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
Machiavellian said:
Aura7541 said:

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.

So arguing on Kavanaugh's merits doesn't matter more than focusing on an accusation with hardly any corroborating evidence? Considering how much of a trainwreck this has become for the Democratic Party, at least arguing on Kavanaugh's merits would give a higher probability of making a difference.

Note that I said higher probability. For you to say that it would not make a difference is your opinion only.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
DrDoomz said:

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.

Um. I think you have it backwards. You keep saying I’m not understanding you but you’re just repeating my point as if that wasn’t the point I already made. I literally just said that this was all just basic politics and nothing new and you keep trying to explain to me what I already stated....

And I never said this wasn’t politics on both sides of the fence. Where did you even get the idea that I said that?

The Repubs would of course try to push their agenda forward as fast as possible and the Dems would try to delay it as much as they could. This would all be par for course and wouldn’t even register as a blip on my radar.

The difference, to me, is that sexual misconduct (while common in politics) or most any kind of accusation have always hinged on some form of proof. Or at least solid testimony. AFAIK I have never heard of any high profile instances where no proof and only accusations was all that was needed in order to try and bury someone and be so embraced by the politicians, the media and celebrities and the liberal half of the public. Allthewhile practically throwing an entire movement under the bus (while many supporters of said movement urged them on with great enthusiasm). If succesful, the precedence to me would have been very scary. And it should be scary to everyone here. If you know any time where this happened in the past similar to how it happened now, pls educate me so as to correct my view of how things have worked in the past.

And what do you mean by nix? You mean not entertain the accusations at all or nix Kav’s nomination?

From where I stood, the GOP did their usual song and dance while the Dems tried to see if they could succesfully pull off pushing an old political tactic to even lower lows (w/c fortunately ultimately failed).



So, I take it the right will stop changing "lock her up" at Trump rallies?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Aura7541 said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

So arguing on Kavanaugh's merits doesn't matter more than focusing on an accusation with hardly any corroborating evidence? Considering how much of a trainwreck this has become for the Democratic Party, at least arguing on Kavanaugh's merits would give a higher probability of making a difference.

Note that I said higher probability. For you to say that it would not make a difference is your opinion only.

Why would it matter.  What actual merits would make one Republican change his vote.  The things you listed is what they support so why would that make any difference.  It would be different if you presented something they all can agree isn't something they support but that is not the case.  Why bring up something that have absolutely not chance of making a even one Republican blink.  I do not know, maybe you see something that could have changed the GOP vote but lets be honest, the decision was already made to appoint Kavanaugh, the hearings was just the procedure.



Machiavellian said:

Why would it matter.  What actual merits would make one Republican change his vote.

Uh, did you even see the results of the vote? It was 50 yay, 48 nay with Pence giving the tiebreaker. 

The things you listed is what they support so why would that make any difference.  It would be different if you presented something they all can agree isn't something they support but that is not the case.

How do you know this for sure? You saw each every Republican senator's platforms and past comments? It would be different if you presented evidence that confirms the positive.

Why bring up something that have absolutely not chance of making a even one Republican blink.  I do not know, maybe you see something that could have changed the GOP vote but lets be honest, the decision was already made to appoint Kavanaugh, the hearings was just the procedure.

Again, that is merely your opinion. This is not based on evidence. Absolutely no chance? How do you know this for sure objectively?

You also missed my point entirely and I even emphasized it twice. Focusing on Kavanaugh's flaws in his case decisions offers a higher probability of change in the Democrats' favor than focusing on an allegation that does not have corroborating evidence for several weeks. This is my thesis in which you have not addressed at all.

In addition, "making a difference" is not limited to changing a few Republican senators' minds to vote "no". The way the Democratic Party approached Kavanaugh's nomination had a negative effect on their midterm and possibly, longterm prospects. Had they approached the nomination differently, then it is likely that the party would be viewed in a more favorable light than they are in currently.



Around the Network
Aura7541 said:
Machiavellian said:

Why would it matter.  What actual merits would make one Republican change his vote.

Uh, did you even see the results of the vote? It was 50 yay, 48 nay with Pence giving the tiebreaker. 


So, what you got was one Democrat who turned and one Republican who turned.  How exactly does this support the items you listed.  If you only argued the things all the Republicans would be in support for then it would be 51 - 49.  If anything you would have more of a chance that a Dem would vote for Kavanaugh then anything else.



Machiavellian said:

So, what you got was one Democrat who turned and one Republican who turned.  How exactly does this support the items you listed.  If you only argued the things all the Republicans would be in support for then it would be 51 - 49.  If anything you would have more of a chance that a Dem would vote for Kavanaugh then anything else.

