We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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?

I never took a class on Greek mythology, but I have read the Odyssey three times in the last decade. I particularly recommend Emily Wilson's new translation -- very readable.

Also, not sure I would call the Odyssey a myth.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Can I just say that what I think is most important here is this:

When the next case comes before the Supreme Court involving sexual harassment, rape, or some other gendered issue, will we be able to trust the justices and expect them to uphold high standards of justice?

We're not dealing with the problems of a couple people here, those aren't worth a hill of beans given what is at stake.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's about turnout and motivation. They are caught between true conservatives who demand Kavanaugh on the Court and moderate women. I suspect most Senators don't care whether the next Justice is Kavanaugh or another conservative -- unlike some prior Justices, who were picked because they were tight with Senators, Kavanaugh was picked by the White House.

You keep saying these things like there are significant numbers of people who would be voting for these assholes who wouldn't be if they push Kavanaugh through with only a cursory "investigation" into the allegations.

Who exactly are these people that are so in tune with Senate procedure, but so out of tune with (or okay with) all the other shit that the Senate, House, and President have been pulling, that this will change their votes or keep them from showing up?

I understand every little bit helps. Sure. But, you made a statement like this fuckery puts them in some kind of additional deep trouble in November. Nah.

TM

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Potential rape? Wait... Did he actually have sex with her? I read that he tried to take her clothes off and she stopped him, and then his friend might have stopped him. Am I missing something?

No. And my FB thread is full of other people using the word "rape" without the modifier "attempted," so the people here are in good company.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You keep saying these things like there are significant numbers of people who would be voting for these assholes who wouldn't be if they push Kavanaugh through with only a cursory "investigation" into the allegations.

Who exactly are these people that are so in tune with Senate procedure, but so out of tune with (or okay with) all the other shit that the Senate, House, and President have been pulling, that this will change their votes or keep them from showing up?

I understand every little bit helps. Sure. But, you made a statement like this fuckery puts them in some kind of additional deep trouble in November. Nah.

TM

It's less about whether Kavanaugh ends up on the Court and more about how they treat Blasey Ford.

My consistent view is that the composition of the Court is an issue that motivates the right more than the left. This is why McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland worked for him. I'm not saying the Court doesn't matter, but I am saying that when it's an issue, it fires up the right much more than the left. The right is counting on the court to stop liberal legislation. The left is not counting on the second coming of Earl Warren.

IMO, what really pissed women off in '92 was less the eventual elevation of Thomas, and more the way that fit into a story about how woman are treated. If there's a hearing next week, and Republican Senators go after Blasey Ford to try to shred her story and save Kavanaugh's nomination, I think it will boost Democratic turnout in the November. Two-thirds of the GOP Senators aren't up for election this year, so they may not really care.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

No. And my FB thread is full of other people using the word "rape" without the modifier "attempted," so the people here are in good company.

perhaps potential attempted rape is most accurate.

I'm not actually concerned here with what the "crime" might have been, but rather with him and his character. I'd actually even be willing myself to support someone going on the court who had committed some dreadful crime as a teenager if I saw that they had repented and done their penance. But if he's just another sleezeball who remains proud of his nefarious youthful exploits regardless of who they hurt or what they were, screw him, he doesn't belong on the court or in any other position of authority.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

All the President's (incompetent lawyer) men.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

No. And my FB thread is full of other people using the word "rape" without the modifier "attempted," so the people here are in good company.

Fuck that website. And fuck everybody who likes it. Idiot magnet of the internet.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

This is soft-headed shit right here. I get there are numerous reasons she’s doing this, but the issue is a person who may have engaged in sexual battery may ascend to SCOTUS. So, yeah, it’s about a lot more than her, or him.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Fuck that website. And fuck everybody who likes it. Idiot magnet of the internet.

Third party voters on FB can at least blame the Russian hackers for voting 3rd party, you got no cover.



Conf to sebby: hating on FB insult Thurgreed and Atticus. Gotta stand up for those two.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is soft-headed shit right here. I get there are numerous reasons she’s doing this, but the issue is a person who may have engaged in sexual battery may ascend to SCOTUS. So, yeah, it’s about a lot more than her, or him.

No kidding, Dick Tracy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

Perhaps if you’d cease ignoring what I’m writing, you’d understand I agree with you.

I am not saying and never have said that she is doing this to aid Dems. But I am saying a significant reason she is doing this - far more so than any others - is to stop a sexual predator from getting a scotus appointment. If you know of some other reason, please offer it. You don’t have to betray a confidence, but what you’re saying makes little sense as currently presented. It simply doesn’t stand on its own without the reason being offered.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Third party voters on FB can at least blame the Russian hackers for voting 3rd party, you got no cover.



Conf to sebby: hating on FB insult Thurgreed and Atticus. Gotta stand up for those two.

I’d put Zuckerberg up there with reality tv in terms of turning this country’s IQ down about 20 points. Blight on humanity... a chief accelerant of our march toward Idiocracy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Can I just say that what I think is most important here is this:

When the next case comes before the Supreme Court involving sexual harassment, rape, or some other gendered issue, will we be able to trust the justices and expect them to uphold high standards of justice?

We're not dealing with the problems of a couple people here, those aren't worth a hill of beans given what is at stake.

Rare moment where I agree 100%.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I am not saying and never have said that she is doing this to aid Dems.

Bullshit, Seb. You said she was the D's infantry. You may not have thought about what you were saying, but that is what you said.

But I am saying a significant reason she is doing this - far more so than any others - is to stop a sexual predator from getting a scotus appointment. If you know of some other reason, please offer it. You don’t have to betray a confidence, but what you’re saying makes little sense as currently presented. It simply doesn’t stand on its own without the reason being offered.

Her reasons are undoubtedly more complex than the way you have attempted to describe them, and the simple way you have described them -- as attempt to keep Kavanaugh off the court -- echos GOP talking points about the unfair thing that is being done to him, whether you realize it or not.