Challenge for our leftie friends

Oneuli said:
Since Trump has never nominated a moderate to the Supreme Court, we cannot say definitively what would happen if he did. All we have to go on is what has happened when he nominated moderates to other extremely important positions like the head of the Fed, as well as examples of how Democrats reacted when other Republican presidents nominated moderates to the Supreme Court (like Souter). Both those pieces of evidence suggest you're wrong. Aside from your very strong emotions, do you have any evidence to suggest you're right?
Click to expand...

You don't get to define what is moderate or what is extreme snowflake. This nomination isn't about any of that. It is about a highly qualified man who has a long record of decision making lauded by his peers and the weak, embarrassing, shrill and lunatic efforts of a liberal left ideology that doesn't know when it is losing or how to lose gracefully.

Stop pretending this is anything other than whiny leftists not getting their way and doing everything they can to make a mockery of our elections and institutions.
 
floridafan said:
His comments about Roe V Wade have been intentionally hidden along with a whole lot of other stuf
Click to expand...

This isn't about Roe v Wade snowflake. This is about making a mockery of our election processes and our institutions. Nothing more.

A Supreme Court justice cannot rescind a decision that has already been made and established. That is pure dumbfuckery there snowflake. They can only decide cases that are brought before them.
 
Truth Detector said:
This isn't about Roe v Wade snowflake. This is about making a mockery of our election processes and our institutions. Nothing more.

A Supreme Court justice cannot rescind a decision that has already been made and established. That is pure dumbfuckery there snowflake. They can only decide cases that are brought before them.
Click to expand...

"A Supreme Court justice cannot rescind a decision that has already been made and established."

One justice cannot, a full court can, cunt breath.
 
Truth Detector said:
It is a shrill and lunatic view to suggest that Trump was not elected
Click to expand...

First, shrill is a question of tone, not content. Do you see my point about how your tone is shrill while mine is calm and reasoned?

As to the question of content, do you imagine that I have suggested Trump was not elected? If so, what made you imagine that, specifically?

that Trump colluded with Russians
Click to expand...

We know that the top three people in Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians: his son, son-in-law, and the head of his campaign. Whether Trump was part of that collusion remains an open question.

that Bret Kavanaugh is not qualified to sit on the bench
Click to expand...

The question of whether Kavanaugh is qualified is one of opinion, depending on what qualities you think a Supreme Court justice should have. It may hurt you, emotionally, to hear arguments against him, but that doesn't make those argument shrill.

All you are doing is parroting the garbage you have been fed.
Click to expand...

To some extent you're right. For example, I didn't invent the word "shrill." It's been around for a very long time. So, when I say you're using it wrong, that really just amounts to parroting the dictionary.

Actually, there has been NOTHING connected to the Trump campaign to suggest that anything illegal occurred
Click to expand...

As you know, it's now clear that top members of Trump's campaign met with known agents of the Putin government for the express purpose of getting valuable information to use in the campaign. As you presumably also know, there's a law that makes it illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreigner for purposes of a campaign. So, as you should be able to see, it's clear that people connected to the Trump campaign did something that, at least according to the plain meaning of a duly enacted federal law, was a crime. They can, of course, argue that the law itself was unconstitutional or that it can't constitutionally be interpreted in accordance with its plain language.... that, in effect, they have a first amendment right to get something of value for a campaign from a foreign government, regardless of what the statutes say. The way to resolve that is to bring a case against them, have them assert the first amendment as a defense, and have a court rule on whether the first amendment overrides the plain meaning of the statute.
 
Oneuli said:
First, shrill is a question of tone, not content. Do you see my point about how your tone is shrill while mine is calm and reasoned?

As to the question of content, do you imagine that I have suggested Trump was not elected? If so, what made you imagine that, specifically?



We know that the top three people in Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians: his son, son-in-law, and the head of his campaign. Whether Trump was part of that collusion remains an open question.



The question of whether Kavanaugh is qualified is one of opinion, depending on what qualities you think a Supreme Court justice should have. It may hurt you, emotionally, to hear arguments against him, but that doesn't make those argument shrill.



To some extent you're right. For example, I didn't invent the word "shrill." It's been around for a very long time. So, when I say you're using it wrong, that really just amounts to parroting the dictionary.



As you know, it's now clear that top members of Trump's campaign met with known agents of the Putin government for the express purpose of getting valuable information to use in the campaign. As you presumably also know, there's a law that makes it illegal to solicit anything of value from a foreigner for purposes of a campaign. So, as you should be able to see, it's clear that people connected to the Trump campaign did something that, at least according to the plain meaning of a duly enacted federal law, was a crime. They can, of course, argue that the law itself was unconstitutional or that it can't constitutionally be interpreted in accordance with its plain language.... that, in effect, they have a first amendment right to get something of value for a campaign from a foreign government, regardless of what the statutes say. The way to resolve that is to bring a case against them, have them assert the first amendment as a defense, and have a court rule on whether the first amendment overrides the plain meaning of the statute.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're wasting your time. Conservatives don't debate in good faith here. Never have, never will.
 
Truth Detector said:
You don't get to define extreme right or left snowflake. The rest of your whiny screed reads like this.....
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

You seem to have become confused. My response was to CFM.
 
Conservatives screamed like barnyard animals about 33,000 missing Hillary e-mails, but are suddenly silent on millions of missing Kavanaugh e-mails.
 
LV426 said:
Not sure why you're wasting your time. Conservatives don't debate in good faith here. Never have, never will.
Click to expand...

It's more for the lurkers, really. I assume there are people who aren't in a deep political rut who see this stuff in passing, and I think there's value for them to witness who is trying to debate politely based on demonstrable facts and logical arguments, and who is melting down into mindless invective.
 
