THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1096, 1097, 1098 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:51 am    Post subject:

Why are Trump's Tariffs costing Americans SO MUCH ALREADY

You people that voted for him are near identical to the Taliban. Cut off your nose to spite your face

Trump is giving TWELVE BILLION dollars to Farmers because his Tariffs are nothing but a massive distraction that Generations of Americans will suffer for

That is my money
Your Money
Not Trump's

If Trump is too (bleep) stupid he should pay the farmers with his own money

Trump's Presidency will be written in History Books as a Terrorist Attack



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/world/article-us-farmers-say-trumps-us12-billion-china-tariff-bailout-not-enough/

U.S. farmers say Trump’s US$12-billion China-tariff bailout not enough, may affect their mid-term votes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:52 am    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
adkindo wrote:
thought this thread did not like "whataboutisms"? Has nothing to do with Garland. You do not know my opinion on how Garland was handled. Garland was not smeared with extremely questionable accusations, nor was his reputation damaged for pure political reasons.


Just like not every ad hominem is committing the ad hominem fallacy, not every "what about..." is a commission of whataboutism. The latter is using "what about" to distract attention away from something, e.g., "Mr. President, what about that meeting with the Russians?" "What about Crooked Hillary?"

Responding to the Republicans' "We have to move forward with the confirmation" with "What about Garland? You let him dangle for a YEAR without moving it along" is not distracting away from the point, it's directly addressing the point by providing a clear, recent example where they were not similarly compelled to move forward, therefore pointing out that they are hypocrites.

As for what they didn't do with Garland, perhaps he had a squeaky clean background. Perhaps they didn't need to do that because they had a better tool at their disposal (not holding a hearing at all). Perhaps if they held a hearing and had gotten to a similar point in the process, it WOULD have happened. We'll never know, because the Garland process didn't get that far.


It was clearly a whataboutism. It comes down to "when I can use the claim of a whataboutism to deflect, it clearly is a whataboutism......but when I need to inject in defense, there is nuance". Like the other poster, you're spending much of your time writing about Garland, which was not mentioned in my original post. It is completely unrelated to Kavanaugh. I cannot find one mention in legislation or the constitution in regards to the Senates "Advise & Consent" role to consider previous nominations.

Garland was a couple years ago, and I am on the record multiple times acknowledging I did not agree with the way Garland was handled. I do not agree that option is available to the Senate in their duties. I was not happy that Scalia's untimely death allowed him to be replaced by a liberal judge.....but I felt it was a case of "thems the rules", and he should have been considered. Something tells me that in 1992 you were not out there crying foul when Joe Biden pushed this strategy....and admittedly I could be wrong, but based on your posts on LG, I doubt you would have had an issue with it in 2016 if the parties in control were reversed.


Last edited by adkindo on Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:52 am    Post subject:

It's fascinating that Dr. Blasey Ford is a George Soros funded crisis actor being used as a pawn by Democrats to undermine Kavanaugh's confirmation, and yet they didn't think to use her willingness to making false allegations for money against another 1980s Georgetown Prep alum, Neil Gorsuch, who is the same age as Blasey Ford, and who was taking the seat that was stolen from Merrick Garland.

Terrible strategy by the dumdum Dem cabal.
_________________
Under New Management
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:57 am    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
It's fascinating that Dr. Blasey Ford is a George Soros funded crisis actor being used as a pawn by Democrats to undermine Kavanaugh's confirmation, and yet they didn't think to use her willingness to making false allegations for money against another 1980s Georgetown Prep alum, Neil Gorsuch, who is the same age as Blasey Ford, and who was taking the seat that was stolen from Merrick Garland.

Terrible strategy by the dumdum Dem cabal.


