Kavanaugh Hearing

Sometimes, when you say something so ridiculous... it's best to just leave it at that...

If you think Chavez implemented Marxism in Venezuela, "peacefully," I'm happy to let you have the last word...

 

Then you said "But no group has come closer to doing that than Antifa in recent times." That would suggest that there should be a city they were closest to destroying. I asked about that.

But you can't point out which one was worst?

 

Yea, as usual, you get proven wrong and aren't able to admit it. Post something documenting the violence Hugo Chavez used to establish his Marxist regime. I'll wait.

 

Saying mean words at people? Yes, you actually do.

 

Sounds like you're justifying antifa...

Unlike you, I won't make excuses for the alt-right... They're wrong... they shouldn't be doing what they're doing... even if they're "triggering leftists" I can't stand...

 

Is it par for the course to see the right stalking and running at Democrat senators on Capitol Hill when they’re voting on a bill? Think real hard before you answer.

 

Most cases appealed to the Circuit Courts of Appeal involve disputes of a non-political nature. I love these inherently contradictory comments. The Dems threw a survivor to the wolves. Nonsense. The Dems believed her over a sitting federal judge. The Republicans believed her to be a liar. Because you can’t have it both ways. She can’t be a “survivor,” as Susan Collins said to say while Kavanaugh is confirmed as an associate justice to the Supreme Court. Because if you believe her and vote to confirm him, you have voted to confirm an attempted rapist and liar. She said Kavanaugh was laying on top of her, that he looked into his face, and that Kavanaugh tried to take her clothes of and covered her face with her hand. So, pick your side (not that it matters anymore). She has been called a liar by the President and 51 Senators who will vote to confirm tomorrow, yet those Senators are somehow good to her. What utter garbage. It is remarkable the stupidity people will accept to support their partisan beliefs. At least this thread will not pass @tilly’s.

 

Oh, so the problem is that they said mean things to him at the Capitol? Your concern is that they did it in that building and not someplace else? But I thought you didn't like it when people said mean things to them elsewhere too. So, is it that you just don't think right wing people say mean things to Democratic lawmakers anywhere?

 

You are by minimizing their acts. Again, there have been far more murders at the Alt-right's hands. That is a statistical fact. Can you admit to that?

 

Venezuela may have descended into a dysfunctional Marxist dictatorship but Chavez was actually elected in a democratic election. In fact he was reelected multiple times. The failure of Chavez's Marxist model didn't become obvious until the price of oil collapsed.

 

Your questions are fair ones, but I believe semantics are crucial to properly interpreting the graph. The thing we should recognize first is that it isn't a measure or graphical depiction of judicial philosophy, but political ideology (trends) based on each justices votes across cases for each year.

Scalia and Sotomayor might both be extreme or even anomalous relative to other justices as a whole based on their judicial philosophies (and/or political ideology). But this is harder to say since judicial philosophy like political philosophy is not quite concrete, nor not malleable, nor necessarily consistent, and we'd have to define each of the justices judicial philosophies to measure how they linked to their decisions.

That wasn't what was done here; the researchers examined political ideology. And while I questioned calling those further away from zero as extreme, obviously we could use *extreme* in a way that simply measures distance from some point. But I was warning against the characterization based on partisan perceptions, mistaking being further away from zero as an indication of being a more extremely partisan in their views or their decisions.

@GatorBen 's point is a good one. It adds a wrinkle in that what we "could be" looking at in the graph is their judicial philosophy at work, not necessarily their political ideology, which is an interesting question to haggle over. It also might be true for at least some of the justices. But again that wasn't what 's depicted in the graph and any interpretation along those lines would be much more speculative.

 

I think we had two decent men be president in Bush and Obama and then a guy equally as skeevy as Clinton.

 

Murkowski on the floor right now explaining why she decided to get herself primaried again in 2022.

 

Chavez was a terrible leader, and Marxism is a terrible system of governance. But 715 and Louisville claimed that no Marxist government had ever come to be peacefully. As has been shown by their inability to actually defend that point, they were wrong. Now, they can't own up to it.

 

Gonna laugh when she wins as an Independent again.

 

It was going to happen anyway after she didn't agree to that mess of a Republican Healthcare "bill." She will try to keep her 2010 coalition cobbled together (she wouldn't have won without the Native groups, who were very opposed to Kavanaugh).

 

It is remarkable the stupidity people will accept to defend recovered memories as fact above witneses.

 

Final tally should be 50-48-1.

Murkowski says that she will vote no, but then ask to be recorded on the final tally as a present vote as a courtesy to Senator Daines to allow him to be in Montana for his daughter’s wedding.