Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help


T___A

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

What proof do you have that these women are lying? 

 

Do you hear that? It's the foundations of the liberal justice system crumbling because one political bent lost an election.

 

I sure do think burden of proof being on the accused is the best course of action! Yessiree! That's how we'll get rid of mean Cheeto man!

 

Why, I think Salem is the model of the future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

you don't get to take the high road.  

 

A Person of such obvious low character and bad motives because it furthers an agenda you favor.  Don't complain when the people who disagree with you start to utilize every tactic available.  

 

Walt, this is a valid description of every presidential candidate (and why they are run, and why they get elected), for well over a century.

Hillary getting elected would not have changed a thing. 

You know this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lostwingman said:

 

Do you hear that? It's the foundations of the liberal justice system crumbling because one political bent lost an election.

 

I sure do think burden of proof being on the accused is the best course of action! Yessiree! That's how we'll get rid of mean Cheeto man!

 

Why, I think Salem is the model of the future!

 

This argument would be valid if this were a trial.  It is not.  This is essentially a job interview.  It's to determine if this particular candidate is of good character and qualified to be given a lifetime appointment as one of the most powerful judges in the nation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

 

Your ass is showing, Trump touch you in your front hole?

 

Anyway, you really seem off your game, lose your job again? I mean is everything OK or is this the new normal?

 

For the record, I did not lose my last job.  I resigned of my own free will, and was in no danger of being fired.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

This argument would be valid if this were a trial.  It is not.  This is essentially a job interview.  It's to determine if this particular candidate is of good character and qualified to be given a lifetime appointment as one of the most powerful judges in the nation.  

 

Yes, and given that these allegations are obviously spurious, it's critical that the Republicans not let it get in the way of confirming Kavanaugh, or else it will tell everyone that rape accusations are a valid political tactic.

 

Ford doesn't even have enough credibility to warrant an investigation by the local PD, let alone the FBI. The fact that she is getting an FBI investigation has more to do with calling the Democrats' bluff than anything else. Not a single Republican on the SJC voted against Kavanaugh, and not a single Democrat for. If that doesn't tell you what this really is, then I don't know what will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

This argument would be valid if this were a trial.  It is not.  This is essentially a job interview.  It's to determine if this particular candidate is of good character and qualified to be given a lifetime appointment as one of the most powerful judges in the nation.  

You still have the assumption of innocence, especially in circumstances like this.

This is one person (and another likely looking for her fifteen minutes) making a claim that goes completely against everything else said, written or investigated about the guy.

 

She's wanting a FBI investigation. The guy was a U.S. circuit judge for D.C.. If he had real dirt, it'd have turned up before this.

 

You want to know why some people have a hard-on for this guy?

He worked on the Starr report, that indicted Clinton and lead to his impeachment. 

This is revenge. Plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reposting because this is the alpha and the omega of this whole issue:

 

 

"When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them Lindsey says hello, because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you've done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics, and if you really wanted to know the truth you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy."

 

The Democrats' narrative falls apart against Graham's words, the character of his statement, and his voting record. Do the Republicans hate women? Graham fucking doesn't, he voted to put two of them on the SCOTUS. Are the Republicans just drawing up partisan battle lines? Graham isn't, because those two women judges he voted for were Democrats. And yet, Graham sees the sham being pulled here and voted Kavanaugh through. The Democrats, not the Republicans, are the faith-breakers here. Before, it was accepted that Senators voted for SCOTUS nominees based on their qualifications, not their politics. Yet the Democrats, in lockstep solidarity, have not only voted against Kavanaugh, but orchestrated one of the most shameful and disgusting character assassinations in US political history solely to prevent a vote from going through. They have done this for no other reason than that Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist with a flawless opinion record, and - gasp - would sit on the court to uphold the actual law and not what some people want the law to be. Is there any doubt, based on Kavanaugh's history as a judge, that if a Democratic Congress and President passed a universal healthcare bill that was outlined within the framework of the Constitution, that Kavanaugh would not judge against it? His record as a judge is complete. But he is not the bench legislator that the Democrats want, and they have shown their true scumbucket color of character by destroying his reputation for that sole aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Reposting because this is the alpha and the omega of this whole issue:

 

 

"When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them Lindsey says hello, because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you've done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham since I've been in politics, and if you really wanted to know the truth you sure as hell wouldn't have done what you've done to this guy."

 

The Democrats' narrative falls apart against Graham's words, the character of his statement, and his voting record. Do the Republicans hate women? Graham fucking doesn't, he voted to put two of them on the SCOTUS. Are the Republicans just drawing up partisan battle lines? Graham isn't, because those two women judges he voted for were Democrats. And yet, Graham sees the sham being pulled here and voted Kavanaugh through. The Democrats, not the Republicans, are the faith-breakers here. Before, it was accepted that Senators voted for SCOTUS nominees based on their qualifications, not their politics. Yet the Democrats, in lockstep solidarity, have not only voted against Kavanaugh, but orchestrated one of the most shameful and disgusting character assassinations in US political history solely to prevent a vote from going through. They have done this for no other reason than that Kavanaugh is a strict constructionist with a flawless opinion record, and - gasp - would sit on the court to uphold the actual law and not what some people want the law to be. Is there any doubt, based on Kavanaugh's history as a judge, that if a Democratic Congress and President passed a universal healthcare bill that was outlined within the framework of the Constitution, that Kavanaugh would not judge against it? His record as a judge is complete. But he is not the bench legislator that the Democrats want, and they have shown their true scumbucket color of character by destroying his reputation for that sole aim.

