That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
"...nothing that has been presented cooborates the allegation."
Yep. "No one came forward to corroborate during this hearing where we did not allow anyone to come forward to corroborate."
Also - no need to take much time after the hearing to review and analyze, eh Bob?Zaxxon wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:25 amYep. "No one came forward to corroborate during this hearing where we did not allow anyone to come forward to corroborate."
What? They've been saying it for a couple of weeks now. And it came up in the hearings every time they asked for an FBI investigation.Grifman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:07 amThe Democrats really should have made this point - I don't remember of any of them doing so.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:40 amI hate keeping hearing this whole timing thing. Feinstein kept it under wraps at the request of the victim here. That's at least defensible. Second, it's only last minute IF THE VOTING SCHEDULE IS FIXED. It's *not*. There is no really defensible reason why the Senate can't take its time in deciding whether or not to confirm someone to a lifetime appointment. Even if there were a defensible non-partisan reason for confirming before the new Congress (itself hilarious in light of the GOP rationale for not voting on Garland), there's plenty of time to evaluate and investigate the allegations before a vote.hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:11 am Our country is fucked right now. The divide just got even wider and I'm not sure there's any coming back now. At least not in any form we're used to. I used to believe we could recover, but the vitriol is so bad that I've lost hope.
And to be fair, I think this whole debacle over Kavanaugh was handled poorly by Dems as well. They introduced this shit in the 11th hour, thus assuring that its timing would be called into question and used as a way to say "hey, they're just trying to save their bacon" (which, I'll be honest, I actually do believe now). I'm pretty much done with both parties at this point. This whole country is ruled by extremes and I hate that.
More devotion to money and power than hatred of liberals. Liberals are just convenient targets.Sepiche wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:44 am he's animated by the exact same thing that's animating the entire Republican party now: hatred of liberals (and tax cuts for the rich a close second).
He is aptly named.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:48 am I'll admit that this is a tad hyperbolic, but Flake reminds me of Thomas Jefferson on slavery. He has enough awareness and enough of a conscience to appreciate that what he's doing is wrong, but not enough to actually do anything meaningful about it.
Sure, politics is all in the name of power and money in the end, but the infernal spark, if you will, driving the zombie GOP forward is a core belief that they are the majority, but at the same time an oppressed minority being kept down by the evil liberals.coopasonic wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:46 amMore devotion to money and power than hatred of liberals. Liberals are just convenient targets.Sepiche wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:44 am he's animated by the exact same thing that's animating the entire Republican party now: hatred of liberals (and tax cuts for the rich a close second).
This sense of endless victimization [of conservatives] by liberals didn’t start with Donald Trump, but it’s no surprise that it’s reached his peak during his presidency. He literally rode conservative victimization to the White House and taught Republicans that it was even more powerful than they thought. Now they’re using it as their best chance of persuading a few lone Republican holdouts to vote for Kavanaugh not on the merits, but so that Democrats don’t have the satisfaction of seeing their contemptible plot work.
The problem here is not that Republicans were grandstanding over imagined liberal schemes to destroy anyone and anything in pursuit of their poisonous schemes to crush everything good about America. The problem is that most of it wasn’t grandstanding. They believe this deeply and angrily. And it explains the lengths Republicans are willing to go to these days—even to the appalling extent of accepting a cretin like Donald Trump as a party leader. If you believe that your political opposites aren’t just opponents, but literally enemies of the country, then of course you’ll do almost anything to stop them. I would too if that’s what I thought.
There are some liberals who do think that—and more and more of them since Donald Trump was elected. But it’s still a relatively small part of the progressive movement. In the conservative movement it’s an animating principle. This is why it so desperately needs to be stopped—not by destroying Republicans, but by voting them out of office. We simply can’t afford to have a major party run for the benefit of fearful whites who are dedicated to a scorched-earth belief that liberals are betraying the nation. It has to end, and Republicans themselves are ultimately the only ones who can end it. We need a real conservative party again.
I'm thankful it's not coming quicker and more violently.Captain Caveman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:46 am Our country had been building to a crisis for a long time, but I’m taken aback how quickly it’s arrived. Dark times ahead.
Just yesterday I was thinking how cool it would be to have politicians saying, "Forget me. Examine the plan. Examine the -isms. They are more important than me. Vote for them, no matter the candidate will best deliver them. And if you have something better, bring it to the table."Sure, politics is all in the name of power and money in the end
Undoubtedly he's getting something out of it. Apparently it's enough to assuage any guilt.msteelers wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:55 am That CNN video was hard to watch. Flake has the look of a man that knows what he is doing is shameful, but he can't stop himself from doing it.
