Hawaii senator Mazie Hirono on Kavanaugh

[scottw]

democrats like to kick you in the nuts and then demand civility

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

democrats like to kick you in the nuts and then demand civility

Said the pot calling the kettle black
In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Said the pot calling the kettle black
In these times, however, it’s a joke to focus on incivility by Democrats even as the Republican president routinely says things that are as bad as or worse than the attacks of the most irresponsible Democratic no-name precinct chair. Nor is President Donald Trump as much of an outlier as one might imagine. After all, his crusade to declare President Barack Obama a non-citizen was taken up by many Republican politicians; his repeated ethnic slur against Senator Elizabeth Warren, repeated this past weekend, was adapted from one used against her by Massachusetts Republicans.

This strain of Republican rhetoric goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawmaker from Georgia who became House speaker was not just prone to excessive rhetoric himself, but trained Republican politicians to use extreme wording.

Then there’s Republican-aligned media, a constant source of institutionalized incivility that encourages a politics of grievance by searching out any examples of Democratic rhetorical excess.


Basically, anyone who thinks the parties are even remotely equivalent on this score is treating Trump as if he doesn’t count. And anyone who thinks the parties are roughly equivalent if you remove Trump from the equation should take Kevin Drum’s advice and spend more time critically monitoring Republican-aligned media. And, as Norm Ornstein reminds us, critical monitoring is not the same as reacting to the problem of incivility with a “knee-jerk response” of trying to find equal fault on both sides. and using conservative outlets only as a source for finding examples of poor Democratic behavior.

yawn

[Jim in CT]

Spence you also claimed multiple times, the Ford's allegation was not shared with the FBI during his background check, to protect her identity. If the democrats were concerned with her privacy, why did they leak her identity to the media? They wouldn't give her name to the FBI, but they gave it to the media?

[scottw]

democrats look dumber than ever,,,,this is great

[Nebe]

I like how a consentual blow job is an impeachable offense to republicans but attempted rape is totally cool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I like how a consentual blow job is an impeachable offense to republicans but attempted rape is totally cool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Was there proof of the blowjob (I.e. see dress) and is there proof of attempted rape?

And he was impeached for lying under oath.

And for the record, I always thought the whole BJ thing should have just been between Bill, Hillary, and Monica
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Was there proof of the blowjob (I.e. see dress) and is there proof of attempted rape?

And he was impeached for lying under oath.

And for the record, I always thought the whole BJ thing should have just been between Bill, Hillary, and Monica
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that is why Rudy (if he is smarter than he sounds) will never let Trump sit down with Mueller to testify under oath, he can’t stop lying regardless of the implications.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

oprah told trump to speak his own truth so that's what he does...i thought that was big with the lefties

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I like how a consentual blow job is an impeachable offense to republicans but attempted rape is totally cool.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It wasn't the affair, he lied about it under oath. That was the impeachable ofense. Also there was irrefutable evidence of the affair, not just she said he said.

[fishbones]

By the way, it’s also correct to start sentences with capital letters, Wayne. A little bit of correct grammar goes a long way when you want to be taken seriously.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Senator Horino said today, that because of the way Kavanaugh decides cases, she doesn't think that presumption of innocence applies to him. Nice to hear a totalitarian admit it that the protections provided by our justice system, do not apply to everyone equally in her mind. This is a US Senator.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Senator Horino said today, that because of the way Kavanaugh decides cases, she doesn't think that presumption of innocence applies to him. Nice to hear a totalitarian admit it that the protections provided by our justice system, do not apply to everyone equally in her mind. This is a US Senator.

She is an enemy of the people... not a US Senator in my opinion and should have her head examined

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Senator Horino said today, that because of the way Kavanaugh decides cases, she doesn't think that presumption of innocence applies to him. Nice to hear a totalitarian admit it that the protections provided by our justice system, do not apply to everyone equally in her mind. This is a US Senator.

Are you making things up again?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

She said on CNN that his credibility in this accusation is "very questionable", specifically because of the way that he has decides cases, and she specified women's reproductive rights. As if Kavanaugh is opposed to reproductive rights in any general kind of sense, but liberals don't like to use the word "abortion", even though that's all this is.

Unless he decides cases by forcing himself on unwilling women, how can his judicial record have any bearing in this accusation? Go ahead and explain that, please?

Now he's a serial rapist according to the 3rd accuser, and yet six FBI investigations failed to uncover any of this. Fascinating.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

She said on CNN that his credibility in this accusation is "very questionable", specifically because of the way that he has decides cases, and she specified women's reproductive rights. As if Kavanaugh is opposed to reproductive rights in any general kind of sense, but liberals don't like to use the word "abortion", even though that's all this is.

Unless he decides cases by forcing himself on unwilling women, how can his judicial record have any bearing in this accusation? Go ahead and explain that, please?

Now he's a serial rapist according to the 3rd accuser, and yet six FBI investigations failed to uncover any of this. Fascinating.

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. This makes her an "enemy of the people?" That's some standard.

As for the background check, we've covered that before.

Put a fork in him Jim.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. This makes her an "enemy of the people?" That's some standard.

As for the background check, we've covered that before.

Put a fork in him Jim.

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. is above reproach because she' has a 'D' after her name. Fixed it for you.

I would advise a ten day FBI investigation, and if it turns up zip, that's the end of it. I don't think they will withdraw his nomination based on allegations that are not only unsubstantiated, but explicitly denied by the witnesses named by the accuser. Spence, how many times does Ford have to say "this person was there", and have that person flatly deny that, before even you start scratching your head? Is that remotely possible? Or is all that matters to you, the politics? Does justice ever factor into your thinking? Because if there's any actual evidence, I'd scream for his nomination to be withdrawn.

And if Trump ever nominates another judge, I hope he picks Mrs Barrett, the one who Feinstein said "the dogma is loud in you". Let your side dig up dirt that she's a slut.

Trump isn't Bush. I wouldn't count on him withdrawing the nomination without something more than allegations. For all his many faults, one thing I admire about him, is that he cares about not cowering to the mob. He could not care less what they think. There's no pressuring this guy with these tactics.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, how many times does Ford have to say "this person was there", and have that person flatly deny that, before even you start scratching your head? Is that remotely possible? Or is all that matters to you, the politics? Does justice ever factor into your thinking? Because if there's any actual evidence, I'd scream for his nomination to be withdrawn.

I think Judge is the only witness who denies he was there. The others just don't recall, and I believe most of them support Ford. I don't think I could recall most of the parties I was at in high school or college unless something noteworthy happened.

This isn't a matter of justice, it's a very big job interview.

[scottw]

these are the weakest allegations of sexual assault in the history of allegations of sexual assault

"In the course of calling former classmates to corroborate her claim that Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly exposed himself to her at a dorm party, Deborah Ramirez told a number of them that she wasn’t entirely sure that Kavanaugh was responsible, the New York Times reported Sunday.

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge,” the Times reported. “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”

Ramirez went public in a Sunday New Yorker article with the accusation that Kavanaugh, then a freshman at Yale, thrust his penis in her face while playing a drinking game. The article does not include any eyewitness accounts and several of Kavanaugh’s college friends and roommates disputed the claim in a statement."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. .

So how has Kavanaugh decided any cases, in a way which makes it more likely, that he is a violent pervert? I'm all ears...

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe she questioned his application of the facts in cases she's very familiar with and questions his credibility because of that. This makes her an "enemy of the people?" That's some standard.

I believe you believe what you wrote, because I believe you can talk yourself into believing pretty much anything that the Democrats go along with.
She should be called out for the extremist she is, oh and also have her head examined.