Jarod said:
Did they withhold 100,000 pages from the public in advance of the Kagan or Sotamayor confirmation hearings? Was that before or after they stole the Merrick Garland seat?
Click to expand...

Not an argument and not relevant to the question

You are spinning
 
Truth Detector said:
You don't get to define what is moderate or what is extreme....
Click to expand...

No. The evidence does so. Now, care to answer my question? I laid out my reasons for thinking that a moderate nominee would get plenty of Democratic votes (1. moderate Trump nominees to other posts got plenty of Democratic votes, 2. moderate Supreme Court nominees by other Republican presidents got plenty of Democratic votes). Do you have some reason for thinking that's wrong, other than your own emotional state of grievance? I'm open to any evidence-based arguments you can think of.
 
LV426 said:
Conservatives screamed like barnyard animals about 33,000 missing Hillary e-mails, but are suddenly silent on millions of missing Kavanaugh e-mails.
Click to expand...

So you are okay when high level government officials illegally use private email servers to avoid public scrutiny to conduct the public's business and that contain classified information?
 
LV426 said:
Not sure why you're wasting your time. Conservatives don't debate in good faith here. Never have, never will.
Click to expand...

Oneuli said:
It's more for the lurkers, really. I assume there are people who aren't in a deep political rut who see this stuff in passing, and I think there's value for them to witness who is trying to debate politely based on demonstrable facts and logical arguments, and who is melting down into mindless invective.
Click to expand...

:lolup:
giphy.gif
 
Oneuli said:
No. The evidence does so. Now, care to answer my question? I laid out my reasons for thinking that a moderate nominee would get plenty of Democratic votes (1. moderate Trump nominees to other posts got plenty of Democratic votes, 2. moderate Supreme Court nominees by other Republican presidents got plenty of Democratic votes). Do you have some reason for thinking that's wrong, other than your own emotional state of grievance? I'm open to any evidence-based arguments you can think of.
Click to expand...

Bret Kavanaugh is a moderate by every measure. Now, tell me how this is not about losing an election and liberals, the media and the Democratic Party of the Jackass not acting juvenile, petty and stupid?
 
It is almost all Code Pink protesters who are fighting for women's rights. They have adopted this tactic and use it at most protests. They will not matter in the end. the Repubs stole one seat and will be happy to force another one through. Trump needs a judge who believes in the imperial presidency. Kavanaugh is that judge. He is also lying about his pro birth stance. Lying about his corporate slant too. He is a terrible candidate for the court if you want a fair Supreme Court. If you want a far right pluocratic court, he is your man.
 
Last edited:
Oneuli said:
No. He's extreme because if you arranged major figures from the legal field along a spectrum, from right to left, based on their decisions and published comments regarding major legal issues, he'd sit near the extreme right of that spectrum.




No. What would make you imagine that's what I was saying? My argument is very simple. I'm arguing that part of what has made Kavanaugh so controversial is the expectation that his taking that seat will result in the disruption of key long-standing precedents. That is not, in itself, an argument as to whether those precedents are good or bad, nor whether upsetting them is a good or bad thing. It's just pointing out why he's so controversial. Specifically, people who don't like the idea of women being treated as criminals for ending unwanted pregnancies are keenly aware that if he gets on the court, that's just what's likely to happen.



You seem to have lost the thread here. I'll help. As a reminder, I was pointing out the role that Kavanaugh's refusal to provide customary documentation has added to the controversy. You responded by asking "You mean like a birth certificate that took 3 years to provide?" I responded that I didn't mean that (I'm not even aware of any issue involving a judicial nominee being asked to provide a birth certificate and not doing so for three years). So, I asked what made you think I meant that. So, what's your answer?



First, Biden's comments were made in June and referred to a seat that might become vacant at some point in future weeks, before the election. So, clearly what he was picturing was much deeper in the throes of an election than something happening way back in mid-February, when the primaries haven't even gotten going. Would 1992 Biden have wanted to keep the seat vacant for many more months? That's impossible to know, at this point. However, even if we were to imagine he thought that way, and for some reason only got around to saying something many months later, that still doesn't change the fact he never called for postponing hearings until the next president was in power. That's just the lie that the right-wing blogs told their gullible readers. He merely called for delaying until after the election. There were still 78 days to confirm after that, which is well under the average wait time between nomination and confirmation.

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.



I thought there was a decent chance she'd lose. So did most people who looked at the data, which is why the Republican gambit of delaying was worth it to them. Trump was ahead in the polling average as late as late July, and was in a dead heat with Clinton a couple other times before that. In the end, the Fivethirtyeight analysis gave Clinton a 71.4% chance of winning, which is hardly a slam dunk. In fact, sticking to the basketball analogy, it's about the average percentage of a college free throw shot... you expect it will go in, but you're not terribly surprised when it misses, either. So, it was roughly analogous to a team committing an intentional foul in the closing seconds of a game, knowing that if the opponent hits the foul shots, they'll lose, but still thinking it's their best shot at winning.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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


Up until the night before the election, the supposed experts claimed Hillary was going to win in a landslide. She lost, she lost big, and you pussies have done nothing but whine like a bunch of blacks having to get a job without affirmative action since then.
 
Truth Detector said:
Bret Kavanaugh is a moderate by every measure.
Click to expand...

Could you name one such measure?

Now, tell me how this is not about losing an election and liberals, the media and the Democratic Party of the Jackass not acting juvenile, petty and stupid?
Click to expand...

Since you haven't processed the argument yet, I'll try again. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top