We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

More on why it came out when it did.

Stay buckled. There are rumors floating that an incident involving one of his past clerks will also surface.

Or, as his fellow Judge Says,

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's gone, dude, if indeed you ever had it. You have "fuck sanity" and "fuck rationality" cred, though, so there is still that.

I was joking.

For the record, I've always said the Ds were more factual, sane, and smarter.

I just don't like where either party wants to take us. So fuck both of them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's worth thinking, what if it's true that this woman had this experience years ago and didn't tell a lot of people, and then decided to tell her Congresswoman and Senator once Kavanaugh got appointed?



Maybe echoing things Republicans are saying is a problem then. But it's your brand, and you have to be you. Follow your bliss.

I don't think there's any strategy on this professor's part. I think she did exactly what you said she did. It's what people who had the information did with it afterward, and most notably, how they timed its release, that seems a bit perfect.

But in either case, I see no fouls here. If the Ds get a piece of solid, damaging information, it's incumbent on them to use it in the smartest, most effective manner. If they truly believe this guy is a danger, and this is their best chance of precluding him, they can't afford to fuck it up.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think the CEO analogy works well.

My concern, and it's impossible to address, is how low do the allegations go? Are we going to see some redneck senator outing a future nominee for "being easy" in high school? "Senators, she gave my cousin Billy oral sex on the third date!" Some Sessions-like creep attacking a judge for smoking weed in college? The concern is never where the Democrats go with this stuff. It's where the Republicans, who will perfect the art of it, and nuclearize it, go with it.

It's a political question with political answers. Douglas Ginsburg was already disqualified over weed, but I'd guess that wouldn't be enough today. That expectations change over time is a good thing, I think.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Right hates Kavanaugh. Calls him a RINO. He is the most centrist candidate of those considered.

This is a complete lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ddd502c99649

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think there's any strategy on this professor's part. I think she did exactly what you said she did. It's what people who had the information did with it afterward, and most notably, how they timed its release, that seems a bit perfect.

But in either case, I see no fouls here. If the Ds get a piece of solid, damaging information, it's incumbent on them to use it in the smartest, most effective manner. If they truly believe this guy is a danger, and this is their best chance of precluding him, they can't afford to fuck it up.

I haven't exactly studied up - who cares? - by my sense is that the victim's evolving evaluation of the value of her privacy vs. speaking up drove the timing, along with the growing risk of leaks. Did DiFi or her staff take steps to drive that evolution? Dunno. Don't care.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

And this woman (presumably) is a white woman. She's not going to be nearly as easy to vilify.

While completely accurate, these two sentences make me want to vomit.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is a complete lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ddd502c99649

TM

Really?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-pushback.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/polit...ntv/index.html

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-pushback.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/polit...ntv/index.html

I don't give a shit about anecdotal takes. The numbers are the numbers. And if he takes the conservative side at every single opportunity, what difference does it make if he's to the right of Barrett, Hitler, or the devil himself? If he's going to vote that way, he's going to vote that way.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is a complete lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ddd502c99649

TM

FWIW, there is always someone farther to the right who will call other RINOs and claim to represent the true Right. Always. The Right is reactionary.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't give a shit about anecdotal takes. The numbers are the numbers. And if he takes the conservative side at every single opportunity, what difference does it make if he's to the right of Barrett, Hitler, or the devil himself? If he's going to vote that way, he's going to vote that way.

TM

I said the right didn't like him because he was too centrist. You said that was untrue. I said, here are articles that say you are wrong. You called them anecdotes.

That's a pretty dumb conversation.

Rather than flip out every time you read something, maybe consider that I am making a point with which you might agree. Unless, of course, you object to me stating that the judges offered by Trump were so extreme that Kavanaugh is the centrist among them. (Pryor might be more centrist, but his record thinner.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

FWIW, there is always someone farther to the right who will call other RINOs and claim to represent the true Right. Always. The Right is reactionary.

In this batch, Kavanaugh was truly the most centrist. Barrett is seriously unhinged.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I said the right didn't like him because he was too centrist. You said that was untrue. I said, here are articles that say you are wrong. You called them anecdotes.

You are conveniently deleting the actual statement with which I disagreed because it has become inconvenient. That statement is: "He is the most centrist candidate of those considered."

That is not true. I showed you actual evidence that he is not centrist, but radical.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Rather than flip out every time you read something, maybe consider that I am making a point with which you might agree. Unless, of course, you object to me stating that the judges offered by Trump were so extreme that Kavanaugh is the centrist among them. (Pryor might be more centrist, but his record thinner.)

I didn't flip out. I was pointing out that this guy is not a centrist, has never been a centrist, and isn't even the most centrist judge on Trump's list (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/u...-nominees.html).

But the larger point is that it doesn't matter when they're all crazy and will vote the exact same way on almost every single issue. I'm not sure where all the other choices stand on whether or not a President can be investigated or indicted, but we all know that Kavanaugh was chosen specifically because of his positions when it comes to that topic. So, it would seem he's as radical as it gets.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In this batch, Kavanaugh was truly the most centrist. Barrett is seriously unhinged.

I don't know who else is in the "batch" so I'm not arguing with you. I don't know who Barrett is.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Jeet Heer FTW:

"I want a [Venn] diagram of people willing to argue "Give Kavanaugh a break, he was only 17" and "Trayvon Martin got what he deserved."