Even the Washington Post questioned Feinstein’s handling of this whole thing.Holman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:29 amWhat? They've been saying it for a couple of weeks now. And it came up in the hearings every time they asked for an FBI investigation.Grifman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:07 amThe Democrats really should have made this point - I don't remember of any of them doing so.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:40 amI hate keeping hearing this whole timing thing. Feinstein kept it under wraps at the request of the victim here. That's at least defensible. Second, it's only last minute IF THE VOTING SCHEDULE IS FIXED. It's *not*. There is no really defensible reason why the Senate can't take its time in deciding whether or not to confirm someone to a lifetime appointment. Even if there were a defensible non-partisan reason for confirming before the new Congress (itself hilarious in light of the GOP rationale for not voting on Garland), there's plenty of time to evaluate and investigate the allegations before a vote.hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:11 am Our country is fucked right now. The divide just got even wider and I'm not sure there's any coming back now. At least not in any form we're used to. I used to believe we could recover, but the vitriol is so bad that I've lost hope.
And to be fair, I think this whole debacle over Kavanaugh was handled poorly by Dems as well. They introduced this shit in the 11th hour, thus assuring that its timing would be called into question and used as a way to say "hey, they're just trying to save their bacon" (which, I'll be honest, I actually do believe now). I'm pretty much done with both parties at this point. This whole country is ruled by extremes and I hate that.
In my opinion, among Republican *voters* hatred of liberals trumps tax cuts by a wide margin.coopasonic wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:46 amMore devotion to money and power than hatred of liberals. Liberals are just convenient targets.Sepiche wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:44 am he's animated by the exact same thing that's animating the entire Republican party now: hatred of liberals (and tax cuts for the rich a close second).
It's obviously not a sleazy, last minute effort by Ford, right? So even if one thinks that Feinstein should have made this public sooner (contrary to Ford's wishes) why does it matter? Why the need to vote now rather than a month or two months from now?hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:02 amEven the Washington Post questioned Feinstein’s handling of this whole thing.Holman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:29 amWhat? They've been saying it for a couple of weeks now. And it came up in the hearings every time they asked for an FBI investigation.Grifman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:07 amThe Democrats really should have made this point - I don't remember of any of them doing so.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:40 amI hate keeping hearing this whole timing thing. Feinstein kept it under wraps at the request of the victim here. That's at least defensible. Second, it's only last minute IF THE VOTING SCHEDULE IS FIXED. It's *not*. There is no really defensible reason why the Senate can't take its time in deciding whether or not to confirm someone to a lifetime appointment. Even if there were a defensible non-partisan reason for confirming before the new Congress (itself hilarious in light of the GOP rationale for not voting on Garland), there's plenty of time to evaluate and investigate the allegations before a vote.hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:11 am Our country is fucked right now. The divide just got even wider and I'm not sure there's any coming back now. At least not in any form we're used to. I used to believe we could recover, but the vitriol is so bad that I've lost hope.
And to be fair, I think this whole debacle over Kavanaugh was handled poorly by Dems as well. They introduced this shit in the 11th hour, thus assuring that its timing would be called into question and used as a way to say "hey, they're just trying to save their bacon" (which, I'll be honest, I actually do believe now). I'm pretty much done with both parties at this point. This whole country is ruled by extremes and I hate that.
I know I'll be branded a traitor in this environment, but this felt like a sleazy, last minute effort by the Dems. I honestly don't know who to believe at this point.
Yeah, I was talking about the politician's motivations, not the voter's.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:06 amIn my opinion, among Republican *voters* hatred of liberals trumps tax cuts by a wide margin.coopasonic wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:46 amMore devotion to money and power than hatred of liberals. Liberals are just convenient targets.Sepiche wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:44 am he's animated by the exact same thing that's animating the entire Republican party now: hatred of liberals (and tax cuts for the rich a close second).
That's the optics and they aren't GOP forced optics and not caring about the optics is part of the problem. A "shut up and hate the GOP" response to that concern is a problem for which the people espousing "shut up and hate the GOP" are blind.hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:12 am If her claims are true, they weaponized a victim's pain for their own ends. No matter the reason for it, it still feels wrong to me.
