Challenge for our leftie friends

[Truth Detector]

Could you name one such measure?

I have a better idea, you prove how he would be considered extreme snowflake.

Since you haven't processed the argument yet, I'll try again.

You don't even have an argument snowflake; you have emotional false narratives. I am still waiting for any evidence of how this man cannot be qualified or extremist. So far all I get is bloviated bullshit and media narratives. THINK snowflake THINK hard and do something other than bloviate like an ignoramus.

Democrats have lost elections before and yet been willing to vote en masse for a Republican's Supreme Court nominee.... and they've also been willing to vote by a large majority for Trump's moderate picks, like Jerome Powell. So, you should be able to see that this isn't simply a reaction to losing an election. It's specific about Kavanaugh.

Once again; attempting to suggest that this isn't a partisan grandstand by the lunatics in the Democratic Party of the Jackass is not merely sign of mental retardation and dishonesty, but evidence of partisan hackery.

Tell me snowflake, how is Sotomayor or Ginsberg better qualified than this man.....try to be specific without emoting bullshit talking points.

 

[Oneuli]

1) There you go again equating what you agree with and being correct.

You misunderstand. "Extreme" and "incorrect" are not synonyms. It's entirely possible to characterize a person's positions as extreme, and yet still think they're correct positions.

Let me see if I can frame this in a way you'll understand. Let's say it's the mid-1800s and you claim the Earth is billions of years old. That would be on an extreme edge of the opinions of the time, since the Biblical sorts were saying it's only several thousand years old, and even the physicists were putting its age in the millions of years. Your position would be both extreme and correct. So, when I characterize Kavanaugh positions as extreme, you are speaking in non-sequiturs when you claim that is me equating what I agree with and being correct. His positions are extreme relative to the legal field whether they're correct or not.

I bet you're the kind that argues from the point of authority believing that because someone has a title by their name it means they are smart.

You bet wrong... your non sequitur steered you astray.

2) It's only controversial to those that support Roe v. Wade.

I'm not sure that's true. I expect there are some who oppose Roe v. Wade but who also oppose the imperial presidency, who find the pick controversia. But even if it were true, my point would remain -- that there's a reason the Kavanaugh pick is getting such intensely negative attention. Speaking on behalf of the portion of the population with a fertile uterus, the idea of losing control over that part of my body is a pretty big deal.

3) Your argument was that things are being withheld. I provided an example of where someone withheld something for 3 years and your response is to kiss his black ass.

What makes you think that my response was to kiss black ass? Be specific, please. My impression is you're just trying to derail the discussion with random racism, but if you had some other point you were trying to make, I'm all ears.

4) No difference. What it amounts to is that you support Democrats doing something then suddenly it was wrong when Republicans did it.

You think there's no difference between delaying something from June until early November and delaying it from February until late January? No difference between delaying something until after election day and delaying something until there's a new president? How so? I don't understand your argument here. How could those things not be different?

Up until the night before the election, the supposed experts claimed Hillary was going to win in a landslide.

Which experts? I gave you the figure for what 538 -- arguably the most famous of the election prognosticators -- was saying. They predicted a Clinton win, but with quite a bit of uncertainty about that. That was consistent with the polls -- the polling average showed her up by about 3 points, with polls that typically had a margin of error of three points. Clearly it was not unreasonable for the Republicans to gamble (from a strictly cynical perspective) that their unprecedented refusal to hold hearings on the Garland pick would pay off. If they thought it was a lock Clinton would win, that would have been an unwise gamble, since it would have traded a 0% chance of having their choice on the court, for a not insignificant chance that Clinton would have nominated someone to Garland's left. But Republicans could read polls, just like the rest of us, so they knew Clinton never was close to being a lock to win.

Anyway, you seem to have missed a question I asked, so I'll put it to you again:

Which "black boy" do you imagine you're quoting there, specifically? Please, link to the quotation.

 

[Oneuli]

I have a better idea, you prove how he would be considered extreme snowflake.

You said he was moderate by every measure. That's a bold statement. It suggests that you have a large number of measures in mind, so sharing just one measure from your extensive list should be easy.