Gorsuch replacing Scalia is apples and oranges to Kavanaugh replacing Kennedy....or at least that is my impression of how liberals view the two. Gorsuch had no chance of tilting the court to the right, Kavanaugh could tilt the court based on Kennedy's previous votes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
adkindo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:02 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
You people that voted for him are near identical to the Taliban. Cut off your nose to spite your face


Guy, you go way to far with these claims. Either you have absolutely no knowledge of the Taliban, or no knowledge about Trump voters. There is nothing similar about the two groups. One would love to kill you, the other wants to beat you in an election. I get you are venting, but labeling nearly half the country with a word that defines pure human evil because you disagree with them is too much.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:16 am    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
It's fascinating that Dr. Blasey Ford is a George Soros funded crisis actor being used as a pawn by Democrats to undermine Kavanaugh's confirmation, and yet they didn't think to use her willingness to making false allegations for money against another 1980s Georgetown Prep alum, Neil Gorsuch, who is the same age as Blasey Ford, and who was taking the seat that was stolen from Merrick Garland.

Terrible strategy by the dumdum Dem cabal.


Just read some about Garland

Republicans have ZERO SHAME

I don't want to hate every single one of them but their intellectual dishonesty and rampant theft and corruption along with huge sides of racism and child abuse. You are Terrorists in the USA

Terrorizing:
People of Color
Women
Non Christians
Physically and Mentally abusing infants and children of minorities and asylum seekers
The Elderly and physically disabled
The financially disadvantaged

Who did I leave out?

People wanting to express silent protests have their Mothers called whores and (bleep) by Your president

MUSLIM BAN MUSLIM BAN
Quote:

According to a survey conducted by the Institute of International Education, enrollment of first-time international students fell an average of 7% in fall 2017 from a year ago across 522 US institutions.


https://qz.com/1267351/f-1-and-m-1-visa-data-show-international-students-are-turning-away-from-us-universities/


Did Kavanaugh say he likes to GRAB THEM BY THE (bleep)? Oh, forgive me. That is Your President that said that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:28 am    Post subject:

Republicans are just being greedy. You still have the seat open. Just nominate someone else who will take away women's reproductive rights and non-white voter rights.
Sorry you don't get Kavanaugh. The guy who believes the President is above the law.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:54 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
adkindo wrote:
thought this thread did not like "whataboutisms"? Has nothing to do with Garland. You do not know my opinion on how Garland was handled. Garland was not smeared with extremely questionable accusations, nor was his reputation damaged for pure political reasons.


Just like not every ad hominem is committing the ad hominem fallacy, not every "what about..." is a commission of whataboutism. The latter is using "what about" to distract attention away from something, e.g., "Mr. President, what about that meeting with the Russians?" "What about Crooked Hillary?"

Responding to the Republicans' "We have to move forward with the confirmation" with "What about Garland? You let him dangle for a YEAR without moving it along" is not distracting away from the point, it's directly addressing the point by providing a clear, recent example where they were not similarly compelled to move forward, therefore pointing out that they are hypocrites.

As for what they didn't do with Garland, perhaps he had a squeaky clean background. Perhaps they didn't need to do that because they had a better tool at their disposal (not holding a hearing at all). Perhaps if they held a hearing and had gotten to a similar point in the process, it WOULD have happened. We'll never know, because the Garland process didn't get that far.


It was clearly a whataboutism. It comes down to "when I can use the claim of a whataboutism to deflect, it clearly is a whataboutism......but when I need to inject in defense, there is nuance". Like the other poster, you're spending much of your time writing about Garland, which was not mentioned in my original post. It is completely unrelated to Kavanaugh. I cannot find one mention in legislation or the constitution in regards to the Senates "Advise & Consent" role to consider previous nominations.

Garland was a couple years ago, and I am on the record multiple times acknowledging I did not agree with the way Garland was handled. I do not agree that option is available to the Senate in their duties. I was not happy that Scalia's untimely death allowed him to be replaced by a liberal judge.....but I felt it was a case of "thems the rules", and he should have been considered. Something tells me that in 1992 you were not out there crying foul when Joe Biden pushed this strategy....and admittedly I could be wrong, but based on your posts on LG, I doubt you would have had an issue with it in 2016 if the parties in control were reversed.


