Quantcast
Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Should Brett Kavanaugh SCOTUS Nomination Continue?

Yes 53 47.32%
 
No 41 36.61%
 
Trump should pick a new canidate 18 16.07%
 
Total:112
DrDoomz said:
deskpro2k3 said:

exactly, irrefutable fact. it just shows that the repubs are pro party, and not country.

That is a bit of a strange comment. I mean of course they’d want a judge that is nominated from their side rather than a judge that the dems nominated. How can you fault them for that? That’s literally what either party would do. And of course either party is pro party (or to be more accurate, more focused on their base) and not pro country (else they’d all be moderates and not left/right), that is just the sad truth of American politics these days. The only thing is that now the Repubs are the ones with the power to do so and the Dems are basically trying to stop them by any means necessary (though I feel the dems may have crossed a line here by taking mudslinging to the next level).

Nothing strange about it.  The GOP dared Obama to pick Garland and he picked Garland just to show how partisan they are.  When it was their time to step up they choose to ignore a pick both parties could agree to.  Basically what I am saying is you only paid attention to politics when Trump became president then you probably should not be throwing out opinions as if this is anything new.  The whole process was a sham from the beginning because the GOP had absolutely no intent of not confirming Kavanaugh.  There is equal blame to throw around, neither of these parties are beyond anything when it comes to power.  If you believe either one is better than the other you have not been paying attention for the last couple decades. 



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
DrDoomz said:

That is a bit of a strange comment. I mean of course they’d want a judge that is nominated from their side rather than a judge that the dems nominated. How can you fault them for that? That’s literally what either party would do. And of course either party is pro party (or to be more accurate, more focused on their base) and not pro country (else they’d all be moderates and not left/right), that is just the sad truth of American politics these days. The only thing is that now the Repubs are the ones with the power to do so and the Dems are basically trying to stop them by any means necessary (though I feel the dems may have crossed a line here by taking mudslinging to the next level).

Nothing strange about it.  The GOP dared Obama to pick Garland and he picked Garland just to show how partisan they are.  When it was their time to step up they choose to ignore a pick both parties could agree to.  Basically what I am saying is you only paid attention to politics when Trump became president then you probably should not be throwing out opinions as if this is anything new.  The whole process was a sham from the beginning because the GOP had absolutely no intent of not confirming Kavanaugh.  There is equal blame to throw around, neither of these parties are beyond anything when it comes to power.  If you believe either one is better than the other you have not been paying attention for the last couple decades. 

This is also a strange reply. Why do you think they need to “step up”? This isn’t 5-year old tag where you need to let the other kid win too so everyone can have happy feelings. This is american politics. At this point of time, both sides practically hate each other and both sides have acted in bad faith towards each other on more than one occasion. But the Repubs have the power to get someone they want into the SC, is it hard to believe that they would indeed try and get someone they want into the SC? Do you think the Repubs owe the Dems some sort of uneeded compromise here? And of course they had no intention to “not confirm Kavanaugh”. Duh. He is the candidate they selected. They’re behaving exactly as they should. Of course, if unquestionably indisputable evidence came up, I’m certain that the GOP would have abandoned Kav faster than rats off a sinking ship. The problem was the Dems chose a bad angle (since they didn’t have convincing proof) to try and get Kav (someone they don’t want in the SC) “not confirmed”.

And why is “when I paid attention to politics” relevant? And what are you basing it on? My posting history? I barely posted before because I usually have better things to do (I’m in between games now so I thought I’d post my opinion on the matter). And how would you know if I paid attention or not IRL or in other forums? Is there some sort of VGC-only criteria I’m supposed to pass in terms of post history credentials in order to chime in on political discussions? And I even said this was nothing new and par for course on what is to be expected on the matter so I don’t where you came up with “you should not be throwing out opinions as if this is anything new”. And where did you come up with “If you believe either one is better” when I specificially said: “literally what either party would do”, meaning that I find both parties just as bad and just as likely to abuse a positional advantage over the other. The only difference in this one example is that I feel that using the #metoo movement (thereby undermining its credibility) as a political weapon to try and condemn a person and destroy his life/career/family based on (from what I’ve seen) very flimsy evidence kind of steps over a line and is what a lot of people find distasteful, myself included, in this discussion (personally, I couldn’t care less about who gets into the SC, I just don’t find the idea of accusation = proof of guilt all that palatable).