Here's a good way to visualize it:

(Kavanaugh is the tenth dot from the top, out there at the extreme right.... for some reason the labels didn't come through, but you can find them at the link).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-right.html

I can think of a wide variety of topics on which we could compare Kavanaugh to other legal minds -- positions on gun control, net neutrality, abortion, etc. Do I understand correctly that your view is he's moderate on all of these?

Anyway, presumably you've now digested my argument regarding how Democrats, in fact, have a track record of voting for moderate nominees by Trump to other key positions, and moderate Supreme Court nominees by other Republican presidents. If so, you see now that the opposition we are seeing to Kavanaugh is not merely an automatic reaction to having lost an election. So, what is it, in YOUR opinion, that makes Kavanaugh very objectionable to nearly all Democrats in the Senate where so many other nominees haven't been? If it helps, take a deep breath before responding -- it should make it easier to control your emotion long enough to focus.

 

[CFM]

You misunderstand. "Extreme" and "incorrect" are not synonyms. It's entirely possible to characterize a person's positions as extreme, and yet still think they're correct positions.

Let me see if I can frame this in a way you'll understand. Let's say it's the mid-1800s and you claim the Earth is billions of years old. That would be on an extreme edge of the opinions of the time, since the Biblical sorts were saying it's only several thousand years old, and even the physicists were putting its age in the millions of years. Your position would be both extreme and correct. So, when I characterize Kavanaugh positions as extreme, you are speaking in non-sequiturs when you claim that is me equating what I agree with and being correct. His positions are extreme relative to the legal field whether they're correct or not.



You bet wrong... your non sequitur steered you astray.



I'm not sure that's true. I expect there are some who oppose Roe v. Wade but who also oppose the imperial presidency, who find the pick controversia. But even if it were true, my point would remain -- that there's a reason the Kavanaugh pick is getting such intensely negative attention. Speaking on behalf of the portion of the population with a fertile uterus, the idea of losing control over that part of my body is a pretty big deal.



What makes you think that my response was to kiss black ass? Be specific, please. My impression is you're just trying to derail the discussion with random racism, but if you had some other point you were trying to make, I'm all ears.



You think there's no difference between delaying something from June until early November and delaying it from February until late January? No difference between delaying something until after election day and delaying something until there's a new president? How so? I don't understand your argument here. How could those things not be different?



Which experts? I gave you the figure for what 538 -- arguably the most famous of the election prognosticators -- was saying. They predicted a Clinton win, but with quite a bit of uncertainty about that. That was consistent with the polls -- the polling average showed her up by about 3 points, with polls that typically had a margin of error of three points. Clearly it was not unreasonable for the Republicans to gamble (from a strictly cynical perspective) that their unprecedented refusal to hold hearings on the Garland pick would pay off. If they thought it was a lock Clinton would win, that would have been an unwise gamble, since it would have traded a 0% chance of having their choice on the court, for a not insignificant chance that Clinton would have nominated someone to Garland's left. But Republicans could read polls, just like the rest of us, so they knew Clinton never was close to being a lock to win.

Anyway, you seem to have missed a question I asked, so I'll put it to you again:

Which "black boy" do you imagine you're quoting there, specifically? Please, link to the quotation.

1) What you did was characterize something as extreme because you disagree

2) You expect? Guessing again, huh. You haven't lost control over that part of your body. If you're pregnant and contemplate having an abortion, it means you've already made the choice to spread your legs.

3) Pucker up, n-lover.

4) Not when you set the parameters of it being within the throes of an election.

As far as your source is concerned, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/ They posed three scenarios, none of which were anything but a landslide for Hillary

Newsweek, less than one month before the election, predicted a landslide - https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-track-electoral-college-landslide-510362

Washington Post, same thing - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...r-a-clinton-landslide/?utm_term=.7ce9c092805d

SF Chronicle, same thing - https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Democrats-see-Clinton-landslide-takeover-of-9967820.php

 

[Oneuli]

1) What you did was characterize something as extreme because you disagree

OK, now you've modified your assertion. So, what support do you have for that new assertion? Have you seen, for example, a pattern of me calling middle-of-the-road positions "extreme" because I disagree with them?