You can call it whatever you want or attribute whatever term to it that floats your boat. But you were implying that a 70-some day process was too long or unusual, when, in fact it is not. In modern times 70, 80, 90, even over 100 day confirmations are not unusual. Then there is the most unusual 293 days that the Republicans ignored a nomination. And you have the gall to say that Democrats are playing politics. . . .

When I study something, or simply want to understand something, I don't look at it in a vacuum. I want to know the history and how similar events were handled to compare and contrast.
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:04 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:

Shelby was a horrible decision for all of the reasons stated but for another as well. Republicans love their textulism and the belief that their judges don't legislate from the bench. Which is a total crock of course.

Antoine Scalia said this in his opinion.

Quote:
And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes
.

So, if you can't get what you want from the normal political processes (Congress) what do you do? You overturn their legislation because it is very difficult for Congress to do it themselves.

Hmmm. What would the expression for this be called now? (For the Republicans reading this, just look at the last four words of my second sentence.)

Oh yeah, everyone honest knows textualism is a load of garbage. Bush v Gore? DC v Heller? Hobby Lobby?
Neal Gorsuch was on record saying that he wanted to overturn Chevron because it led to (in his eyes) the expansive administrative state. As a district judge! That is literally expressing a desire to legislate from the bench.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:22 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
ribeye wrote:

Shelby was a horrible decision for all of the reasons stated but for another as well. Republicans love their textulism and the belief that their judges don't legislate from the bench. Which is a total crock of course.

Antoine Scalia said this in his opinion.

Quote:
And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes
.

So, if you can't get what you want from the normal political processes (Congress) what do you do? You overturn their legislation because it is very difficult for Congress to do it themselves.

Hmmm. What would the expression for this be called now? (For the Republicans reading this, just look at the last four words of my second sentence.)

Oh yeah, everyone honest knows textualism is a load of garbage. Bush v Gore? DC v Heller? Hobby Lobby?
Neal Gorsuch was on record saying that he wanted to overturn Chevron because it led to (in his eyes) the expansive administrative state. As a district judge! That is literally expressing a desire to legislate from the bench.


Are we on the same page. In Heller, Scalia said that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed was really two clauses, the prefactory (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and the operative (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed), and that the prefactory was merely introductory and of no real purpose regarding the right to bear arms.

This is why so many liberals have such a distaste for the Heritage Foundation judges and their ilk: They act so high and mighty and serious, when often all they do is find some way, regardless their judicial philosophy and often in contrast it, to reach their preordained conclusion
_________________
"A metronome keeps time by using a Ringo"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:28 am    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
ContagiousInspiration wrote:
You people that voted for him are near identical to the Taliban. Cut off your nose to spite your face


Guy, you go way to far with these claims. Either you have absolutely no knowledge of the Taliban, or no knowledge about Trump voters. There is nothing similar about the two groups. One would love to kill you, the other wants to beat you in an election. I get you are venting, but labeling nearly half the country with a word that defines pure human evil because you disagree with them is too much.


Love to, or is willing to?
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:35 am    Post subject:

Well, the expectation has been set by the party in power, this time it’s the GOP, that a Supreme Court justice nomination within a year of election should be left for the voter to decide. Garland nomination decided by the 2016 election (it was within a year) and now Kavanaugh nomination should be decided by the 2018 elections (even closer within the year)... GOP keep majority, he’s appointed... Dems pulls a miracle and takes majority, he’s Merricked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Thief
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 735

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:03 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
Republicans are just being greedy. You still have the seat open. Just nominate someone else who will take away women's reproductive rights and non-white voter rights.
Sorry you don't get Kavanaugh. The guy who believes the President is above the law.