Last edited by DrDoomz - on 08 October 2018

Aura7541 said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
I still can't believe I'm actually siding with a man who's not only conservative but an advocate for the Patriot Act.. This is the monster the Dems have turned me into lol. My 20 year old self would never believe this.

See, that is an actual and completely valid issue I have with Kavanaugh. His stance on surveillance and the 4th Amendment is something I strongly disagree with. However, what did the Democrats, protesters, and media focus on? The sexual assault allegations and how Kavanaugh was "too emotional" during his hearing.

Would it have mattered.  You have no vote and those things would not have made any difference in the outcome anyway.  Actually the Dems tried to get a lot of documents and papers into the hearings but was nix by the GOP.  In other words, there was really nothing stopping Kavanaugh from getting appointed so you really could have saved your time by focusing on something else.



Machiavellian said:
Aura7541 said:

See, that is an actual and completely valid issue I have with Kavanaugh. His stance on surveillance and the 4th Amendment is something I strongly disagree with. However, what did the Democrats, protesters, and media focus on? The sexual assault allegations and how Kavanaugh was "too emotional" during his hearing.

Would it have mattered.  You have no vote and those things would not have made any difference in the outcome anyway.  Actually the Dems tried to get a lot of documents and papers into the hearings but was nix by the GOP.  In other words, there was really nothing stopping Kavanaugh from getting appointed so you really could have saved your time by focusing on something else.

Wans' thtere more documents and papers showing Kavanaugh's court history than every other SC person in history combined. Like in the hundreds of thousands?

Who's idea was that? Was is the democrats that there needed to be so many? 

Funny if so, cause I hear them complain about two things in that regards.

1. There are too many pages/papers/cases to go through. (Ha, Repubs should tell them what they were told when AIA was voted on. You can read it after you vote yes)

2. We dont' know enough about Kav to vote (So you have too much info to read it all, so your ignorant? Ignorant by having to much research to do? That's it?)



irstupid said:
Machiavellian said:

Would it have mattered.  You have no vote and those things would not have made any difference in the outcome anyway.  Actually the Dems tried to get a lot of documents and papers into the hearings but was nix by the GOP.  In other words, there was really nothing stopping Kavanaugh from getting appointed so you really could have saved your time by focusing on something else.

Wans' thtere more documents and papers showing Kavanaugh's court history than every other SC person in history combined. Like in the hundreds of thousands?

Who's idea was that? Was is the democrats that there needed to be so many? 

Funny if so, cause I hear them complain about two things in that regards.

1. There are too many pages/papers/cases to go through. (Ha, Repubs should tell them what they were told when AIA was voted on. You can read it after you vote yes)

2. We dont' know enough about Kav to vote (So you have too much info to read it all, so your ignorant? Ignorant by having to much research to do? That's it?)

There were specific papers they wanted that Republicans denied them.  They never did give a reason why the denial.

"Let's pass it so we can see what's in it" is an absolute legislative low point.  I cannot believe there is not a mandate that all representatives fully read a bill before voting on it.  Can't read it all, don't vote.  Not enough time to have a majority read it, delay the vote.  It makes me nervous just how often that happens.  How many laws do we have in place that went unread by those who voted on it?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
irstupid said:

Wans' thtere more documents and papers showing Kavanaugh's court history than every other SC person in history combined. Like in the hundreds of thousands?

Who's idea was that? Was is the democrats that there needed to be so many? 