I really think part of the problem now is that rot has made it's way to the Republican politicians though. Most of them used to know better, but would still say the things they needed to to motivate their base. The anger I saw from Lindsay Graham and others yesterday though convinced me they really believe a lot of the shit they are spewing now... they too are so immersed in the Fox News mythology that they aren't seeing anything close to objective reality.coopasonic wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:13 amYeah, I was talking about the politician's motivations, not the voter's.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:06 amIn my opinion, among Republican *voters* hatred of liberals trumps tax cuts by a wide margin.coopasonic wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:46 amMore devotion to money and power than hatred of liberals. Liberals are just convenient targets.Sepiche wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:44 am he's animated by the exact same thing that's animating the entire Republican party now: hatred of liberals (and tax cuts for the rich a close second).
I'm a moderate that more closely identifies with Democrats than what the GOP used to stand for (I have zero identification with them now). I do own firearms, and I worry that if how I feel is still a moderate viewpoint, it may only be a matter of time before your concerns becomes a reality because votes aren't mattering.LordMortis wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:40 amWe have a vote to keep us peaceful. We have to keep using it until a circumstance show the vote is an illusion. I pray that circumstance never becomes reality.
Getting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
It's not a matter of who to believe. That's the sleight of hand that Republicans are doing to get you to ignore the real problem. That Kavanaugh does not have the judicial temperament nor is he publicly non-partisan enough to justify putting him in the US Supreme Court.hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:02 amEven the Washington Post questioned Feinstein’s handling of this whole thing.Holman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:29 amWhat? They've been saying it for a couple of weeks now. And it came up in the hearings every time they asked for an FBI investigation.Grifman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:07 amThe Democrats really should have made this point - I don't remember of any of them doing so.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:40 amI hate keeping hearing this whole timing thing. Feinstein kept it under wraps at the request of the victim here. That's at least defensible. Second, it's only last minute IF THE VOTING SCHEDULE IS FIXED. It's *not*. There is no really defensible reason why the Senate can't take its time in deciding whether or not to confirm someone to a lifetime appointment. Even if there were a defensible non-partisan reason for confirming before the new Congress (itself hilarious in light of the GOP rationale for not voting on Garland), there's plenty of time to evaluate and investigate the allegations before a vote.hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:11 am Our country is fucked right now. The divide just got even wider and I'm not sure there's any coming back now. At least not in any form we're used to. I used to believe we could recover, but the vitriol is so bad that I've lost hope.
And to be fair, I think this whole debacle over Kavanaugh was handled poorly by Dems as well. They introduced this shit in the 11th hour, thus assuring that its timing would be called into question and used as a way to say "hey, they're just trying to save their bacon" (which, I'll be honest, I actually do believe now). I'm pretty much done with both parties at this point. This whole country is ruled by extremes and I hate that.
I know I'll be branded a traitor in this environment, but this felt like a sleazy, last minute effort by the Dems. I honestly don't know who to believe at this point.
So I'm not clear - what should Feinstein and/or the Democrats have done differently? If Feinstein had come public in late July, would that be ok in your view? Or should the Democrats have kept it all non-public, even if it meant potentially handing a lifetime SCOTUS seat to a sexual abuser?hepcat wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:12 am If her claims are true, they weaponized a victim's pain for their own ends. No matter the reason for it, it still feels wrong to me.
Tin foil hat? I think we are way beyond that. It's no secret that the SC has been partisan for a long time. If that weren't the case, you wouldn't be able to point to any one of them and say "LEFT" or "RIGHT". It's some weird unspoken fact. That this douchebag is overtly partisan, and doesn't mind saying so, is yet another sign of the current Trump's America, which is "Fuck, it, I can say what I want, because I'm in power. Rules, order, and precedent are irrelevant"raydude wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:29 am Even if one were to put on a tin-foil hat and say that all Supreme Court justices are secretly partisan, do we really want to allow a blatantly partisan judge on the Court?
linkHarvard law professor Alan Dershowitz on Thursday urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay its vote on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation until the FBI investigates the sexual misconduct claims against him.
That's really it. It is all in the open now and it is up to us to give it consequence. My hope is diminishing, but we maybe can slow things down in the fall and at least possibly go back to obstructionism but I am afraid we will fail at even that and things will get worse. I am afraid to learn what it will take to fix this. A year ago I would have laughed at the idea of a new american revolution. It's obviously not going to be anything like it was a quarter millennia ago, but it feels like it has to happen... something has to give.Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:53 am I guess it's been festering for years now, but it's kind of exploding within the past couple years, and most of the country had no idea how really bad it was.
