Board 8 > Do you believe the sexual misconduct claims against kavanaugh ?

(+) Yeah! (+)

xp1337 posted...

did you seriously rebut me by saying it was "my" objections rather than that of the general left position and literally your next word is to group me in with them collectively?

How is this nitpicking even relevant? You said "we," as in democrats, want a more conservative justice in, which is not true.
---

Who are you talking to, xp? Me or Vlado.
---

Corrik posted...

Who are you talking to, xp? Me or Vlado.

You.
---

Most Democrats, even optimistic ones, think the Senate is in play but that they're the underdogs thanks to a very GOP friendly map.

But it's very very unlikely the GOP keeps the House and Kavanaugh has become a wedge issue that's driving away independents.
---

I never referred to your singular objections to my knowledge, xp.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Kavanaugh has become a wedge issue that's driving away independents.

i.e. "rally the sheep before the midterms." Thanks for your agreement.

It's a circus.
---

Vlado posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Kavanaugh has become a wedge issue that's driving away independents.

i.e. "rally the sheep before the midterms." Thanks for your agreement.

It's a circus.

I mean to win elections you can't just hope your base wins it for you. The numbers are simply not there. Trump won thanks to late deciders moving towards him.

It would have been better for Republicans to simply withdraw the nomination and put in someone without these accusations.
---

The faster the nomination goes through the less this will even affect midterms. America is a reactionary now sheeple. Always has been. That's if you think it would affect it. What could be of effect if Dem in red States voting record on it. I guess you could argue it is a plus to the Dems in the house but possibly a net negative to senators in r states in the Senate.

I remember the ppl"polls" after the Trump allegations and the polls just a few weeks later. People react then migrate back to their usual positions usually.
---

Corrik posted...

I never referred to your singular objections to my knowledge, xp.

Too much slang/regional stuff for me to follow then. I thought you were saying "your objections" as in "That's what you think personally" before segueing into "The democrats have been doing x, y, and z."

If you meant to say I'm just lying and was part of x, y, and z then that's even worse.

If it's something else then I just didn't get it.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

I never referred to your singular objections to my knowledge, xp.

Too much slang/regional stuff for me to follow then. I thought you were saying "your objections" as in "That's what you think personally" before segueing into "The democrats have been doing x, y, and z."

If you meant to say I'm just lying and was part of x, y, and z then that's even worse.

If it's something else then I just didn't get it.

Everything there was you plural in reference to your political side.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

It would have been better for Republicans to simply withdraw the nomination and put in someone without these accusations.

You could argue that. On the other hand, the accusations are clearly fabricated. Leaving the question as this: just how easily are American fence-sitters deceived by such a charade. If they're easily deceived, they'll go for the democrats in November. If they can see through this, they'll go for the Republicans. I suppose we'll see.

If they'd withdrawn the nomination, they would have killed some of their base's enthusiasm, and they'd certainly not have gained the support of the smarter fence-sitters, either.
---

Vlado posted...

Once again, joke's on me for trying to reason with people who literally believe neocons and democrats are in any substantial way different.

It's not a joke, you're just uninformed on US politics and talk way too much. For example, you thinking this response is in any way relevant to claiming true conservatives are nationalists. Like, what?
---

Oh.

Well then I'll just saying I think I have a better grasp on the left's thinking than you. Of course there was vocal opposition to most of the short list nominees. In an ideal world of course from a political standpoint the left wants the most liberal nominee possible. It's activism.

However, Kavanaugh is seen as uniquely awful. I think if you got most people on the left to answer honestly they'd say they prefer someone who policy-wise is a stauncher conservative over Kavanaugh if they lacked those unique qualities I listed.

Would they prefer a liberal nominee over that? Of course. That's not mutually exclusive.

Here, I'll put it inequality form of what I imagine "the left" (plural) likely sees in terms of preferences here:

Liberal Nominee (Regardless of method: i.e. Whether the seat is held like Garland or Trump magically selects one for some reason) > Less Conservative Nominee (Say, Hardiman, who is seen as slightly right of Kennedy who he'd be replacing) > More Conservative Nominee (Let's say Barrett for this demonstration) > Kavanaugh.

Of course liberals aren't going to be actively calling for a more conservative nominee but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be seen as a better outcome. And to preempt this, yes, I'd expect a more conservative nominee to still be argued about if it came to that, but that's because liberals would still want to fight for what they see as ideal.

The midterm warps a lot of people's thinking on this, I feel. If this was taking place in March 2017 or something I think it'd be more clear.
---

Most people were just freaking out just because of his singular view on impeachment.
---

xp1337 posted...

Here, I'll put it inequality form of what I imagine "the left" (plural) likely sees in terms of preferences here:

Liberal Nominee (Regardless of method: i.e. Whether the seat is held like Garland or Trump magically selects one for some reason) > Less Conservative Nominee (Say, Hardiman, who is seen as slightly right of Kennedy who he'd be replacing) > More Conservative Nominee (Let's say Barrett for this demonstration) > Kavanaugh.

Wrong. You're talking for yourself.

It's liberal > less conservative > Kavanaugh > more conservative. At least for those on the left who are capable of seeing beyond their own nose. Like Chuck Schumer.
---

Corrik posted...

Most people were just freaking out just because of his singular view on impeachment.

Right. That's one of those unique traits of Kavanaugh that makes the left think he'd be worse than a stauncher conservative.

I think if you polled "the left" on: "Would you prefer a nominee who has a stronger record on conservative issues but does not believe a sitting President can not be indicted or subpoenaed?" you'd get "Yes" winning.

Just because there are still more outcomes they'd prefer doesn't change that.

