Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

You think they had credible sexual assault allegations made against them!? Ummm not even close.

 

 

Correct. The claims were bull####

[Niagara]

8 minutes ago, Capco said:

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

Why would any poster want to identify themselves as a lawyer. It just opens up extra scrutiny for the competent usage of language and biased politics.

Bork was a Constitutional scholar. He was over qualified for the Democrats, nothing sexual.

[Buffalo_Gal]

11 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Good catch.  It was sexual harassment.  I should have said sexual deviancy to be more general.  

 

We can argue about credible or not all day.  But tell me, IF we assume the allegations to be true, would that keep you from supporting his nomination or would you still have supported it anyway?

For *****'s sake... go over that ($#@*&% who "testified" at the Kavanaugh hearing. She's lucky she was not brought up on charges of lying to Congress. Instead, her gofundme got her a $1M payoff, and she road off into obscurity.

You know why that hearing ticked me off so badly? Because sexual assault and sexual harassment are no joke. And the Democrats made it into one. Ask yourself why.
 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Buffalo_Gal

[Just Joshin']

3 minutes ago, Nanker said:

The Dems have always played dirty... filthy dirty. “Romney hasn’t paid any taxes in over ten years.”  “Well, it worked.”

 

Don't forget the cancer fake news.

 

Romney is why people like Trump - for all his faults he fights back when attacked by the libs.  Mitt just says "thank you, may I have another".

[Dr. Who]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

None of this applies to me and I'm about as left as they come.  Don't paint with such broad brushstrokes.  

I was making a loosely allusive play on Michelle Obama's recent convention speech. Naturally, there are exceptions, but to make precise judgment involves a more lengthy discourse. Pithy expression is nearly always necessarily broad.

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Doc Brown]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I don't see a cause and effect there.  Trump would be in the same position regardless.

[Capco]

7 minutes ago, Niagara said:

Why would any poster want to identify themselves as a lawyer. It just opens up extra scrutiny for the competent usage of language and biased politics.

Bork was a Constitutional scholar. He was over qualified for the Democrats, nothing sexual.

 

Just to clarify since some people seem to have missed it:  I am in law school, not a barred lawyer. 

 

3 hours ago, Capco said:

I've had the chance to read some of her opinions this semester and she was simply an excellent and talented jurist.  

 

I am doing well so far, so I am presuming I will have a "legal career" once I am finished (I'm looking at IP/Patent law fwiw).  I am not speaking as a lawyer or pretending to be one.  Sorry for any confusion.  

 

11 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

For *****'s sake... go over that ($#@*&% who "testified" at the Kavanaugh hearing. She's lucky she was not brought up on charges of lying to Congress. Instead, her gofundme got her a $1M payoff, and she road off into obscurity.

You know why that hearing ticked me off so badly? Because sexual assault and sexual harassment are no joke. And the Democrats made it into one. Ask yourself why.

 

Because the Democrats are just a cabal of pedophiles and the Republicans are the knights in shining armor coming to save the day.  Therefore, it's safe to assume the Democrats don't really care about sexual deviancy, but rather themselves and holding onto power.  There is not one strand of moral fiber in the entire party.  /s

 

Is that what you want to hear?  

[snafu]

24 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Good catch.  It was sexual harassment.  I should have said sexual deviancy to be more general.  

 

We can argue about credible or not all day.  But tell me, IF we assume the allegations to be true, would that keep you from supporting his nomination or would you still have supported it anyway?

 

Of course not.

But that’s not what happened.

 

[BillsFanNC]

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't see a cause and effect there.  Trump would be in the same position regardless.

Not if they succeeded in any of their unlawful attempts to oust a duly elected President from office.

[snafu]

26 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No but you asked why.  I disagree with your second point.  Biden's team can now point to all the Republican Senators who promised not to confirm a Supreme Court judge during the last year of Trump's term (Graham, Grassley) and say if they want to play dirty then so can we.

 

I re-read your other post.  I see your point. Where I would disagree is that you’re talking about the process more than the availability of the next Presidential term’s opportunity. That’s a nuance that most voters for the Presidential election won’t care about. Also, Biden is running on integrity as opposed to Trump’s character. What you’re saying is a 180” shift. 

 

[Doc Brown]

8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

Not if they succeeded in any of their unlawful attempts to oust a duly elected President from office.

Then Pence would be president and he'd be nominating a Supreme Court justice right now.

7 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

I re-read your other post.  I see your point. Where I would disagree is that you’re talking about the process more than the availability of the next Presidential term’s opportunity. That’s a nuance that most voters for the Presidential election won’t care about. Also, Biden is running on integrity as opposed to Trump’s character. What you’re saying is a 180” shift. 

It's hard to tell how it would play out electorally as he could frame it as they "stole a seat" (show viral clips of Graham and Grassley) and any president with integrity would justify that wrong by balancing the court through packing it.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Doc Brown

[BillsFanNC]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Then Pence would be president and he'd be nominating a Supreme Court justice right now.

