 51/50, that probably means Clarence Thomas is on a ventilator.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- Zarathud
- Posts: 17122
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
SCOTUS Watch
Or it means the Republicans are assholes.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
- hepcat
- Posts: 54503
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
Re: SCOTUS Watch
One of the more infuriating things I’ve read is that Jackson has basically been forced into saying she’d recuse herself in a case on affirmative action at Harvard University. Is there any context I’m missing though?
In any case, Cory Booker’s speech about her was just amazing, I thought.
In any case, Cory Booker’s speech about her was just amazing, I thought.
Master of his domain.
- Kurth
- Posts: 6418
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
- Location: Portland
Re: SCOTUS Watch
After reading through this thread, I actually tuned in and listened to some of the hearing yesterday. Unbelievable. Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that they’ve decided to label her as soft on child porn at the same time the crazies in the GOP base honestly believe Democrats are child trafficking pedophiles?Alefroth wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:08 pmAnd risk being painted with the soft on child pornographers brush? I don't think so, but I really hope I'm wrong.Max Peck wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:29 pm I would like to think that it doesn't come down to just a couple of unreliable DINO senators. Are there really no GOP senators who will vote to confirm her on her merits?
And not a single GOP Senator will rise to her defense or call out Hawley and Cruz and company for what they’re doing? We are so incredibly fucked.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 15458
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Have there been any public comments from Collins or Murkowski?
That's my purse! I don't know you!
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 56364
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I know people keep saying she's already confirmed and this is all just grandstanding and sound-bite creation for re-election, but I can't help but think there will be (D) voting against her. I mean, we already know not a single person from the GOP will vote to confirm her, so it won't take much to block her confirmation...
Also, sure is weird about Justice Thomas, eh?
Also, sure is weird about Justice Thomas, eh?
Maybe next year, maybe no go
- El Guapo
- Posts: 42136
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Assuming all 50 Democrats vote yes to confirm (which is still very very likely) then I think it's probable that Susan Collins votes to confirm. She's still in a blue state, and as long as her vote isn't determinative the flak from the right won't be unbearable (and what flak there is will be useful to tout her bipartisan schtick).Skinypupy wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:04 pmI don’t believe there have been any indications of defectors, but someone like Romney voting to confirm wouldn’t terribly surprise me.Max Peck wrote: Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:29 pm I would like to think that it doesn't come down to just a couple of unreliable DINO senators. Are there really no GOP senators who will vote to confirm her on her merits?
However, if Manchin or Sinema decide to fling poop at the wall, then there is no chance that she'll save Jackson's confirmation. In other words, she can be relied upon as long as it doesn't matter.
So I still think 52 votes is the most likely outcome - Collins and one of Romney / Murkowski / some GOP senator up in a blue / purple state.
Black Lives Matter.
- Zaxxon
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 28540
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
- Location: Surrounded by Mountains
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Surely they're too concerned to talk to the press.ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:25 am Have there been any public comments from Collins or Murkowski?
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 85275
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS Watch
hepcat wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 7:54 am One of the more infuriating things I’ve read is that Jackson has basically been forced into saying she’d recuse herself in a case on affirmative action at Harvard University. Is there any context I’m missing though?
her alma mater and where she is currently serving out the last two months of a six-year appointment to the Board of Overseers.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- El Guapo
- Posts: 42136
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I don't feel great about the fact that I'm borderline praying for Thomas's death, but the reality is that I basically am. We really need to fix the SCOTUS selection process.Smoove_B wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:25 am I know people keep saying she's already confirmed and this is all just grandstanding and sound-bite creation for re-election, but I can't help but think there will be (D) voting against her. I mean, we already know not a single person from the GOP will vote to confirm her, so it won't take much to block her confirmation...
Also, sure is weird about Justice Thomas, eh?
Black Lives Matter.
- El Guapo
- Posts: 42136
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
- Location: Boston
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Yeah the board of overseers role is the basis for the recusal. It's not that she's saying that she would recuse herself because she's black.Isgrimnur wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:36 amhepcat wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 7:54 am One of the more infuriating things I’ve read is that Jackson has basically been forced into saying she’d recuse herself in a case on affirmative action at Harvard University. Is there any context I’m missing though?her alma mater and where she is currently serving out the last two months of a six-year appointment to the Board of Overseers.
Black Lives Matter.
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 56364
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: SCOTUS Watch
As established by McConnell, they can slip Jackson into his seat while the body is still warm and then Biden can make another nomination for the still-retiring Breyer.El Guapo wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:36 am I don't feel great about the fact that I'm borderline praying for Thomas's death, but the reality is that I basically am. We really need to fix the SCOTUS selection process.