Funny if so, cause I hear them complain about two things in that regards.

1. There are too many pages/papers/cases to go through. (Ha, Repubs should tell them what they were told when AIA was voted on. You can read it after you vote yes)

2. We dont' know enough about Kav to vote (So you have too much info to read it all, so your ignorant? Ignorant by having to much research to do? That's it?)

There were specific papers they wanted that Republicans denied them.  They never did give a reason why the denial.

"Let's pass it so we can see what's in it" is an absolute legislative low point.  I cannot believe there is not a mandate that all representatives fully read a bill before voting on it.  Can't read it all, don't vote.  Not enough time to have a majority read it, delay the vote.  It makes me nervous just how often that happens.  How many laws do we have in place that went unread by those who voted on it?

I'm sure a shit ton of laws have been passed that weren't read by a many congressman. THere are also just as many passed that have stipulations or mutliple things in. I HATE that. You know the whole, we want this law passed, but the dems or reps won't vote yes unless they also add this to the law. Wish that was illegal. Each law/bill/ect shoudl be voted on it solely.

But only one I can think of that flat out was like "you can read it when it's passed" was AIA. Any others were just lack of care, imo, on congressmen. The dems just wanted to make sure the AIA got passed before they lost the numbers to pass it.

Funny thing in the numbers game. During that same time, the Dems made it easier to pass things. Instead of needing X number of votes, they brought it down to where it is now. Needless to say, that is backfiring on them now. THe rushed it, before the midterms, cause historically dem voters don't show up for them. (hence why I don't see a huge blue wave this Nov)

They were so damn cocky during Obama's term. Dont' think they imagined they were ever going to lose the presidency/seats ever again. They were super entrenched in their New York/LA bubble where everyone they talked to all thought the same as them. Skewed their thoughts of the nation as a whole, and the media being the same, didn't help either. They got totally blindsided by the election.



Machiavellian said:
Aura7541 said:

See, that is an actual and completely valid issue I have with Kavanaugh. His stance on surveillance and the 4th Amendment is something I strongly disagree with. However, what did the Democrats, protesters, and media focus on? The sexual assault allegations and how Kavanaugh was "too emotional" during his hearing.

Would it have mattered.  You have no vote and those things would not have made any difference in the outcome anyway.  Actually the Dems tried to get a lot of documents and papers into the hearings but was nix by the GOP.  In other words, there was really nothing stopping Kavanaugh from getting appointed so you really could have saved your time by focusing on something else.

The question isn't "would it have mattered"? The question is "would it have mattered more"?



irstupid said:

I'm sure a shit ton of laws have been passed that weren't read by a many congressman. THere are also just as many passed that have stipulations or mutliple things in. I HATE that. You know the whole, we want this law passed, but the dems or reps won't vote yes unless they also add this to the law. Wish that was illegal. Each law/bill/ect shoudl be voted on it solely.

But only one I can think of that flat out was like "you can read it when it's passed" was AIA. Any others were just lack of care, imo, on congressmen. The dems just wanted to make sure the AIA got passed before they lost the numbers to pass it.

That too.  Slipping in a bunch of unrelated laws in a big omnibus bill while focusing on only one main issue is rather nefarious. 

41 states of single-subject laws which ensure every vote is solely for one single issue at a time.  I wish that were a federal rule too.

Pelosi's "Lets pass it so we can see what's inside" is the biggest, most brash admission I can think of.  I've heard another congressman admit during an interview that they often do not read what they vote on but I don't recall who it was.  I'll see if I can track it down.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

DrDoomz said:
Machiavellian said:

Nothing strange about it.  The GOP dared Obama to pick Garland and he picked Garland just to show how partisan they are.  When it was their time to step up they choose to ignore a pick both parties could agree to.  Basically what I am saying is you only paid attention to politics when Trump became president then you probably should not be throwing out opinions as if this is anything new.  The whole process was a sham from the beginning because the GOP had absolutely no intent of not confirming Kavanaugh.  There is equal blame to throw around, neither of these parties are beyond anything when it comes to power.  If you believe either one is better than the other you have not been paying attention for the last couple decades. 

