As usual, the true nature of the game is revealed if one imagines the shoe being on the other foot.

If a person nominated for the SC by a Democrat was alleged to have committed these acts, and the Democratic chair of the Justice Committee and his or her colleagues set up an absurd he-said/she-said circus such as we witnessed yesterday, without calling for the necessary additional background investigation to interview all relevant alleged participants/witnesses under pain of penalty, the GOP would be howling from the rafters about how the Democrats were making a naked power grab with no concern for law, morality, or the suffering of the alleged victim(s).

And they would be 100% right.

One can be uncertain about the truth of the allegations and still stand for the integrity of the process, if only to maintain the honor of the Senate and the Court. What happened yesterday was a shameful farce on every level.

If you can’t see that, AM, you’re even farther gone than I thought.

Ironically, if a Democrat was in K's position, the Repubs would have no problem believing the woman's claims.

(September 28, 2018 at 8:17 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: As usual, the true nature of the game is revealed if one imagines the shoe being on the other foot.

If a person nominated for the SC by a Democrat was alleged to have committed these acts, and the Democratic chair of the Justice Committee and his or her colleagues set up an absurd he-said/she-said circus such as we witnessed yesterday, without calling for the necessary additional background investigation to interview all relevant alleged participants/witnesses under pain of penalty, the GOP would be howling from the rafters about how the Democrats were making a naked power grab with no concern for law, morality, or the suffering of the alleged victim(s).

And they would be 100% right.

One can be uncertain about the truth of the allegations and still stand for the integrity of the process, if only to maintain the honor of the Senate and the Court. What happened yesterday was a shameful farce on every level.

If you can’t see that, AM, you’re even farther gone than I thought.

The farce was forced by Feinstein's decision to withhold the information until after the investigatory phase of the the process had concluded. The privacy argument is bullshit. They're capable of interviewing people privately and releasing documents with names redacted. Happens all the time.

If you can't see that, you're even farther gone than I had thought.

---

(September 28, 2018 at 8:21 am)Kit Wrote: Ironically, if a Democrat was in K's position, the Repubs would have no problem believing the woman's claims.

And the Dems would have no problem rejecting the claims. Just ask Juanita Broadrick.

(September 28, 2018 at 8:23 am)alpha male Wrote: If you can't see that, you're even farther gone than I had thought.

Why don't we just admit the entire two party system has become a farce of circus proportions.

(September 28, 2018 at 8:25 am)Kit Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:23 am)alpha male Wrote: If you can't see that, you're even farther gone than I had thought.

Why don't we just admit the entire two party system has become a farce of circus proportions.

Yes, of course it has. One should be able to recognize that without dehumanizing the other side.

I grew up in the 80s. It was full of pop media of HS and college keg party and spring break themes. Brett is full of shit if thinks we are buying his interpretation of the "barf" club means only he had a reaction to spicy foods.

Conservatives defend rapists because they like raping people. If their own children were raped, they'd tell them to get over it and have a beer with the rapist. That's the kind of people these people are. Unless, of course, their rapist was a black democrat. Then they'd crucify him.

(September 28, 2018 at 8:23 am)alpha male Wrote:

(September 28, 2018 at 8:17 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: As usual, the true nature of the game is revealed if one imagines the shoe being on the other foot.

If a person nominated for the SC by a Democrat was alleged to have committed these acts, and the Democratic chair of the Justice Committee and his or her colleagues set up an absurd he-said/she-said circus such as we witnessed yesterday, without calling for the necessary additional background investigation to interview all relevant alleged participants/witnesses under pain of penalty, the GOP would be howling from the rafters about how the Democrats were making a naked power grab with no concern for law, morality, or the suffering of the alleged victim(s).

And they would be 100% right.

One can be uncertain about the truth of the allegations and still stand for the integrity of the process, if only to maintain the honor of the Senate and the Court. What happened yesterday was a shameful farce on every level.

If you can’t see that, AM, you’re even farther gone than I thought.

The farce was forced by Feinstein's decision to withhold the information until after the investigatory phase of the the process had concluded. The privacy argument is bullshit. They're capable of interviewing people privately and releasing documents with names redacted. Happens all the time.

If you can't see that, you're even farther gone than I had thought.

---

I’m not happy with Feinstein. I think she handled this poorly, to say the very least. Are you under the impression that I’m a Democrat? I’m not.

There was nothing “forced” about the farce. That was a deliberate choice made by Grassley and his colleagues once the allegations came to light.

Now address the issue: should the background investigation have been re-opened to maintain the integrity of the process? Why or why not?

One should care about finding the truth, not just voting for or pushing through people who have unheard and/or uninvestigated accusers.
Kavanaugh's vote was scheduled before they finished even hearing Ford or Kavanagh's testimony. They have apparently decided not to even look into the other accusation. And yes, that is a problem. And if you support or defend the people who will overlook serious allegations, I don't think you are less than human, but I will adamantly say we disagree on more than simple politics.

I can disagree with someone on trade policy, taxes, social security benefits, different drug legalization statuses, and a very long list of things, and that's fine. These are politics. You can want lower taxes and be a good person. You can support small government and be a good person. I am happy to have conservative friends like these.

Treating all humans with basic decency isn't politics, it's just basic decency. Taking an accusation seriously enough (particularly when there is more than one) to look into more than just asking a few question is basic decency. Not taking children from their parents without good cause is decency. Helping people fleeing from violence is decency. Not supporting someone who is ON TAPE admitting to groping women without their permission is decency. Standing up for people who are not part of your in group; LGBT people, other nationalities and races, the opposite gender, and people of other religious beliefs is basic decency. I consider none of the above to be political stances, but human ones. To degrade children in cages to a political stance is disgusting. To not care about it enough to even vote a little differently to change it is worse. Pro life. Pfah.

So yeah, you can still be a human. You just aren't a very good one, imho. I can only take solace that your position is actually the minority, and that your idiocy only continues to win out through cheating. So enjoy it while it lasts. I still have hope that good people will win out in the long run. In the short term, we are all very, very fucked.

(September 28, 2018 at 8:33 am)Crossless2.0 Wrote: I’m not happy with Feinstein. I think she handled this poorly, to say the very least. Are you under the impression that I’m a Democrat? I’m not.

There was nothing “forced” about the farce. That was a deliberate choice made by Grassley and his colleagues once the allegations came to light.

I disagree. Feinstein likely ignored the rules in order to prolong the process past the midterms. You don't reward rule breaking by giving the person exactly what they want/

Quote:Now address the issue: should the background investigation have been re-opened to maintain the integrity of the process? Why or why not?

No.

1. See above.

2. There's nothing to investigate. The people named by Ford gave statements under penalty of felony that they had no recollection of such an incident, and some went further to positively say that they never saw Kavanaugh engage in such behavior. What more is there to do?