2) You expect?

Yes. If you read up on it, you'll find a large portion of arguments made against Kavanaugh deal with his positions on things unrelated to abortion.

You haven't lost control over that part of your body. If you're pregnant and contemplate having an abortion, it means you've already made the choice to spread your legs.

First, obviously, that's not always the case. There are rape victims who get abortions, and they made no such choice. But, even for those who did make the choice, the fact remains that in the absence of Roe v. Wade, there will be laws on the books that effectively hijack women's uteruses for the duration of their pregnancies. Even if circumstances change and they decide they no longer want to bring a pregnancy to term, they'll face criminal repercussions if they get an abortion.

3) Pucker up, n-lover.

Was that your way of confirming you were unable to answer the question, because you were, in fact, just trying to derail the discussion with random racist outbursts? Well, as you can see, it didn't work. I respond to your substantive points despite your attempts at distraction, so the failures of your arguments can't be sheltered that way.

4) Not when you set the parameters of it being within the throes of an election.

I don't understand you argument. In what way would, for example, late November of an election year be the throes of an election? Isn't that, by definition, after the election?

As far as your source is concerned, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/ They posed three scenarios, none of which were anything but a landslide for Hillary

As you can see from the fivethirtyeight site, they put her probability of winning in the low 70s. Whether they expected a landslide or a close victory, from an electoral perspective, is immaterial for purposes of the argument we're having right now. The relevant consideration was her probability of winning, regardless of margin. That probability was not so overwhelming that it would have looked pointless for the Republicans to refuse to hold a hearing until after the next term... like everyone else, the Republicans could look at the polls and see there was a considerable chance Trump would pull off the upset and then be able to fill whatever seats they were able to hold vacant. That's the whole reason they tried the stunt.

 

[Life is Golden]

So far all I get is bloviated bullshit and media narratives. THINK snowflake THINK hard and do something other than bloviate like an ignoramus.

.

Good luck. That is one verbose blowhard right there.

 

[Truth Detector]

You said he was moderate by every measure. That's a bold statement. It suggests that you have a large number of measures in mind, so sharing just one measure from your extensive list should be easy.

Here's a good way to visualize it:

(Kavanaugh is the tenth dot from the top, out there at the extreme right.... for some reason the labels didn't come through, but you can find them at the link).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-right.html

I can think of a wide variety of topics on which we could compare Kavanaugh to other legal minds -- positions on gun control, net neutrality, abortion, etc. Do I understand correctly that your view is he's moderate on all of these?

Anyway, presumably you've now digested my argument regarding how Democrats, in fact, have a track record of voting for moderate nominees by Trump to other key positions, and moderate Supreme Court nominees by other Republican presidents. If so, you see now that the opposition we are seeing to Kavanaugh is not merely an automatic reaction to having lost an election. So, what is it, in YOUR opinion, that makes Kavanaugh very objectionable to nearly all Democrats in the Senate where so many other nominees haven't been? If it helps, take a deep breath before responding -- it should make it easier to control your emotion long enough to focus.

New York Times rated him? Stop already; you look gullible and stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

Good luck. That is one verbose blowhard right there.

Verbose and stupid.

 

[CFM]

OK, now you've modified your assertion. So, what support do you have for that new assertion? Have you seen, for example, a pattern of me calling middle-of-the-road positions "extreme" because I disagree with them?



Yes. If you read up on it, you'll find a large portion of arguments made against Kavanaugh deal with his positions on things unrelated to abortion.



First, obviously, that's not always the case. There are rape victims who get abortions, and they made no such choice. But, even for those who did make the choice, the fact remains that in the absence of Roe v. Wade, there will be laws on the books that effectively hijack women's uteruses for the duration of their pregnancies. Even if circumstances change and they decide they no longer want to bring a pregnancy to term, they'll face criminal repercussions if they get an abortion.



Was that your way of confirming you were unable to answer the question, because you were, in fact, just trying to derail the discussion with random racist outbursts? Well, as you can see, it didn't work. I respond to your substantive points despite your attempts at distraction, so the failures of your arguments can't be sheltered that way.