 

Right. I don't think the tweet is trying to highlight a cause and effect,  but more outlining a pattern of similar behavior by the left/resistance.

[Capco]

5 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Of course not.

But that’s not what happened.

 

I would not have had a problem with a less controversial nomination.  I don't think any party should actively block the presidency from doing their duties unless required as a check and balance.  

 

It's not the issue of Kavanaugh being conservative.  Trump won, he gets to nominate a conservative.  Simple as that.  What I have issue with is the character of the nominee, which we agree to disagree on.

 

I'm just looking for shreds of rationality from a few posters (like you Snafu).  For example, a conservative poster said earlier in this thread that this allegation, even if proven true, wouldn't have mattered.  

 

And according to one poll, 55% of Republicans in that poll agreed with the poster.  

 

https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

Again, I'm just glad to see folks like you who are decent to talk to without getting all emotionally hung up and blinded.  @Alaska Darin also gave me a glimmer of hope when he said Clarence Thomas's allegations were 100%.  

 

So there's some agreement to be had if we can take the time to come together.  Really though, I am not feeling good about how our country is fairing and whenever I post here it's to try and bring back rationality into the discourse, even if it only amounts to a drop in the bucket. 

 

If I wanted to stay in my own liberal bubble I would not be posting here.  

[Buffalo_Gal]

15 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Because the Democrats are just a cabal of pedophiles and the Republicans are the knights in shining armor coming to save the day.  Therefore, it's safe to assume the Democrats don't really care about sexual deviancy, but rather themselves and holding onto power.  There is not one strand of moral fiber in the entire party.  /s

 

Is that what you want to hear?  

Is that what I want to hear? No. But you did sum it up well.  🙂
 

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Is that what I want to hear? No. But you did sum it up well.  🙂
 

 

*sigh*.... 

[Uncle Joe]

24 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

Just to clarify since some people seem to have missed it:  I am in law school, not a barred lawyer. 

<snip>

 

 You are a pup.

 

8 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

<snip>

 

If I wanted to stay in my own liberal bubble I would not be posting here.  

Good, I am open to civil discourse. Maybe an old dog can like me can learn a something new.

[Alaska Darin]

18 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

 @Alaska Darin also gave me a glimmer of hope when he said Clarence Thomas's allegations were 100%. 

1.  I'm not a Republican and I don't vote for them. 

2.  Anita Hill was 100% credible.  Exactly the opposite of Blasey-Ford.  The only reason you think she's credible is because you want her to be.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Capco]

7 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

1.  I'm not a Republican and I don't vote for them. 

2.  Anita Hill was 100% credible.  Exactly the opposite of Blasey-Ford.  The only reason you think she's credible is because you want her to be.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

No, I think it's credible because experts in the relevant field believe it's credible:  

 

Did you find her account believable?

 

She gave one of the most credible accounts I have ever heard from a victim.

 

The “victim” label is very stigmatizing and associated with stereotypes of passivity and weakness. Ford departed from those stereotypes in important ways. She is an accomplished psychologist, professor and researcher, and I was glad to see those accomplishments presented at the beginning of the hearing. Not only that, but you could also see her expertise throughout her comments. She was very brave and a role model for all survivors.

 

Despite her strength, you can see the lingering effects of her victimization — how it has affected her for years, and how, even more than 30 years later, it is difficult to talk about.

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ford-testimony-credibility-memory-20180928-story.html

 

If anything, the only reason you think she's not credible is because you don't want her to be.  

[Alaska Darin]

3 hours ago, Capco said:

 

No, I think it's credible because experts in the relevant field believe it's credible:  

 

Did you find her account believable?

 

She gave one of the most credible accounts I have ever heard from a victim.

 

The “victim” label is very stigmatizing and associated with stereotypes of passivity and weakness. Ford departed from those stereotypes in important ways. She is an accomplished psychologist, professor and researcher, and I was glad to see those accomplishments presented at the beginning of the hearing. Not only that, but you could also see her expertise throughout her comments. She was very brave and a role model for all survivors.

 

Despite her strength, you can see the lingering effects of her victimization — how it has affected her for years, and how, even more than 30 years later, it is difficult to talk about.

 

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-ford-testimony-credibility-memory-20180928-story.html

 

If anything, the only reason you think she's not credible is because you don't want her to be.  

Listen.  I'm not saying she was never the victim of an assault.  I've lived long enough and seen enough to know that virtually all women have either been assaulted ot nearly been.  

 

Her testimony about Brent Kavanaugh specifically WAS NOT CREDIBLE.  It's doubtful we will ever know the truth but I'm 1000% certsin that Joe Biden had committed egregious acts to women AS A SEATED POLITICIAN.   Yet you're still going to vote for him,  which makes you at a minimum an absolute hypocrite.  Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.