We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's about turnout and motivation.

RCP says the Senate stays R, but the house seems in play- so far 206 D's with 41 tossups- weird but 39 of the 41 are currently R seats. Hard to bet against the incumbent, but the D's only need 25% of the tossups. Can anger at R senators translate into votes for D house candidates- i think so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Which is why I effectively said, it is her war now. Because she's the D infantry here.

No. She's the villager whose house got shelled by the Republicans and now has Democratic cavalry riding demanding her food.

For someone who stakes out the moral high ground between the parties, you are awfully willing to assign other people to one side or another.

How is that an R talking point, other than in your biased head?

My head is no more biased that yours, assclown.

What other reason would she have to send in that letter and now come forward? because she just likes having half the country hate her? Because she digs death threats? Because she wants to recall the details of a traumatic experience in public where people will call her a liar?

What other reason than desiring to keep a man she alleges assaulted her off the court would she have for doing any of this? Give me one. And then tell me, how is stating this - stating the sole credible, rational, logical reason she'd have for doing this - a GOP talking point?

You're an annoying prick sometimes, you know that? Even agreeing with you is hard.

Try to remember back to long ago, earlier this week, when I said I was one (close) degree of separation from her. Just think about that for a moment, and wonder to yourself whether my description of her motives might possibly be based on something other than what was on CNN last night.

Imagine that you were abused by a priest, and you did your best to get over it. The priest eventually gets named a cardinal, and you think, what's the point of saying something. But then the cardinal gets named Pope, and you think, don't I have some kind of duty to the rest of the world to say what I know, even though it's going to be terrible. Can you imagine wrestling with that? Can you imagine that the decision might have nothing to do with political parties and affiliations? Try.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I heard on MSNBC this morning that she sent the letter anonymously and that Feinstein's office leaked it to media.

I posted that here the other day. You could have read what I posted and then you wouldn't have needed to watch MSNBC.

eta: Actually, the suggestion was that Feinstein was respecting her wishes to stay quiet about it, and that some other Democratic Senator or staff leaked it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No. She's the villager whose house got shelled by the Republicans and now has Democratic cavalry riding demanding her food.

How? She sent the letter to Feinstein. Feinstein discussed/leaked the letter. The Rs did not even know about the letter until the Ds raised it. How is that the Rs firing the first shot here?

For someone who stakes out the moral high ground between the parties, you are awfully willing to assign other people to one side or another.

"Assign" is the right word. Because I don't think she did this to aid Democrats. I think the Ds have capitalized on it, however, so that is the "side" in this two party war on which she has been placed.

Try to remember back to long ago, earlier this week, when I said I was one (close) degree of separation from her. Just think about that for a moment, and wonder to yourself whether my description of her motives might possibly be based on something other than what was on CNN last night.

Imagine that you were abused by a priest, and you did your best to get over it. The priest eventually gets named a cardinal, and you think, what's the point of saying something. But then the cardinal gets named Pope, and you think, don't I have some kind of duty to the rest of the world to say what I know, even though it's going to be terrible. Can you imagine wrestling with that? Can you imagine that the decision might have nothing to do with political parties and affiliations? Try.

Here is my preceding post that the above two paragraphs responded to:

What other reason would she have to send in that letter and now come forward? because she just likes having half the country hate her? Because she digs death threats? Because she wants to recall the details of a traumatic experience in public where people will call her a liar?

What other reason than desiring to keep a man she alleges assaulted her off the court would she have for doing any of this? Give me one. And then tell me, how is stating this - stating the sole credible, rational, logical reason she'd have for doing this - a GOP talking point?

Tell me where in there I accuse her of doing this for political reasons, or to aid the Democratic party. Tell me where my description of her motives (to keep a man - not a Republican, but a man - who assaulted her off the court) differs from your understanding of her motives?

What other motive would she have here but to keep a man who assaulted her off the court?

Before you post something as stupid as the response I just flagged, you might consider reading it a little more carefully and grasping that you are not critiquing my point, but supporting it. You're all but making the same point, only with different words.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not an accusation. Just a fact. He parrots Democratic talking points too, right?

It's neither. It's your kneejerk impulse to view everything as a "talking point" from one of the political parties overcoming your reading comp skills.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I posted that here the other day. You could have read what I posted and then you wouldn't have needed to watch MSNBC.

eta: Actually, the suggestion was that Feinstein was respecting her wishes to stay quiet about it, and that some other Democratic Senator or staff leaked it.

You could have read what I wrote and instead of accusing me of parroting GOP talking points, realized we're saying the same thing about her motive, which is the only motive she could possibly have here.

And to make sure this permeates deep into the bag of nails between your ears, that motive is:

To keep a man who assaulted her, regardless of his political party, from sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How? She sent the letter to Feinstein. Feinstein discussed/leaked the letter. The Rs did not even know about the letter until the Ds raised it. How is that the Rs firing the first shot here?

Dude, she was assaulted as a teenager. Try to take her perspective for just a moment. The only reason that she is involved at all is that she was minding her own business at a party in high-school and Kavanaugh and another guy (allegedly) assaulted her. So my metaphor was imperfect.