This is also a strange reply. Why do you think they need to “step up”? This isn’t 5-year old tag where you need to let the other kid win too so everyone can have happy feelings. This is american politics. At this point of time, both sides practically hate each other and both sides have acted in bad faith towards each other on more than one occasion. But the Repubs have the power to get someone they want into the SC, is it hard to believe that they would indeed try and get someone they want into the SC? Do you think the Repubs owe the Dems some sort of uneeded compromise here? And of course they had no intention to “not confirm Kavanaugh”. Duh. He is the candidate they selected. They’re behaving exactly as they should. Of course, if unquestionably indisputable evidence came up, I’m certain that the GOP would have abandoned Kav faster than rats off a sinking ship. The problem was the Dems chose a bad angle (since they didn’t have convincing proof) to try and get Kav (someone they don’t want in the SC) “not confirmed”.

And why is “when I paid attention to politics” relevant? And what are you basing it on? My posting history? I barely posted before because I usually have better things to do (I’m in between games now so I thought I’d post my opinion on the matter). And how would you know if I paid attention or not IRL or in other forums? Is there some sort of VGC-only criteria I’m supposed to pass in terms of post history credentials in order to chime in on political discussions? And I even said this was nothing new and par for course on what is to be expected on the matter so I don’t where you came up with “you should not be throwing out opinions as if this is anything new”. And where did you come up with “If you believe either one is better” when I specificially said: “literally what either party would do”, meaning that I find both parties just as bad and just as likely to abuse a positional advantage over the other. The only difference in this one example is that I feel that using the #metoo movement (thereby undermining its credibility) as a political weapon to try and condemn a person and destroy his life/career/family based on (from what I’ve seen) very flimsy evidence kind of steps over a line and is what a lot of people find distasteful, myself included, in this discussion (personally, I couldn’t care less about who gets into the SC, I just don’t find the idea of accusation = proof of guilt all that palatable).

I believe you are not understanding me.  Of course the GOP will do what they have done to get someone they picked into the SC seat.  What I am saying is that this is nothing new or different, it's still just politics.  People who take on political jobs has always had these types of skeletons pulled up.  Simply put, if anyone is acting as if this isn't politics on both sides of the fence you have not been paying attention.  It's always politics and when one party gains control they will always do what is the best interest for themselves no matter how good a candidate is.   

Sexual misconduct has been used in just about every avenue of the political system so trying to act as if this is any different from any other time its happen just means you are viewing with partisan eyes.  There is no difference here because each party was playing the game with the hand dealt.  GOP wanted to push everything forward as fast as possible to get Kavanaugh in before the midterms, the Dems were looking to delay as long as possible to see if they can get control and nix it.  If anything the GOP should have just nix the whole thing and been done with it.  Why they even entertained a 30+ year of groping of a High School Kavanaugh was silly to begin with.  Of course there was not going to be any evidence of something like that from so long ago.  

Personally, I thought this was all song and dace pony show.  Each player, playing a role while behind the scenes they made sure the outcome resulted in what they wanted.  At this time the GOP and the White House has control so there was never really any doubt that Kavanaugh wasn't going to be confirmed.



Aura7541 said:
Machiavellian said:

Would it have mattered.  You have no vote and those things would not have made any difference in the outcome anyway.  Actually the Dems tried to get a lot of documents and papers into the hearings but was nix by the GOP.  In other words, there was really nothing stopping Kavanaugh from getting appointed so you really could have saved your time by focusing on something else.

The question isn't "would it have mattered"? The question is "would it have mattered more"?

No, it would not have mattered more because nothing was going to make a difference.  If anything, all the Dems could really do is delay a vote.  That is what happen when you are not the top dog.