Let her testify and then it can be decided if Kavanugh get's the seat. If they just throw Kavanaugh to the side now then that is setting a dangerous precedent that anyone that get's accused of a crime without providing any proof to back it up get's treated as guilty automatically. That can't and shouldn't happen which is why this needs to play out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hector the Pup
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 35946
Location: L.A.

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:17 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
LarryCoon wrote:
adkindo wrote:
thought this thread did not like "whataboutisms"? Has nothing to do with Garland. You do not know my opinion on how Garland was handled. Garland was not smeared with extremely questionable accusations, nor was his reputation damaged for pure political reasons.


Just like not every ad hominem is committing the ad hominem fallacy, not every "what about..." is a commission of whataboutism. The latter is using "what about" to distract attention away from something, e.g., "Mr. President, what about that meeting with the Russians?" "What about Crooked Hillary?"

Responding to the Republicans' "We have to move forward with the confirmation" with "What about Garland? You let him dangle for a YEAR without moving it along" is not distracting away from the point, it's directly addressing the point by providing a clear, recent example where they were not similarly compelled to move forward, therefore pointing out that they are hypocrites.

As for what they didn't do with Garland, perhaps he had a squeaky clean background. Perhaps they didn't need to do that because they had a better tool at their disposal (not holding a hearing at all). Perhaps if they held a hearing and had gotten to a similar point in the process, it WOULD have happened. We'll never know, because the Garland process didn't get that far.


It was clearly a whataboutism. It comes down to "when I can use the claim of a whataboutism to deflect, it clearly is a whataboutism......but when I need to inject in defense, there is nuance". Like the other poster, you're spending much of your time writing about Garland, which was not mentioned in my original post. It is completely unrelated to Kavanaugh. I cannot find one mention in legislation or the constitution in regards to the Senates "Advise & Consent" role to consider previous nominations.

Garland was a couple years ago, and I am on the record multiple times acknowledging I did not agree with the way Garland was handled. I do not agree that option is available to the Senate in their duties. I was not happy that Scalia's untimely death allowed him to be replaced by a liberal judge.....but I felt it was a case of "thems the rules", and he should have been considered. Something tells me that in 1992 you were not out there crying foul when Joe Biden pushed this strategy....and admittedly I could be wrong, but based on your posts on LG, I doubt you would have had an issue with it in 2016 if the parties in control were reversed.

Whataboutism is most definitely not in play here. You either don't understand the difference between the two situations or are flat out willing to ignore them.

Obama had a full year of presidency left but that wasn't enough. Now a named coconspiritor gets to make a lifetime appointment?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
The Thief
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 735

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:22 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
If this is a Democratic plot to "use" women for political purposes, then I'd rather be in the party that believes and protects women than in the party that elected a serial sex abuser and continues to attack women who come forward,

Maybe you should find another party as democrats are guilty of not only electing proven sex abusers but attacking women that have come forward with far more proof than what is being offered in this case. And it's good to know that your comfortable with an ends justify the means approach. I hope you never get called for jury duty on a sexual assault case as I don't think you could be impartial.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:23 pm    Post subject:

governator wrote:
Well, the expectation has been set by the party in power, this time it’s the GOP, that a Supreme Court justice nomination within a year of election should be left for the voter to decide. Garland nomination decided by the 2016 election (it was within a year) and now Kavanaugh nomination should be decided by the 2018 elections (even closer within the year)... GOP keep majority, he’s appointed... Dems pulls a miracle and takes majority, he’s Merricked

If the Dems win a majority in the Senate then you can bet a lame duck justice will be appointed. Which is why I find it amusing that conservatives are so bent on ignoring the allegations against Kavanaugh. Like kikanga said, you'll get your judge. If anything, ignoring the process to add Kavanaugh just makes it easier for the 2020 Democratic majority to justify court packing to 11 justices, especially if they are Garland-like moderates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17835

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:25 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
tox wrote:
ribeye wrote:

Shelby was a horrible decision for all of the reasons stated but for another as well. Republicans love their textulism and the belief that their judges don't legislate from the bench. Which is a total crock of course.