I don't understand you argument. In what way would, for example, late November of an election year be the throes of an election? Isn't that, by definition, after the election?



As you can see from the fivethirtyeight site, they put her probability of winning in the low 70s. Whether they expected a landslide or a close victory, from an electoral perspective, is immaterial for purposes of the argument we're having right now. The relevant consideration was her probability of winning, regardless of margin. That probability was not so overwhelming that it would have looked pointless for the Republicans to refuse to hold a hearing until after the next term... like everyone else, the Republicans could look at the polls and see there was a considerable chance Trump would pull off the upset and then be able to fill whatever seats they were able to hold vacant. That's the whole reason they tried the stunt.

1) Been the same claim. You simply can't understand how you equate disagreeing and something being extreme.

2) There you go making the claim because you believe it has to be the truth.

There you go taking less than 1% of the cases where an abortion occurs and trying to make it sound as if all of them are that way. Nearly all abortions are done for convenience because the one spreading her legs doesn't like the result she knew could occur. That's not hijacking anything. It's already been hijacked.

3) Still puckering up, huh?

4) You're the one thinking June is any different than January prior when the election season has started. Face it, you're OK with Joe Biden supporting something but when Republicans do it, it's suddenly wrong because "it's different this time".

I see you completely ignored other sources that called for her having a landslide victory. Guess that's what you do when you've been proven wrong.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

1) Been the same claim. You simply can't understand how you equate disagreeing and something being extreme.

2) There you go making the claim because you believe it has to be the truth.

There you go taking less than 1% of the cases where an abortion occurs and trying to make it sound as if all of them are that way. Nearly all abortions are done for convenience because the one spreading her legs doesn't like the result she knew could occur. That's not hijacking anything. It's already been hijacked.

3) Still puckering up, huh?

4) You're the one thinking June is any different than January prior when the election season has started. Face it, you're OK with Joe Biden supporting something but when Republicans do it, it's suddenly wrong because "it's different this time".

I see you completely ignored other sources that called for her having a landslide victory. Guess that's what you do when you've been proven wrong.

 

[CFM]

View attachment 7566

304 - 227.

 

[Teflon Don]

If you want to pretend to believe that.

The question was about how Sotomayor and Kagan were treated during their confirmation hearings. Were there constant disruptions by Republican protesters trying to get thrown out.

I understand your desire to try to deflect to Garland, but that isn't relevant to the initial question.

 

[Oneuli]

New York Times rated him?

Exactly. You said he was moderate by every measure. As you can see, that was incorrect. He is not moderate by the measure of the world's most decorated newspaper. Now, if you can think of some measure by which he is moderate, just share it.

 

[Truth Detector]

Exactly. You said he was moderate by every measure. As you can see, that was incorrect. He is not moderate by the measure of the world's most decorated newspaper. Now, if you can think of some measure by which he is moderate, just share it.

The New York Times has been reduced to a leftist lie filled journal reduced to the likes of a gossip page like National Inquirer dedicated to destroying a President for no other reason than they got embarrassed divining Hillary as the first woman President. You have to be a leftist loon or an idiot to believe most of what is printed there. In your case, I am going to suggest you are both.

Again, what is extreme about Bret Kavanaugh's rulings? Surely an intelligent calm and well read person like yourself can post these radical decisions he has made right?

American Bar Association Gives Brett Kavanaugh a Unanimous Well-Qualified Rating
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timot...gh-a-unanimous-well-qualified-rating-n2514930

A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh
By Akhil Reed Amar
Mr. Amar is a professor at Yale Law School.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

 

[Oneuli]

1) Been the same claim.

I have no idea what that sentence is supposed to mean. Could you try again?

2) There you go making the claim because you believe it has to be the truth.

I'm not clear what your argument is. Would it be better if I made a claim I didn't believe had to be the truth?

There you go taking less than 1% of the cases where an abortion occurs and trying to make it sound as if all of them are that way.

Obviously, you're wrong -- nothing I said made it sound like all of them are that way. Quite the contrary, since I said that it's not always the case that the person made the choice to spread her legs (not that it's NEVER the case), I'm clearly accepting there are cases that weren't rape. You're the one who spoke in incorrect absolutes. Try harder.