Oh, and then add like 4 more seats. Because f all these people.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
A few folks have pointed out why this is dangerous. It is pretty much how Pizzagate was instigated. It is also hard not to note it is ironic that she sentenced that idiot. And slightly departed below the guidelines there too. A clear miscarriage of justice!?Kurth wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:17 amAfter reading through this thread, I actually tuned in and listened to some of the hearing yesterday. Unbelievable. Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that they’ve decided to label her as soft on child porn at the same time the crazies in the GOP base honestly believe Democrats are child trafficking pedophiles?
This is who they are. They took the foul flavor of the fullness of Fox News' night time line up, fermented it into a toxic brew of frightful rhetoric, and furled it to the world for all to see. It is fully frightening.And not a single GOP Senator will rise to her defense or call out Hawley and Cruz and company for what they’re doing? We are so incredibly fucked.
- Carpet_pissr
- Posts: 20804
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
- Location: Columbia, SC
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Thank goodness they aren't known for doing that!El Guapo wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:27 amHowever, if Manchin or Sinema decide to fling poop at the wall,
- Zaxxon
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 28540
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
- Location: Surrounded by Mountains
Re: SCOTUS Watch
malchior wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 11:21 amThis is who they are. They took the foul flavor of the fullness of Fox News' night time line up, fermented it into a toxic brew of frightful rhetoric, and furled it to the world for all to see. It is fully frightening.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Indeed. There is a positive feedback loop that encourages this behavior. I don't know if this is interesting to others but I was just reading the NY Times coverage on this and thought is did a really good job accounting for the insanity. Then I took a step back and realized it's to some extent part of the attack.
The NY Times piece extensively discusses Republican actions, tactics, etc. with barely a mention of what the Democrats did or said. It isn't like they don't cover the Democrats but it clear that the Republicans are good at what they do. They got the NY Times to focus almost entirely and write what they said and did. The Republican members in other words got the NY Times (and most media outlets) to amplify their noise. I get this is tricky to balance and I still feel the article is good. However, I'm struck by how all encompassing the attack is and how they play every part of the system like a fiddle.
Edit: One more note - there even is a completely unnecessary (and unwelcome) quote from Matt Schlapp from CPAC in the piece. It doesn't even really make sense considering it was mostly about the hearing but fuck it if the NY Times wasn't going to sledgehammer in another "conservative" voice.
The NY Times piece extensively discusses Republican actions, tactics, etc. with barely a mention of what the Democrats did or said. It isn't like they don't cover the Democrats but it clear that the Republicans are good at what they do. They got the NY Times to focus almost entirely and write what they said and did. The Republican members in other words got the NY Times (and most media outlets) to amplify their noise. I get this is tricky to balance and I still feel the article is good. However, I'm struck by how all encompassing the attack is and how they play every part of the system like a fiddle.
Edit: One more note - there even is a completely unnecessary (and unwelcome) quote from Matt Schlapp from CPAC in the piece. It doesn't even really make sense considering it was mostly about the hearing but fuck it if the NY Times wasn't going to sledgehammer in another "conservative" voice.
- Carpet_pissr
- Posts: 20804
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
- Location: Columbia, SC
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Conflict/fake or real rage/drama draws a lot more eyeballs than things that...aren't.
I'm not yet convinced it's part of some larger GOP playbook and suspect it has become part of their DNA now. Outrage sells.
I'm not yet convinced it's part of some larger GOP playbook and suspect it has become part of their DNA now. Outrage sells.
Last edited by Carpet_pissr on Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 56364
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
Re: SCOTUS Watch
This speaks volumes.
Worse than kids in school.JUST IN: A photo taken by @kentnish shows Ted Cruz searching Twitter for his own name after questioning Ketanji Brown Jackson with debunked narratives and going back and forth with Dick Durbin.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 85275
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Your list is a lot shorter than mine.El Guapo wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 10:36 am I don't feel great about the fact that I'm borderline praying for Thomas's death, but the reality is that I basically am.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Pyperkub
- Posts: 24298
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
- Location: NC- that's Northern California
Re: SCOTUS Watch
While you weren't looking, the current SCOTUS further gutted the Voting Rights Act in an unsigned Shadow Docket opinion...