Antoine Scalia said this in his opinion.

Quote:
And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes
.

So, if you can't get what you want from the normal political processes (Congress) what do you do? You overturn their legislation because it is very difficult for Congress to do it themselves.

Hmmm. What would the expression for this be called now? (For the Republicans reading this, just look at the last four words of my second sentence.)

Oh yeah, everyone honest knows textualism is a load of garbage. Bush v Gore? DC v Heller? Hobby Lobby?
Neal Gorsuch was on record saying that he wanted to overturn Chevron because it led to (in his eyes) the expansive administrative state. As a district judge! That is literally expressing a desire to legislate from the bench.


Are we on the same page. In Heller, Scalia said that A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed was really two clauses, the prefactory (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) and the operative (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed), and that the prefactory was merely introductory and of no real purpose regarding the right to bear arms.

This is why so many liberals have such a distaste for the Heritage Foundation judges and their ilk: They act so high and mighty and serious, when often all they do is find some way, regardless their judicial philosophy and often in contrast it, to reach their preordained conclusion

Yeah? I brought up Heller precisely for the reasons you stated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:55 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
governator wrote:
Well, the expectation has been set by the party in power, this time it’s the GOP, that a Supreme Court justice nomination within a year of election should be left for the voter to decide. Garland nomination decided by the 2016 election (it was within a year) and now Kavanaugh nomination should be decided by the 2018 elections (even closer within the year)... GOP keep majority, he’s appointed... Dems pulls a miracle and takes majority, he’s Merricked

If the Dems win a majority in the Senate then you can bet a lame duck justice will be appointed. Which is why I find it amusing that conservatives are so bent on ignoring the allegations against Kavanaugh. Like kikanga said, you'll get your judge. If anything, ignoring the process to add Kavanaugh just makes it easier for the 2020 Democratic majority to justify court packing to 11 justices, especially if they are Garland-like moderates.


Yeah, I was just venting. GOP is playing the short term game and they will win the early rounds. Supreme Court will be 5-4 conservative, Kavanaugh or not. The big question is the 2020 election, this one can potentially determine the justices replacements (ones pushing to 100). Long term, GOP will be remembered as Trump GOP for a long time. The era of ‘Reagan’ conservative GOP is over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 1:16 pm    Post subject:

The Thief wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
If this is a Democratic plot to "use" women for political purposes, then I'd rather be in the party that believes and protects women than in the party that elected a serial sex abuser and continues to attack women who come forward,

Maybe you should find another party as democrats are guilty of not only electing proven sex abusers but attacking women that have come forward with far more proof than what is being offered in this case. And it's good to know that your comfortable with an ends justify the means approach. I hope you never get called for jury duty on a sexual assault case as I don't think you could be impartial.


Thanks for telling me what you think I should believe, and how I should think, and act, and for your judgement of what you perceive to be my morality.

Also, it's not "your comfortable" it's "you're comfortable."

And by the way, this is the type of "helpful advice" that explains why there's a 20-point gender gap and growing against Republicans.

Keep up the great work of motivating turnout for November!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:17 pm    Post subject:

Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Do you remember where you were and what you were doing on 9/11?


12 days ago? Yeah, I was at work.

Assuming you mean 9/11/2001, the existence of flashbulb memories doesn't refute the point. While the major details might be cemented in the flashbulb memory, most everything surrounding the details -- including who you were with and what you were doing afterward -- are just as malleable as any other memory. You're barking up the wrong tree if you want to try to refute this -- this is a well-established psychological phenomenon, including (coincidentally) studies specific to 9/11 flashbulb memories that show how much people's memories get altered. Flashbulb memories are included in the science; they don't refute it.