My only critique is "it's not just the Democrats".

 

There's some Repubs/RINO's who want to scotch this guy for the same reasons. "He might not play ball".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Funny, when Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the Republican Senate had no problem postponing a hearing for months for purely partisan reasons.   

That had less to do with who nominated him, and more to do with procedure. Obama was throwing a long ball hoping that would happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sturgeon said:

 

I more meant that I'm kind of terrified that people are going to start shooting at each other.

You mean en-masse.  It'll take a lot more than what we've seen to set that firecracker off.

 

Instead we'll just get a bunch of "onsies-fivesies", that are not far removed from being false flag ops, to plumb the depths of U.S. voter apathy and indifference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Yes but they didn't ACCUSE HIM OF RAPE

Yes, Walt seems to think the political power the Republicans used, the kind given to them by voters fed up with Obama's shits, to stop him, is evil and wrong, when it was just politics, and is exactly the same as smearing someone as a rapist when you have had that power taken away by the same voters. He gets his talking points right from the DNC and has said he is fine with their tactics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

This argument would be valid if this were a trial.  It is not.  This is essentially a job interview.  It's to determine if this particular candidate is of good character and qualified to be given a lifetime appointment as one of the most powerful judges in the nation.  

 

So at your next job interview can I make false accusations against you to make sure that you don't get the job? Also, are you familiar with the concepts of slander and liable? How about the concept of common law? Critical thinking?

 

Presumption of innocence is a legal standard because it comes from a cultural standard. I love all these people mindlessly crowing about how presumption of innocence only applies in courts, without thinking about the ramifications of what they are saying. Presumption of innocence in the courts means nothing if it does not exist in society at large. We have gotten a taste of what it looks like over the years, and it's been a very bitter taste every time. The presumption of guilt is a direct product of prejudice, when the judgment is handed down before the case is even heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

Yes, Walt seems to think the political power the Republicans used, the kind given to them by voters fed up with Obama's shits, to stop him, is evil and wrong, when it was just politics, and is exactly the same as smearing someone as a rapist when you have had that power taken away by the same voters. He gets his talking points right from the DNC and has said he is fine with their tactics. 

 

I'm not going to join in on the "lets rib Walt" session.  A lot of my family are die-hard (AKA "Blue Dog" Democrats).

I'd just point out that within my lifetime, we had a Republican president who was a real piece of work, and another who was basically a seat warmer.

 

(But then we had Carter. Poor Jimmy.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ulric said:

 

So at your next job interview can I make false accusations against you to make sure that you don't get the job? Also, are you familiar with the concepts of slander and liable? How about the concept of common law? Critical thinking?

 

Presumption of innocence is a legal standard because it comes from a cultural standard. I love all these people mindlessly crowing about how presumption of innocence only applies in courts, without thinking about the ramifications of what they are saying. Presumption of innocence in the courts means nothing if it does not exist in society at large. We have gotten a taste of what it looks like over the years, and it's been a very bitter taste every time. The presumption of guilt is a direct product of prejudice, when the judgment is handed down before the case is even heard.

 

 

A lot of that is going right out the window, in this age of social media.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Meplat said:

 

I'm not going to join in on the "lets rib Walt" session.  A lot of my family are die-hard (AKA "Blue Dog" Democrats).

I'd just point out that within my lifetime, we had a Republican president who was a real piece of work, and another who was basically a seat warmer.

 

(But then we had Carter. Poor Jimmy.).

 

I agree about most Presidents and politicians, pretty much all of them actually, being scum, and I don't think you can castigate their supporters as all being a low character no matter what side they are on, until they prove it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

I agree about most Presidents and politicians, pretty much all of them actually, being scum, and I don't think you can castigate their supporters as all being a low character no matter what side they are on, until they prove it. 

 

There you go again with your white privilege "presumption of innocence" tHiS iSn'T a CoUrTrOoM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Meplat said:

 

I'm not going to join in on the "lets rib Walt" session.  A lot of my family are die-hard (AKA "Blue Dog" Democrats).

I'd just point out that within my lifetime, we had a Republican president who was a real piece of work, and another who was basically a seat warmer.

 

(But then we had Carter. Poor Jimmy.).

 

I also want to treat Walt fairly here, but he's making it really difficult. I really want to know where "the Conscience of HAV" went.

 

Nobody here expects anyone to be happy that their candidate for President lost, but this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...