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued an astonishing decision throwing out Wisconsin’s new legislative districts as a violation of the equal protection clause. The majority accused a Republican justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court of greenlighting a “racial gerrymander” by creating one more majority-Black district in the state Assembly. Wednesday’s unsigned decision, issued through the shadow docket, hands Wisconsin Republicans an unexpected victory in their quest to reduce Black representation in the legislature. It also alters the law of redistricting in fundamental yet cryptic ways that might, to a cynic, seem designed to disadvantage Democrats in every single case.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I'd suggest there are books about this being part of a GOP playbook. "It Was All a Lie" and "Let Them Eat" as quick examples but sure outrage has always sold.Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:08 pm Conflict/fake or real rage/drama draws a lot more eyeballs than things that...aren't.
I'm not yet convinced it's part of some larger GOP playbook, I think it has become part of their DNA. Outrage sells.
I more meant I suspect as late as 20 or so years ago, the NY Times and most major outlets acted somewhat as a moderator. They acted in some capacity as control rods of our political discourse. Now it seems they just amplify the outrage without tamping it down at all. What crazy thing did Graham say today!? Click here to find out.
Admittedly , it also could be the wrong focus. In the end, this discourse is demonstrably moving voters. We are the politics in the end and our culture is broken. Still I really believe people respond and normalize on what they hear over and over.
Last edited by malchior on Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Carpet_pissr
- Posts: 20804
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
- Location: Columbia, SC
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tells ya.Pyperkub wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:14 pm While you weren't looking, the current SCOTUS further gutted the Voting Rights Act in an unsigned Shadow Docket opinion...
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued an astonishing decision throwing out Wisconsin’s new legislative districts as a violation of the equal protection clause. The majority accused a Republican justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court of greenlighting a “racial gerrymander” by creating one more majority-Black district in the state Assembly. Wednesday’s unsigned decision, issued through the shadow docket, hands Wisconsin Republicans an unexpected victory in their quest to reduce Black representation in the legislature. It also alters the law of redistricting in fundamental yet cryptic ways that might, to a cynic, seem designed to disadvantage Democrats in every single case.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Bam?Pyperkub wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:14 pm While you weren't looking, the current SCOTUS further gutted the Voting Rights Act in an unsigned Shadow Docket opinion...
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued an astonishing decision throwing out Wisconsin’s new legislative districts as a violation of the equal protection clause. The majority accused a Republican justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court of greenlighting a “racial gerrymander” by creating one more majority-Black district in the state Assembly. Wednesday’s unsigned decision, issued through the shadow docket, hands Wisconsin Republicans an unexpected victory in their quest to reduce Black representation in the legislature. It also alters the law of redistricting in fundamental yet cryptic ways that might, to a cynic, seem designed to disadvantage Democrats in every single case.
- Pyperkub
- Posts: 24298
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
- Location: NC- that's Northern California
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Looked back, but the tweet link didn't show for me and I didn't read carefully enoughmalchior wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:18 pmBam?Pyperkub wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:14 pm While you weren't looking, the current SCOTUS further gutted the Voting Rights Act in an unsigned Shadow Docket opinion...
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued an astonishing decision throwing out Wisconsin’s new legislative districts as a violation of the equal protection clause. The majority accused a Republican justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court of greenlighting a “racial gerrymander” by creating one more majority-Black district in the state Assembly. Wednesday’s unsigned decision, issued through the shadow docket, hands Wisconsin Republicans an unexpected victory in their quest to reduce Black representation in the legislature. It also alters the law of redistricting in fundamental yet cryptic ways that might, to a cynic, seem designed to disadvantage Democrats in every single case.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
- Carpet_pissr
- Posts: 20804
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
- Location: Columbia, SC
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I wasn't clear. No doubt there was a strategy, and one that has been honed over decades (and overt, as documented in many places as you said), I'm just saying at this point in the decades-long 'game', it seems like the players just ARE this way now, as opposed to some conscious "OK, according to the right's overall strategy, I should behave THIS way...say THIS thing, etc" I'm suggesting the years-in-the-making conscious efforts at a controlling message and plan have now morphed into normalcy and default behavior for many right-wing pols.malchior wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:17 pmI'd suggest there are books about this being part of a GOP playbook. "It Was All a Lie" and "Let Them Eat" as quick examples but sure outrage has always sold.Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:08 pm Conflict/fake or real rage/drama draws a lot more eyeballs than things that...aren't.
I'm not yet convinced it's part of some larger GOP playbook, I think it has become part of their DNA. Outrage sells.
I more meant I suspect as late as 20 or so years ago, the NY Times and most major outlets acted somewhat as a moderator. They acted in some capacity as control rods of our political discourse. Now it seems they just amplify the outrage without tamping it down at all. What crazy thing did Graham say today!? Click here to find out.