Also, that was simply the initial reason the left was so opposed to Kavanaugh. Once the allegations came in I'm sure if you added that to that hypothetical poll question the answer would be overwhelming for the more conservative nominee. Remember, the left forced Franken out over allegations that weren't as severe as the ones facing Kavanaugh. They have a record of holding to this principle in the recent past.
---

xp1337 posted...

Remember, the left forced Franken out

Franken resigned himself. It was for tactical reasons, not out of some "morality." It's completely futile to try to reason with you. You literally believe democrats are the "moral" side.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

Most people were just freaking out just because of his singular view on impeachment.

Right. That's one of those unique traits of Kavanaugh that makes the left think he'd be worse than a stauncher conservative.

I think if you polled "the left" on: "Would you prefer a nominee who has a stronger record on conservative issues but does not believe a sitting President can not be indicted or subpoenaed?" you'd get "Yes" winning.

Just because there are still more outcomes they'd prefer doesn't change that.

Also, that was simply the initial reason the left was so opposed to Kavanaugh. Once the allegations came in I'm sure if you added that to that hypothetical poll question the answer would be overwhelming for the more conservative nominee. Remember, the left forced Franken out over allegations that weren't as severe as the ones facing Kavanaugh. They have a record of holding to this principle in the recent past.

You only think that's such a "terrible" thing because you selfishly think of impeachment being in play. If you take the whole Trump impeachment stuff out, no one bats an eye over that view.
---

Vlado posted...

xp1337 posted...

Remember, the left forced Franken out

Franken resigned himself. It was for tactical reasons, not out of some "morality." It's completely futile to try to reason with you. You literally believe democrats are the "moral" side.

He resigned because everyone asked him to resign.
---

Corrik posted...

You only think that's such a "terrible" thing because you selfishly think of impeachment being in play. If you take the whole Trump impeachment stuff out, no one bats an eye over that view.

That's quite the assumption about me.

I don't think the President should be above the law. I think Kavanaugh's views on that are alarming. Yes, it's a lot more relevant because of Trump's issues but it's a terrible position IMO. And you can't "take that out" because Trump is the one who selected him so it's not unreasonable to think "hey maybe that's why."
---

Kavanaugh's decision to repeatedly perjure himself should factor into it.
---

I wonder how conservatives would react if Hillary were President, and she nominated Bill to be on the Supreme Court. And then... she were under investigation by Mueller, and Bill said that he thinks that a President should be above the law. Then he was caught lying under oath, and said this was all just a conspiracy by the Bush's in his statement.

My guess is that we'd be in the Second Civil War right now if that were the case.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

xp1337 posted...

Remember, the left forced Franken out

Franken resigned himself. It was for tactical reasons, not out of some "morality." It's completely futile to try to reason with you. You literally believe democrats are the "moral" side.

He resigned because everyone asked him to resign.

He resigned for tactical reasons. Not resigning would have caused greater damage to his party at the time.
---

Vlado posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

xp1337 posted...

Remember, the left forced Franken out

Franken resigned himself. It was for tactical reasons, not out of some "morality." It's completely futile to try to reason with you. You literally believe democrats are the "moral" side.

He resigned because everyone asked him to resign.

He resigned for tactical reasons. Not resigning would have caused greater damage to his party at the time.

:thinkingemoji:
---

Vlado posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Vlado posted...

xp1337 posted...

Remember, the left forced Franken out

Franken resigned himself. It was for tactical reasons, not out of some "morality." It's completely futile to try to reason with you. You literally believe democrats are the "moral" side.

He resigned because everyone asked him to resign.

He resigned (and was asked to resign) for tactical reasons. Not resigning would have caused greater damage to his party at the time.

Franken definitely didn't want to resign and was frankly pretty disgusted at having to. He lost his base and knew he was politically dead so did because it didn't matter anymore at that point.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

You only think that's such a "terrible" thing because you selfishly think of impeachment being in play. If you take the whole Trump impeachment stuff out, no one bats an eye over that view.

That's quite the assumption about me.

I don't think the President should be above the law. I think Kavanaugh's views on that are alarming. Yes, it's a lot more relevant because of Trump's issues but it's a terrible position IMO. And you can't "take that out" because Trump is the one who selected him so it's not unreasonable to think "hey maybe that's why."

He isn't above the law and that literally isn't the viewpoint. His viewpoint is that he can't be charged with a crime while sitting as president and that there are laws (impeachment) to deal with crimes and their culpability as president and to remove him from office to then be charged as a civilian and not the president.

The only way the president is above the law is with pardons and they are frankly pretty bad.
---

hey yeah this is all great but have any of you considered that Ford might just be Amy Schumer?

https://twitter.com/dallasgoldbug/status/1045437285116841984?s=21
---

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-28/politicians-can-lie-with-impunity-because-voters-value-loyalty

So, is Kavanaugh an immoral traitor, or a benevolent liar?
---

I'm personally just opposed to pushback against women coming out with their experiences of sexual assault, because at this point it's gotten to the point of being legitimate sexism. How do you think Harvey Weinstein got away with his crimes for decades?
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I'm personally just opposed to pushback against women coming out with their experiences of sexual assault, because at this point it's gotten to the point of being legitimate sexism. How do you think Harvey Weinstein got away with his crimes for decades?

When you make your accusation a political issue, you can't be surprised when partisan politics rears its ugly head.
---

Corrik posted...

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I'm personally just opposed to pushback against women coming out with their experiences of sexual assault, because at this point it's gotten to the point of being legitimate sexism. How do you think Harvey Weinstein got away with his crimes for decades?

When you make your accusation a political issue, you can't be surprised when partisan politics rears its ugly head.

Except the point of that post wasnt "i am shocked and surprised this happened!!"
---