We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK Noel Francisco, your turn! C'mon down!

Kinda hard not to wonder if the NYT got played there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is dead on. Not sure I could say it better.

You love that reactive theme. That's a lot of truth in that article. But also a lot of bullshit. Kavanaugh isn't a because-we-can appointee. He was the safe bet appointee. Trump was nodding to the old school GOP with that pick.

Nobody who wants to rub it in somebody's face picks a dweeby elf like this guy. They pick a radical with a granite jaw and fuck-if-I-care attitude like Gorsuch, or a mean-spirited corporate lackey like Alito.

That this uber nerd turned out to be a creep and it blew up in their faces is proof The Universe Hates Donald Trump.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Kavanaugh isn't a because-we-can appointee.

Wasn't isn't the same as isn't, which was one of the major points of that piece.

He was the safe bet appointee.

Which is why McConnell didn't want him?? He was the appointee with the long trail.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Maybe. Or maybe it's just a throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks/throw out red herrings and make a mess of the media cycle approach.

If it was someone else on Twitter, sure, but he is not just some guy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You love that reactive theme. That's a lot of truth in that article. But also a lot of bullshit. Kavanaugh isn't a because-we-can appointee. He was the safe bet appointee. Trump was nodding to the old school GOP with that pick.

He wasn't a because-we-can appointee, but when the issue becomes polarized, he becomes one. Who knows why Trump picked him, but Trump was not nodding to the old-school GOP. He was taking a list from the Federalist Society. David Souter and Clarence Thomas got their seats because of their ties with GOP Senators. That's not where Alito or Kavanaugh came from. (Or, conversely, Sotomayor or Kagan. The center of gravity has shifted from the Senate to the White House as it has become more politicized.)

And I like that "theme" because it has so much explanatory power. If you're missing that angle, you're missing a lot.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Wasn't isn't the same as isn't, which was one of the major points of that piece.



Which is why McConnell didn't want him?? He was the appointee with the long trail.

He’s the fuck-we’re-stuck-with-this-shit (until we play out this hand) candidate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If it was someone else on Twitter, sure, but he is not just some guy.

I don’t put anything past anyone today. We’re on the Crazy Train.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He wasn't a because-we-can appointee, but when the issue becomes polarized, he becomes one. Who knows why Trump picked him, but Trump was not nodding to the old-school GOP. He was taking a list from the Federalist Society. David Souter and Clarence Thomas got their seats because of their ties with GOP Senators. That's not where Alito or Kavanaugh came from. (Or, conversely, Sotomayor or Kagan. The center of gravity has shifted from the Senate to the White House as it has become more politicized.)

And I like that "theme" because it has so much explanatory power. If you're missing that angle, you're missing a lot.

It’s more complex than angry white dudes protecting their turf. Most of the folks I know who want a conservative court want it because they don’t like govt intrusion and want low taxes. The rabid crazies want to flip Roe, but they’re a minority of lunatics. Most of the GOP I’ve run into, which is a lot of people, are supportive of the right to choose, are generally tolerant, but simply don’t want a liberal court because they figure it will mean more regs, more laws, more govt intrusions. (They are also aware that the crazies of their party will use a conservative court to try to intrude on people’s personal lives, just as a liberal court will intrude on peoples’ economic lives. They don’t like that, but that’s the devil with whom they have to deal.)

That article nails the crazies of the GOP. But lumping the economic Republicans in with those looks is simply inaccurate.

ETA: And none of these economic Republicans care about protecting some white male privilege. They don’t draw the circle that big. They don’t care who has money as long as they individually get to keep and increase their own personal wealth.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don’t put anything past anyone today. We’re on the Crazy Train.

I know you don't disagree, but it's hard to complain about the injustice of unfounded accusations of sexual assault when you're speculating on Twitter that some nobody assaulted someone.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Anand Giridharadas’ book is phenomenal. Genius. Thanks, Ty

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I know you don't disagree, but it's hard to complain about the injustice of unfounded accusations of sexual assault when you're speculating on Twitter that some nobody assaulted someone.

There should be righteous indignance from Senators Collins and Flake, but I want to see one of them (or other Senators) have the actual fortitude to walk into the Senate, a la John McCain, with a thumbs down because the process was flawed.

I want to see the "93%" withheld documents. Among other things, I want to see whether Kavanaugh knew he was using stolen documents when he was a Bush flunkie, because he denies it under oath.

With respect to Dr. Blasey, there is a reason for statutes of limitations. It is practically impossible to defend oneself against an allegation that allegedly occurred 36 years before, when the only other alleged witness wrote a book about he was a blacked out drunk at the time. (Whether Kavanaugh is lying about it is a different question.)

As an asshole attorney,I keep chastising friends who are either "I believe her" or [insert attack on her credibility here] because - on what basis? You don't know shit.. You haven't even hear her speak. Let alone possibly knowing any existing corroborating or exculpatory evidence.

One can say "why would she lie?" And I would respond that I believe her about what happened at a drunken Georgetown prep high school party. But I would also remind myself of Duke Lacrosse, Tawana Brawley, and this recent case - https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/...e-13177363.php

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I want to see the "93%" withheld documents.

without getting into googling the muck that comes up, what are these documents? I mean we aren't talking about letters he wrote the folks. Are they things he created while in the Bush administration, and if so are they not public because they were otherwise deemed secret? I just don't get how things can be unavailable.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

without getting into googling the muck that comes up, what are these documents? I mean we aren't talking about letters he wrote the folks. Are they things he created while in the Bush administration, and if so are they not public because they were otherwise deemed secret? I just don't get how things can be unavailable.

Not enough time to process them, was the story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not enough time to process them, was the story.

Oddly, almost all of those documents were produced when Kagan was being confirmed. I guess there was just more time then.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not enough time to process them, was the story.

But where are they from?