"Assign" is the right word. Because I don't think she did this to aid Democrats. I think the Ds have capitalized on it, however, so that is the "side" in this two party war on which she has been placed.

Stop using the passive tense. You placed her there. That was my point. She didn't sign up.

Here is my preceding post that the above two paragraphs responded to:

What other reason would she have to send in that letter and now come forward? because she just likes having half the country hate her? Because she digs death threats? Because she wants to recall the details of a traumatic experience in public where people will call her a liar?

What other reason than desiring to keep a man she alleges assaulted her off the court would she have for doing any of this? Give me one. And then tell me, how is stating this - stating the sole credible, rational, logical reason she'd have for doing this - a GOP talking point?

Tell me where in there I accuse her of doing this for political reasons, or to aid the Democratic party. Tell me where my description of her motives (to keep a man - not a Republican, but a man - who assaulted her off the court) differs from your understanding of her motives?

What other motive would she have here but to keep a man who assaulted her off the court?

Before you post something as stupid as the response I just flagged, you might consider reading it a little more carefully and grasping that you are not critiquing my point, but supporting it. You're all but making the same point, only with different words.

I still don't think it's right for you to speculate that her motive is to keep Kavanaugh off the court. That framing is about -- his life, his career, his opportunities -- not about her. Try to imagine her perspective as if Kavanaugh is not the center of her life.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's neither. It's your kneejerk impulse to view everything as a "talking point" from one of the political parties overcoming your reading comp skills.

I apologize for not pointing out all of the times you say things that aren't GOP talking points, thereby permitting the inference that that's all you say. It's only some of what you say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You could have read what I wrote and instead of accusing me of parroting GOP talking points, realized we're saying the same thing about her motive, which is the only motive she could possibly have here.

And to make sure this permeates deep into the bag of nails between your ears, that motive is:

To keep a man who assaulted her, regardless of his political party, from sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Some people say that Penelope is just the wife who sits around waiting for Odysseus to return, but I think she is her own character with her own story.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Stop using the passive tense. You placed her there. That was my point. She didn't sign up.

No I did not. Reality placed her there. There was no other place for her to be once this accusation came out. It's not her fault. But like it or not, she is now an asset of the group that wants to keep Kavanaugh off the Court. And that group is called the Democrats.

I still don't think it's right for you to speculate that her motive is to keep Kavanaugh off the court.

You did. Recall your "pope" analogy? And you have superior info on her motive. So I'd say this was some fine speculating on my part.

And by the way, I would hope that would be her intent. If she was sexually assaulted by this man, she has an obligation to stand up and do what she's doing. And she should want to ensure he not be on the court.

That framing is about -- his life, his career, his opportunities -- not about her. Try to imagine her perspective as if Kavanaugh is not the center of her life.

This is silly. There's no way to frame this without both of them equally filling the picture. The reason this may keep him off the court is because of the gravity of what he's accused of doing. Nobody's forgetting she's the victim, or that she was 15 when it happened.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Some people say that Penelope is just the wife who sits around waiting for Odysseus to return, but I think she is her own character with her own story.

And it's being told.

But it wasn't being told - by your own admission in that pope analogy - until one of the characters was nominated for SCOTUS.

So like it or not, as with most stories, and all stories in which there's a he said/she said dispute, there's more than one character.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No I did not. Reality placed her there. There was no other place for her to be once this accusation came out. It's not her fault. But like it or not, she is now an asset of the group that wants to keep Kavanaugh off the Court. And that group is called the Democrats.

You did. Recall your "pope" analogy? And you have superior info on her motive. So I'd say this was some fine speculating on my part.

And by the way, I would hope that would be her intent. If she was sexually assaulted by this man, she has an obligation to stand up and do what she's doing. And she should want to ensure he not be on the court.

This is silly. There's no way to frame this without both of them equally filling the picture. The reason this may keep him off the court is because of the gravity of what he's accused of doing. Nobody's forgetting she's the victim, or that she was 15 when it happened.

I am saying something different from what you are, and you are so stung by the fact that I'm disagreeing with you that you aren't following what the disagreement is.

She is not an "asset" or the "infantry" of the Democrats. They do not control her. She has her own free will. She did not join them. She has her own reasons for what she is doing, that may or may not coincide with their. Obviously, the fact of her story is beneficial for Democratic Senators right now. But what I keep objecting to is your willingness to reduce things to that, to suggest that she is a soldier in their cause.

Can you not imagine that her motives may be more complicated than wanting to keep him off the Court? Apparently not. Sorry that her motives may not be what you want them to be, that she might not want to play the part in the melodrama that you have assigned to her.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But it wasn't being told - by your own admission in that pope analogy - until one of the characters was nominated for SCOTUS.

In my story, he's already the Pope. So it wasn't a story about keeping the cardinal from becoming the Pope. You just don't seem to be able to imagine a story that isn't essentially about the man's career advancement.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Penelope is just the wife who sits around waiting for Odysseus

I had to look up this reference. But it reminds me that while I was studying hard sciences in college, you had Greek mythology classes. I again commit to never arguing with you about facts relating to Greek mythology. Can you remember this when you next are about to challenge science facts I explain to you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]