Nearly all abortions are done for convenience because the one spreading her legs doesn't like the result she knew could occur.

So? That doesn't alter the fact that criminalizing abortion effectively hijacks the woman's uterus for the duration of a pregnancy. Your argument amounts to "she deserves to have her uterus kidnapped by the government, because she had sex."

Assuming you're a man, here's a way to think about it the issue that may help you see it more clearly. Imagine you come down with trichinosis from having eaten some undercooked pork. There's a fairly simple medical intervention that can remove it from your body. However, a radical Muslim group has acquired political power and wants to outlaw that medical intervention. Their argument for doing so is that you knew trichinosis was a risk when you defied Allah and sullied yourself with pork, so why should you be able to rid yourself of divine judgment for that sin.

3) Still puckering up, huh?

Was that your way of confirming you were unable to answer the question, because you were, in fact, just trying to derail the discussion with random racist outbursts? Well, as you can see, it didn't work. I respond to your substantive points despite your attempts at distraction, so the failures of your arguments can't be sheltered that way.

4) You're the one thinking June is any different than January prior when the election season has started

As you know, June is quite different from January, when it comes to how much attention is on a presidential election. The January prior to an election, the primaries haven't even started to be held. By June we know who the nominees will be and are fast ramping up to the conventions.

Face it, you're OK with Joe Biden supporting something but when Republicans do it, it's suddenly wrong because "it's different this time".

No. As you now realize, you were taken in by the right-wing blogs, which misinformed you about what Biden called for. Now you realize he never called for holding off on hearings until the next president is in power, but rather merely holding off until after election day. He made it expressly clear he wasn't trying to hold a seat vacant until a subsequent Democrat could fill it, but instead was just trying to put things off until after the voting, so that the confirmation process and the election didn't get tied up together. The speech is there for all to see, but the right-wing blogs count on their readers being too naive to question their skewed paraphrases and too lazy to seek out the actual speech.

I see you completely ignored other sources that called for her having a landslide victory.

You seem not to have processed the argument for why it's irrelevant, for purposes of the matter we're discussing, whether she won by a small margin or a landslide. The relevant question is how likely it was that she would win, regardless of size of margin. Whether she won by a single vote or by a landslide, the implications are the same for the Supreme Court. Think.

Anyway, you seem to have missed a question I asked, so I'll put it to you again:

Which "black boy" do you imagine you're quoting there, specifically? Please, link to the quotation.

 

[Oneuli]

The New York Times has been reduced to a leftist lie filled journal reduced to the likes of a gossip page like National Inquirer dedicated to destroying a President for no other reason than they got embarrassed divining Hillary as the first woman President.

Yes, I understand that among the lower order of right-wingers, the New York Times is disliked for publishing things they don't want to know. Fine. But whether you think their measure was a good one or a bad one, it was a measure. You claimed all measures show he's moderate. As you now see, you were wrong. So, can you think of a measure showing he's moderate? If so, please share.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes, I understand that among the lower order of right-wingers, the New York Times is disliked for publishing things they don't want to know. Fine.

Wrong again snowflake; it isn't about lower order right wing, they are bereft of honest journalism and rank with gossip and anti-Trumpism. That's a fact. But then, you're a lying leftist moron who thinks that the NYT is a great source for rating Justices. How dumb is that?

I'm amused that you think you are not lower order parroting such moronic nonsense.

But whether you think their measure was a good one or a bad one, it was a measure. You claimed all measures show he's moderate. As you now see, you were wrong. So, can you think of a measure showing he's moderate? If so, please share.

So you just want to ignore the links I gave you and continue acting like a moron? Is the ABA a right wing or left leaning organization? They ranked him as highly competent. It isn't about moderate, left or right. It is about the legal ability to interpret the law. I do wish you were as smart as you try to pretend you are.

But based on where you get your talking points, you're not very bright at all. In fact, you come across as dishonest and dumb.

I am still waiting for your examples of Bret's legal decisions that show him is anything other than moderate. Stop being a dishonest asshat and make your case with facts.