Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.
-
Not even close to what they did to Bork, Thomas and Kavanaugh. Trump will likely nominate a woman - then let's see the accusers come forth.
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 00:40 last edited by@Mik said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Trump will likely nominate a woman
Isn't that kind of gender racist? Are there not any qualified men available?
-
@Mik said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Trump will likely nominate a woman
Isn't that kind of gender racist? Are there not any qualified men available?
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 00:46 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@Mik said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Trump will likely nominate a woman
Isn't that kind of gender racist? Are there not any qualified men available?
Yup.
But it's only ½ as racist as picking a BLACK woman for VEEP.
-
@Mik said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Trump will likely nominate a woman
Isn't that kind of gender racist? Are there not any qualified men available?
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 03:22 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@Mik said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Trump will likely nominate a woman
Isn't that kind of gender racist? Are there not any qualified men available?
What in heck is “gender racist”?
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 03:45 last edited by
That goes to my theory that the word "racist" has become synonymous with "evil", a very intentional trick of language instituted by the left.
-
That goes to my theory that the word "racist" has become synonymous with "evil", a very intentional trick of language instituted by the left.
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 14:02 last edited by@Horace when I look up the definition of fascist, it is not a good thing.
Evil may not be the right term, but by definition, racist is not good.
Not sure when racist was ever thought to be a good thing.
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 14:24 last edited by
Evil is a more general and less ambiguous term. And all of leftist critical race theory, which has filtered down to pop culture as progressivism, is based on a socially acceptable virtuous sort of racism.
-
@Horace when I look up the definition of fascist, it is not a good thing.
Evil may not be the right term, but by definition, racist is not good.
Not sure when racist was ever thought to be a good thing.
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 14:26 last edited by Jolly@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
@Horace when I look up the definition of fascist, it is not a good thing.
Evil may not be the right term, but by definition, racist is not good.
Not sure when racist was ever thought to be a good thing.
I dunno. Many SE Asia countries are pretty racist and it doesn't bother them a bit.
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 14:29 last edited by
It is particular to American culture, this obsession with skin color and the thoughts people think about it. It all traces back to power and the ability to manipulate the masses into thinking and acting in the way they have been convinced is virtuously opposed to the evil that lurks within them. Some of us are apparently more manipulable than others, not least, I suspect, because some of us have more such thought patterns within ourselves to be ashamed of than others.
-
It is particular to American culture, this obsession with skin color and the thoughts people think about it. It all traces back to power and the ability to manipulate the masses into thinking and acting in the way they have been convinced is virtuously opposed to the evil that lurks within them. Some of us are apparently more manipulable than others, not least, I suspect, because some of us have more such thought patterns within ourselves to be ashamed of than others.
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 14:40 last edited by@Horace said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
It is particular to American culture, this obsession with skin color and the thoughts people think about it.
Actually not at all. Go to any Asian country and one of the popular cosmetics is skin whitening cream.
Having darker skin in most Asian countries is a (Incorrect) sign you are a laborer And less educated.
Unfortunately not only the US has these thoughts.
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 15:55 last edited by Horace
Well I didn’t say no other country thought about it. America has a particular obsession. To the extent that the left believes skin color underpins all of politics. To the extent that race theory is religious, which it is, that makes the left’s politics religious. So I would question anybody who believes with a shrug that America’s obsession with race is not particular.
-
Well I didn’t say no other country thought about it. America has a particular obsession. To the extent that the left believes skin color underpins all of politics. To the extent that race theory is religious, which it is, that makes the left’s politics religious. So I would question anybody who believes with a shrug that America’s obsession with race is not particular.
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 16:09 last edited by@Horace said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Well I didn’t say no other country thought about it. America has a particular obsession. To the extent that the left believes skin color underpins all of politics. To the extent that race theory is religious, which it is, that makes the left’s politics religious. So I would question anybody who believes with a shrug that America’s obsession with race is not particular.
There are a number of obsessions that seem to be peculiarly American. Guns and abortion spring to mind as well as race. I never really thought much about either before I lived here.
-
Because they can.
Seriously, the opportunity is there to have a conservative-leaning court. They can assure it if they move now. If Trump loses, the effort succeeds. If Trump wins, the effort had succeeded anyway.
WOuldn't you do the same?
Graham's comments reflect the anger he felt during the scorched-earth Kavanaugh hearings.
Link to videoHe's a man on a mission.
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 19:24 last edited by@George-K seems like a mistake. Personally I think the erosion of political norms is a much greater danger for either side than anything else. The same is true over here though you guys seem to be trail blazers in eradicating any semblance of shared values. All this will just lead to further polarisation and acceptance that anything you can get away with is ok.
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 19:28 last edited by
The importance of extralegal political norms are what the founders attempted to minimize with every word of the constitution. Because as a foundation, extra-legal norms are useless.
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 19:30 last edited by
The erosion of comity and political norms began with the Bork hearings. It continued with Reid's abolition of the filibuster for everything other than SCOTUS nominations. The filibustering of Estrada because he was Hispanic was an outrage.
Once the norm of filibuster was removed by Harry Reid, presumably expecting to retain a majority in the Senate was a bone-headed and amateurish move. I would have expected him to have known better.
As a blogger comments, today's Democrats' argument is simply, "Mom, he hit me back!"
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 19:55 last edited by
Call the tune, pay the piper.
-
The erosion of comity and political norms began with the Bork hearings. It continued with Reid's abolition of the filibuster for everything other than SCOTUS nominations. The filibustering of Estrada because he was Hispanic was an outrage.
Once the norm of filibuster was removed by Harry Reid, presumably expecting to retain a majority in the Senate was a bone-headed and amateurish move. I would have expected him to have known better.
As a blogger comments, today's Democrats' argument is simply, "Mom, he hit me back!"
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 20:07 last edited by@George-K said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
The erosion of comity and political norms began
Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton
Caesar Brutus
Cain Abel
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 23:00 last edited by
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48) -
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48)wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 23:03 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48)Break it down by what party nominated the person.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Graham sez the Murder Turtle has the votes.:
Interesting to look back at the recent supreme court judges and the votes at which they were confirmed. Since people are starting with Judge Bork, I will start with him also. There were actually a lot of confirmations near unanimous since him, so dont think it has been as bad for that long a time. The last couple for sure maybe
Robert Bork July 1, 1987 rejected (42–58)
Anthony Kennedy Nov. 30, 1987 confirmed (97–0)
David Souter July 25, 1990 confirmed (90–9)
Clarence Thomas July 8, 1991 confirmed (52–48)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg June 14, 1993 confirmed (96–3)
Stephen Breyer May 17, 1994 confirmed (87–9)
John Roberts Sep. 6, 2005 confirmed (78–22)
Harriet Miers Oct. 7, 2005 withdrawn
Samuel Alito Nov. 10, 2005 confirmed (58–42)
Sonia Sotomayor June 1, 2009 confirmed (68–31)
Elena Kagan May 10, 2010 confirmed (63–37)
Merrick Garland Mar. 16, 2016 lapsed
Neil Gorsuch Feb. 1, 2017 confirmed (54–45)
Brett Kavanaugh July 10, 2018 confirmed (50–48)Break it down by what party nominated the person.
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 23:04 last edited by George KI was typing the same thing, LOL..."It would be interesting to see, in the last 20 years or so, how many senators "crossed the aisle" to vote for a nominee put up by a president not of their party."
-
wrote on 23 Sept 2020, 23:07 last edited by
The right is the party of free thinking simply because it presents a broader landscape of thought from which to choose. The left is the party of fealty to one's own emotions. Virtuous as they are.