The actual results were 50 - 48, not 51 - 49. Because it was a close vote, flipping one "yay" to "nay" would not allow Kavanaugh to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. And once again, you haven't addressed my thesis at all. Now, you're just arguing for argument's sake and wanting to have the last word. I mean sure, go ahead and have the last word, but doesn't necessarily mean what you will say after this comment will have much substance considering your pattern.



DrDoomz said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

Um. I think you have it backwards. You keep saying I’m not understanding you but you’re just repeating my point as if that wasn’t the point I already made. I literally just said that this was all just basic politics and nothing new and you keep trying to explain to me what I already stated....

And I never said this wasn’t politics on both sides of the fence. Where did you even get the idea that I said that?

The Repubs would of course try to push their agenda forward as fast as possible and the Dems would try to delay it as much as they could. This would all be par for course and wouldn’t even register as a blip on my radar.

The difference, to me, is that sexual misconduct (while common in politics) or most any kind of accusation have always hinged on some form of proof. Or at least solid testimony. AFAIK I have never heard of any high profile instances where no proof and only accusations was all that was needed in order to try and bury someone and be so embraced by the politicians, the media and celebrities and the liberal half of the public. Allthewhile practically throwing an entire movement under the bus (while many supporters of said movement urged them on with great enthusiasm). If succesful, the precedence to me would have been very scary. And it should be scary to everyone here. If you know any time where this happened in the past similar to how it happened now, pls educate me so as to correct my view of how things have worked in the past.

And what do you mean by nix? You mean not entertain the accusations at all or nix Kav’s nomination?

From where I stood, the GOP did their usual song and dance while the Dems tried to see if they could succesfully pull off pushing an old political tactic to even lower lows (w/c fortunately ultimately failed).

Boiling down everything back to one simple frame, politics.  Nothing new, nothing different, just another day in American politics.  We can argue over semantics all day long.  This vote was never going to be about a claim of sexual assault but instead of character.  I would be the first to say, that denying Kavanaugh for an alleged assault over 30+ years ago was never something I would have stop his confirmation over.  Instead, I watched how he answered questions given him, dodge questions he didn't like and appeared to just lie when pushed.  For me it was never about the accusations because we will never know the truth to that event.  My position was how does a man going for the SC handle a pressure situation and Kavanaugh failed.  Human or not human, leaders show how they handle high stressful situations and what I saw in Kavanaugh is just another partisan appointed representative who under duress reverted to his true self.



Aura7541 said:
Machiavellian said:

So, what you got was one Democrat who turned and one Republican who turned.  How exactly does this support the items you listed.  If you only argued the things all the Republicans would be in support for then it would be 51 - 49.  If anything you would have more of a chance that a Dem would vote for Kavanaugh then anything else.

The actual results were 50 - 48, not 51 - 49. Because it was a close vote, flipping one "yay" to "nay" would not allow Kavanaugh to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. And once again, you haven't addressed my thesis at all. Now, you're just arguing for argument's sake and wanting to have the last word. I mean sure, go ahead and have the last word, but doesn't necessarily mean what you will say after this comment will have much substance considering your pattern.

I know what the result were, you did not fully read what I wrote.  I stated if nothing changed it would be 51 - 49 which is the Republicans majority vote.  In other words, the Dems would have had to flip 2 people since Pence would be the deciding vote and we pretty much know where that vote is going.  So how would bringing up issues the Republican support flip 2 votes when they were already fast tracking him through.  This is my main question, what exactly in your list you brought up would swing 2 votes, at least this incident swung one vote but it still wasn't even close by partisan lines.



Machiavellian said:
Aura7541 said:

The actual results were 50 - 48, not 51 - 49. Because it was a close vote, flipping one "yay" to "nay" would not allow Kavanaugh to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. And once again, you haven't addressed my thesis at all. Now, you're just arguing for argument's sake and wanting to have the last word. I mean sure, go ahead and have the last word, but doesn't necessarily mean what you will say after this comment will have much substance considering your pattern.

I know what the result were, you did not fully read what I wrote.  I stated if nothing changed it would be 51 - 49 which is the Republicans majority vote.  In other words, the Dems would have had to flip 2 people since Pence would be the deciding vote and we pretty much know where that vote is going.  So how would bringing up issues the Republican support flip 2 votes when they were already fast tracking him through.  This is my main question, what exactly in your list you brought up would swing 2 votes, at least this incident swung one vote but it still wasn't even close by partisan lines.

That does not reflect what actually happened and I'd rather base my conclusions on actual results rather than hypothetical results.

Lastly, how about you fully read what I wrote, namely my thesis in which you failed to address three times? Considering that you've missed the point this many times even after I already pointed that out to you previously, I don't see the point in continuing. Your response was well within what I expected from you.