US Politics: Crossing that Ford

[Bonnot OG]

These crypt keeping old white pieces of garbage can not drop dead fast enough.

[Bonnot OG]

21 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

I don't buy that even the GOP is loony enough to think this will shut down #MeToo. Supercharge it, more like. 

About McConnell: Nate Silver is of the opinion he's speeding through this to get to the point where Murkowski and Collins kill the nom, and he can move on to the next candidate, while claiming he did everything he could. I can kind of see that. The only issue is, Trump is a major wildcard here. Now that he's married his bran to Kavanaugh's, I don't see him easily severing it.

Collins will vote for him. She keeps saying she doesn't think he will abolish roe vs wade because he loves the consitution. The daft piece of shit she is.

[fionwe1987]

 

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

The problem with any Nate Silver political analysis is he assumes politicians would act rationally, or like he would.  That's rarely the case.

He is not. He points to the fact that McConnell actually is a politician who thinks a few moves ahead, and that is true. He also concedes this may have been McConnell's initial plan with just one accusation public that may have gone out of hand now.

15 minutes ago, Bonnot OG said:

Collins will vote for him. She keeps saying she doesn't think he will abolish roe vs wade because he loves the consitution. The daft piece of shit she is.

Doesn't sound like it, given that she went to the Senate leadership with a printout of the third accusation, and demanded to know why Mark Judge isn't being subpoenaed. We'll see, but I wouldn't completely write her off yet.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

He is not. He points to the fact that McConnell actually is a politician who thinks a few moves ahead, and that is true. He also concedes this may have been McConnell's initial plan with just one accusation public that may have gone out of hand now.

I've read his reasoning.  Agree to disagree.  He is expecting McConnell to cut his losses, which was what would be the rational decision pre-Trump.  I'm not sure it's the rational decision any more for the GOP leader.

[fionwe1987]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I've read his reasoning.  Agree to disagree.  He is expecting McConnell to cut his losses, which was what would be the rational decision pre-Trump.  I'm not sure it's the rational decision any more for the GOP leader.

I disagree with him that McConnell can cut his losses now, no matter his intentions. But his demand for a quick floor vote is a pretty bizarre thing, at this point. With only one allegation getting any kind of airing tomorrow, and Murkowski and Collins making noise about the others, a weekend vote, like he's hinting at, is pretty damn weird, if he genuinely wants Kavanaugh confirmed.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I mean, in a rational world, you'd think Kavanaugh not getting confirmed would turn out the GOP in droves, to make sure they keep seats.  There has to be a qualified very conservative candidate that doesn't have entire closets and attics and storage units filled with skeletons.  

[Bonnot OG]

58 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

 

He is not. He points to the fact that McConnell actually is a politician who thinks a few moves ahead, and that is true. He also concedes this may have been McConnell's initial plan with just one accusation public that may have gone out of hand now.

Doesn't sound like it, given that she went to the Senate leadership with a printout of the third accusation, and demanded to know why Mark Judge isn't being subpoenaed. We'll see, but I wouldn't completely write her off yet.

Call me cynical, but I see it as all show for the gullible libs and independents.

[DMC]

52 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

There has to be a qualified very conservative candidate that doesn't have entire closets and attics and storage units filled with skeletons.

Not sure about this assumption.

[Ser Reptitious]

9 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

In normal times? Sure, but we're not in normal times.

I've posted this before, but it feels apt for the moment. There's an old Chinese cure: "May you live in interesting times." 

Well, what I mean is that we already know (by way of intelligence community alarm-raising) that the risk of actual (Russian) election interference is pretty high. But so far whenever the Democrats have raised this issue the Republicans responded with indicating that everything is fine, the voting machines are safe, and so there is no need for additional protective measures. 

But now with Trump raising the alarm about supposed Chinese interference, the Republicans can't really hand-waive it away anymore if the Democrats once again publicly talk about specific additional precautionary measures that should be implemented. 

Of course it's obvious why Trump is raising this issue, but that doesn't mean the Democrats can't seize the moment to publicly force Republicans to implement additional safety measures. As they seem to be concerned about Chinese interference, how could they say no?