The FBI won't touch it unless the White House directs them to. You think that's going to happen?
I don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:26 amGetting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).
It's possible that Barrett is not Loyal to Trump, like Kava'brah. i.e. if the shit hits the fan, what is her position on Presidential power, and being able to exonerate himself? We have a good idea where K stands on that.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pmI don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:26 amGetting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).
That's entirely plausible, although it relies on some prediction about Trump's decision-making. It seems just as likely that someone on Fox & Friends said something nice about Kavanaugh and he was like "that's it, let's go 1,000% on Kavanaugh."Carpet_pissr wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:13 pmIt's possible that Barrett is not Loyal to Trump, like Kava'brah. i.e. if the shit hits the fan, what is her position on Presidential power, and being able to exonerate himself? We have a good idea where K stands on that.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pmI don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.Defiant wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:26 amGetting a solidly conservative vote on the SC. That trumps all.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am
(1) Other than voting their consciences, what motivations would Corker and Flake have to vote yes on Kavanaugh?
If they vote no, there's a slim chance that 1) another justice can't be confirmed in time and Democrats with the Senate or 2) the standards will be set higher (eg, allegations would be more likely to kill a nomination).
Holman wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 8:36 am I woke up this morning unable to believe yesterday actually happened.
There's still a slim chance that it won't work out. Trump might not choose her. Or Barrett might have skeletons. Or it takes too long to confirm her. (It's even theoretically possible for the Democrats to gain a Democratic seat before January if the Democrat wins the special election in Mississippi, since they would take a seat before January).Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 12:11 pm
I don't really buy that. As others have pointed out, how hard would it be to just slide Amy Barrett in there? She was the preferred choice for a lot of conservatives anyway. I think McConnell would have no problem forcing her nomination through in short order.
Surprised? No, that's been pretty obvious through this whole thread.
I dont think it is hyperbole. Our nation is on a disaster course and people like him know it but he still wants to get paid on the backend. He plays a reasonable person but he is slimy as everyone else. Manchin is trapped and could vote his conscience but won't because frankly vey few in service do. At least more people are finally seeing that this system is breaking down and amoral. Will that lead to change? I don't know but our country is deeply sick. We haven't progressed to evil as a nation yet but we have many evil people such as McConnell and Trump et. al. at the wheel. It is very depressing right now.El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 10:48 am I'll admit that this is a tad hyperbolic, but Flake reminds me of Thomas Jefferson on slavery. He has enough awareness and enough of a conscience to appreciate that what he's doing is wrong, but not enough to actually do anything meaningful about it.
There are several questions you could ask Judge that wasn't included in his written testimony. When did he hold his summer jobs that year? Ford said if she had that information, she could help narrow down when the attack occurred. Does Bart O'Kavanaugh in Judge's book refer directly to Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh claims the book was a piece of fiction and Judge just used his name and that the character wasn't based off of him. Did they drink and hang out with friends during the week? Kavanaugh said they never did, and limited his potential timeframe for when the attack could occur to the weekends. That doesn't ring true, and Judge said in his book he would show up to work during the week drunk and/or still hungover. Did Kavanaugh get blackout drunk, or did he just enjoy beer like a normal teenager? Does Judge remember anything about the get-together on July 1st, which sounds an awful lot like the party described by Ford? Does "going to Timmy's for Skis" mean that they were going there for beers on a Thursday? What do the slang terms in the yearbook mean? Kavanaugh says they mean something relatively innocent. Most people know those slang terms as being something totally different, including other people who attended school in that area at the same time.Kurth wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 11:16 am(2) I keep seeing references to the GOP's refusal to allow any corroborating evidence, and I know they refused to allow other witnesses or to compel Judge to appear and testify. But, if we assume Judge would stick with his statement ("I do not recall the events described by Dr. Ford in her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee today. I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes"), what corroborating evidence are we aware of that was kept out of the hearing?
Quoted for truth.RunningMn9 wrote: Thu Sep 27, 2018 11:31 pmWe will talk in November as we are trying to figure out how the Republicans gained seats in the House and Senate despite this utter insanity.GungHo wrote:I tend to agree but....with cautious optimism I'll note that a recent poll shows the GOP has dropped in its favorability rating wth women by 18%. Maybe there's hope for the future? Maybe?