Admittedly , it also could be the wrong focus. In the end, this discourse is demonstrably moving voters. We are the politics in the end and we our culture is broken. Still I really believe people respond and normalize on what they hear over and over.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
No worries - a blurb in an otherwise busy day! It's also an indirect sign of how effective the assault on democracy is. It is very hard to even keep track on what is happening across the political landscape.Pyperkub wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:22 pmLooked back, but the tweet link didn't show for me and I didn't read carefully enoughmalchior wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:18 pmBam?Pyperkub wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:14 pm While you weren't looking, the current SCOTUS further gutted the Voting Rights Act in an unsigned Shadow Docket opinion...
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued an astonishing decision throwing out Wisconsin’s new legislative districts as a violation of the equal protection clause. The majority accused a Republican justice on the Wisconsin Supreme Court of greenlighting a “racial gerrymander” by creating one more majority-Black district in the state Assembly. Wednesday’s unsigned decision, issued through the shadow docket, hands Wisconsin Republicans an unexpected victory in their quest to reduce Black representation in the legislature. It also alters the law of redistricting in fundamental yet cryptic ways that might, to a cynic, seem designed to disadvantage Democrats in every single case.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
For sure. Also really highlights that what they do naturally now is more effective than any semblance of deliberate messaging strategy by the Democrats. I'm not suggesting the Democrats join them in the gutter but you would have figured they'd be able to get more than a couple of sentences on a piece about their own goddamn Supreme Court nominee, right?Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:25 pmI wasn't clear. No doubt there was a strategy, and one that has been honed over decades (and overt, as documented in many places as you said), I'm just saying at this point in the decades-long 'game', it seems like the players just ARE this way now, as opposed to some conscious "OK, according to the right's overall strategy, I should behave THIS way...say THIS thing, etc" I'm suggesting the years-in-the-making conscious efforts at a controlling message and plan have now morphed into normalcy and default behavior for many right-wing pols.malchior wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:17 pmI'd suggest there are books about this being part of a GOP playbook. "It Was All a Lie" and "Let Them Eat" as quick examples but sure outrage has always sold.Carpet_pissr wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 12:08 pm Conflict/fake or real rage/drama draws a lot more eyeballs than things that...aren't.
I'm not yet convinced it's part of some larger GOP playbook, I think it has become part of their DNA. Outrage sells.
I more meant I suspect as late as 20 or so years ago, the NY Times and most major outlets acted somewhat as a moderator. They acted in some capacity as control rods of our political discourse. Now it seems they just amplify the outrage without tamping it down at all. What crazy thing did Graham say today!? Click here to find out.
Admittedly , it also could be the wrong focus. In the end, this discourse is demonstrably moving voters. We are the politics in the end and we our culture is broken. Still I really believe people respond and normalize on what they hear over and over.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
"Interesting" perspective from the right. I've seen a few posts from the right where they think they scored significant damage on her nomination in the committee. I guess we'll see how it goes when it comes out of committee on April 4th.
- Holman
- Posts: 30097
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: SCOTUS Watch
malchior wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:25 pm "Interesting" perspective from the right. I've seen a few posts from the right where they think they scored significant damage on her nomination in the committee. I guess we'll see how it goes when it comes out of committee on April 4th.
Aside from being confirmed by the Senate three times before?Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson wasn’t properly vetted.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- stessier
- Posts: 30195
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
- Location: SC
Re: SCOTUS Watch
In fairness, the Left's opinion after the Kavannaugh hearings was similar.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running__ | __2014: 1300.55 miles__ | __2015: 2036.13 miles__ | __2016: 1012.75 miles__ | __2017: 1105.82 miles__ | __2018: 1318.91 miles | __2019: 2000.00 miles |
- Unagi
- Posts: 28348
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Right, but if a piece of poop gets through your water filter, you are right to say, “That wasn’t properly filtered” , even if similar filters have historically done a pretty good job keeping the poop out.stessier wrote: Thu Mar 24, 2022 4:48 pm In fairness, the Left's opinion after the Kavannaugh hearings was similar.
- Octavious
- Posts: 20049
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
I'm shocked that Mitch said he won't vote for her. I mean he fairly sat and judged the process with an open mind. What a guy!
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
- Zaxxon
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 28540
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
- Location: Surrounded by Mountains
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: SCOTUS Watch
Some people guessed Thomas was the lone vote against releasing records to the 1/6 committee because of his wife. And they were mostly mocked. At this point i feel that many people are choosing not to face the wretched state of our affairs. Everytime we think we hit bottom the bottom falls out again.