[mormont]

3 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

I mean, in a rational world, you'd think Kavanaugh not getting confirmed would turn out the GOP in droves, to make sure they keep seats.  There has to be a qualified very conservative candidate that doesn't have entire closets and attics and storage units filled with skeletons.  

Such a candidate would also have to be willing to be associated with Trump.

[SweetPea]

7 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Well, extreme vetting isn't for white people. They are just naturally pure and good.

Like the white man who was just executed in Texas? Funny how that works. In a country where whites (especially males) are assumed pure and good, where the criminal justice system gives them a free pass, where women are treated as objects, a man was just executed, in large part because the authorities believed the words of his ex-girlfriend. That's some coherent worldview you got there.

[OldGimletEye]

Good bye 20th Century.
Hello 1880s.
Standby. There is going to be a lot of "libertarian" overlording here shortly.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/25/17897670/brett-kavanaugh-economy

Quote

There’s a reason that groups like the US Chamber of Commerce are still backing Brett Kavanaugh despite serious accusations that he sexually assaulted one or more women in his younger days, which Kavanaugh denies. Big business knows that Kavanaugh could be a boon to their bottom line.

One of the biggest questions facing the American judiciary is whether the Constitution allows elected representatives to meaningfully regulate the national economy.

Kavanaugh clearly believes it does not: He has called the existence of independent regulatory agencies — notably including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but potentially the entire alphabet soup of FCC, FTC, CFTC, SEC, FEC, etc. — a “threat to individual liberty.”

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, SweetPea said:

Like the white man who was just executed in Texas? Funny how that works. In a country where whites (especially males) are assumed pure and good, where the criminal justice system gives them a free pass, where women are treated as objects, a man was just executed, in large part because the authorities believed the words of his ex-girlfriend. That's some coherent worldview you got there.

Oh for fucks sake, don't you have a bridge to hide under?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Well, what I mean is that we already know (by way of intelligence community alarm-raising) that the risk of actual (Russian) election interference is pretty high. But so far whenever the Democrats have raised this issue the Republicans responded with indicating that everything is fine, the voting machines are safe, and so there is no need for additional protective measures. 

But now with Trump raising the alarm about supposed Chinese interference, the Republicans can't really hand-waive it away anymore if the Democrats once again publicly talk about specific additional precautionary measures that should be implemented. 

Of course it's obvious why Trump is raising this issue, but that doesn't mean the Democrats can't seize the moment to publicly force Republicans to implement additional safety measures. As they seem to be concerned about Chinese interference, how could they say no?

Of course they can, such is their wont. Don’t mistake yourself here, you’re not dealing with honest actors.

[aceluby]

10 hours ago, fionwe1987 said:

I disagree with him that McConnell can cut his losses now, no matter his intentions. But his demand for a quick floor vote is a pretty bizarre thing, at this point. With only one allegation getting any kind of airing tomorrow, and Murkowski and Collins making noise about the others, a weekend vote, like he's hinting at, is pretty damn weird, if he genuinely wants Kavanaugh confirmed.

Isn't Flake planning on leaving for the weekend?  Meaning he's abstaining?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Isn't Flake planning on leaving for the weekend?  Meaning he's abstaining?

He’ll be out of town on Monday, but that doesn’t preclude that he can’t return on Tuesday for the vote.

Anyways, the show is about to start…..

[Ser Reptitious]

21 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Of course they can, such is their wont. Don’t mistake yourself here, you’re not dealing with honest actors.

I agree that they are not honest actors. If they were, this would be a non-issue. But if they get publicly pressed about what additional preventative measures could/should be introduced to alleviate the President's tampering concerns, how will they respond?

ETA: My point is, Trump has already (disingeniously) put the narrative out there about possible election tampering. So how are the Democrats going to respond? Are they going to say nothing at all and just let Trump lay the groundwork to question the election results after the fact? Or should they seize this opportunity to throw Trump's "concerns" back in his face by indicating agreement that stricter election monitoring protections are needed? 

Personally I think the latter would be the smart move in this case.

[Mexal]

Grassley is a prime example of why there needs to be term limits in the Senate.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

21 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Grassley is a prime example of why there needs to be term limits in the Senate.

Not term limits, but age limits.

[Gertrude]

My state won't stop voting for him! I'm sorry!