Last edited by LarryCoon on Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
LarryCoon
Site Staff
Site Staff


Joined: 11 Aug 2002
Posts: 11264

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:29 pm    Post subject:

adkindo wrote:
It was clearly a whataboutism. It comes down to "when I can use the claim of a whataboutism to deflect, it clearly is a whataboutism......but when I need to inject in defense, there is nuance". Like the other poster, you're spending much of your time writing about Garland, which was not mentioned in my original post. It is completely unrelated to Kavanaugh. I cannot find one mention in legislation or the constitution in regards to the Senates "Advise & Consent" role to consider previous nominations.

Garland was a couple years ago, and I am on the record multiple times acknowledging I did not agree with the way Garland was handled. I do not agree that option is available to the Senate in their duties. I was not happy that Scalia's untimely death allowed him to be replaced by a liberal judge.....but I felt it was a case of "thems the rules", and he should have been considered. Something tells me that in 1992 you were not out there crying foul when Joe Biden pushed this strategy....and admittedly I could be wrong, but based on your posts on LG, I doubt you would have had an issue with it in 2016 if the parties in control were reversed.


I'm still on the fence about whether you consciously choose to argue with strawmen, or your biases actually render you obtuse to the argument. My previous post was specific to the inconsistency between allowing Garland's seat to remain open without a hearing, while insisting they can't further delay the process in this case.

Your "based on your posts on LG" make me think it's the latter, because if you have any understanding of me from my posts here, you wouldn't have such doubts. For the record, I'd be entirely in favor of legislation to the effect of, "If the Senate does not exercise its duty to advise and consent within 90 days, its advise and consent role will be deemed satisfied, with tacit approval deemed to have been given." (Substitute whatever number makes the most sense in place of 90 above.) In other words, I don't care which side does it -- I don't want the process abused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:12 pm    Post subject:

LarryCoon wrote:
Baron Von Humongous wrote:
Do you remember where you were and what you were doing on 9/11?


12 days ago? Yeah, I was at work.

Assuming you mean 9/11/2001, the existence of flashbulb memories doesn't refute the point. While the major details might be cemented in the flashbulb memory, most everything surrounding the details -- including who you were with and what you were doing afterward -- are just as malleable as any other memory. You're barking up the wrong tree if you want to try to refute this -- this is a well-established psychological phenomenon, including (coincidentally) studies specific to 9/11 flashbulb memories that show how much people's memories get altered. Flashbulb memories are included in the science; they don't refute it.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I was attempting - while writing a quick response - to bolster your point, re: how traumatic events can imprint themselves on our memories while Blasey Ford's friends and acquaintances wouldn't have noted what for them would have been another unremarkable evening.
_________________
Under New Management
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ani007
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 507

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:39 pm    Post subject:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:50 pm    Post subject:

ani007 wrote:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez


I had been hearing whispers online that there might be another woman (or women) out there.

Quote:
As Senate Republicans press for a swift vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats are investigating a new allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. The claim dates to the 1983-84 academic school year, when Kavanaugh was a freshman at Yale University. The offices of at least four Democratic senators have received information about the allegation, and at least two have begun investigating it. Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote. The Democratic Senate offices reviewing the allegations believe that they merit further investigation. “This is another serious, credible, and disturbing allegation against Brett Kavanaugh. It should be fully investigated,” Senator Mazie Hirono, of Hawaii, said. An aide in one of the other Senate offices added, “These allegations seem credible, and we’re taking them very seriously. If established, they’re clearly disqualifying.”

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.


Al Franken was forced to resign over much less than this.


Last edited by ChefLinda on Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 32979

PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2018 4:55 pm    Post subject:

ani007 wrote:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

Clearly another George Soros paid crisis actor.

The kicker at the end is that Mark Judge confided in a college ex-girlfriend that a Georgetown Prep gangbang may have been a gang rape.
_________________
Under New Management
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1096, 1097, 1098 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
Page 1097 of 3663
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB