Perhaps, but for every batty that shows their ass, more uncommitted are alienated than attracted...yielding a net loss of lefties.
And to those who are old enough, go back and review the posts (um, rantings?) by the same types during the Florida POTUS hanging chad fiasco. Did they get it right? of course not because they stopped short of finding out that Gore really won. If they had just taken longer...
Would have been nice. But don't worry. The FBI was allowed to interview the people who disputed Ramirez's story and the people who didn't remember Ford's. There was no fix. It's not like they ignored dozens of witnesses with relevant information, including multiple witnesses who could corroborate Ramirez's account. /sarcasm On the bright side, we're pretty much guaranteed to see a poster come in here and try to justify the FBI's sham investigation on the basis of: 1) It wasn't a real investigation, or 2) You never look into secondhand or thirdhand information when conducting an investigation. And to be clear, I'm not blaming the FBI. Don McGahn made damn sure they couldn't actually investigate anything. The fix was in from the beginning.
Maybe, but when I see the masses, I don't see discernment and questioning, I see distraction and wanting sound bites. The other side has better sound bites. JMHO
It is why I did not post much in this thread. Waste of time. Btw/ remind the women you know that Rick Scott criticized Senator Nelson for opposing Kavanaugh. Women need to know that Republicans do not believe them, even when there are multiple women telling the same stories
I can't resist a good argument. I guess I was hoping we'd reach a point where certain people would be a bit more reasonable. Something along the lines of, "Okay, yeah, you're right about the flaws in the FBI investigation. However, I still believe Judge Kavanaugh, but I agree that it was flawed." That never quite happened. I guess I have to stop expecting people on the internet to be willing to admit when they're wrong.
I see bully mobs intimidating political opposition. However clever whatever shit they might be chanting, still comes off as crazed hyenas tearing down a zebra or gazelle, or giraffe... No one ever pulls for the hyenas.
No worries, I am pretty certain there is much validity to the scotusblog article's arguments. You make many good points that to me offer another reason (beyond judicial philsophy) to guard against over-interpreting the graph...precisely because there are cases that don't fit *ideologically speaking* such as Kelo. That said, I believe SCOTUS hears dozens of cases a year (80ish?), thus this issue can to an extent be addressed statistically--and based on my understanding of the underlying Monte Carlo and Bayesian models that led to its creation, take into account that some of the cases wouldn't fall so neatly into any left/center/right framework. Notably, it also suggests having to consider how the researchers defined political ideology for each case.
I saw this earlier this evening......hope these GOP congressmen continue these blatant sexist comments. The one good thing that came out of the election of Trump is exposing what the GOP stand for once and for all. These old men have out lived their usefulness in our federal government.....time to vote them all out.
F.B.I. Review of Kavanaugh Was Limited From the Start Mr. McGahn, according to people familiar with the conversation, told the president that even though the White House was facing a storm of condemnation for limiting the F.B.I. background check into sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, a wide-ranging inquiry like some Democrats were demanding — and Mr. Trump was suggesting — would be potentially disastrous for Judge Kavanaugh’s chances of confirmation to the Supreme Court. It would also go far beyond the F.B.I.’s usual “supplemental background investigation,” which is, by definition, narrow in scope. The White House could not legally order the F.B.I. to rummage indiscriminately through someone’s life, Mr. McGahn told the president. And without a criminal investigation to pursue, agents could not use search warrants and subpoenas to try to get at the truth. Mr. Trump backed down, although he said publicly the next day that the F.B.I. “should interview anybody that they want within reason.” But the episode on Sunday was further evidence of the confusion, including on the part of the president, about what would happen after Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, forced a one-week delay in the confirmation vote of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court by calling for a new F.B.I. investigation.
Yeah, the famous cases are pretty rare. There are a lot of boring ones dealing with regulatory stuff that you never hear of. I would say the graph lines up pretty well with the perception of these people though. Thomas and Sotomayor are definitely the outliers on the controversial cases.
The major problem with your thinking occurs when people who aren't Nazis or at all racist somehow get swept up in that characterization. It's a slippery slope, and I find it troubling how many in the legal profession / law schools think like you.
That's not a flaw in my thinking. That's a flaw in people's behavior. However, the easiest way to not be "swept up" with the Nazis is to not march with them.
Yes, Democrats, please continue talking about this nomination through Election Day. After all, it has worked out so very well for y’all in polls to-date. Sincerely, GOP (There are two things that are great at getting Republican voters to the polls. They are 1. judges, and 2. liberals going crazy. This has both. That ought to suggest to Democrats that, just maybe, they perhaps ought to think through trying to tie elections that they likely would have won to start with into this fight.)
Not if I'm speaking of them as a group, in group settings. The video evidence to me shows that Antifa is more violent and destructive when we're talking about their rallies. Looking at the whole picture, of course there will be more white people who commit hate crimes because we make up more of the population. (The reverse of this type of situation can be seen in the fact that more white men get murdered by cops than black men, however we know that doesn't tell the whole story percentage wise). White people who commit hate crimes are almost exclusively going to be right wingers. According to the numbers in the link you posted, White people account for 46% of the hate crimes while minorities of various races commit 33% of those hate crimes. Let's just say for arguments sake, all the white people are right wing and all the minorities are left wing. That's nearly an identical percentage of hate crimes committed between the two groups. I'm not sure where Mayo got her numbers for far right versus far left murders but I find it hard to believe with the numbers referenced in the link that it's 70% to 2%. I could be wrong, I just don't believe it. I don't want to put myself in a position to defend any of these groups, which makes it hard for me to believe that some people would do that for Antifa. I have a feeling if their agenda wasn't far left, some people on the left would disown them. However, since it lines up with their agenda and they fight who they think is the worse of the two, they support them and apologize for them. I will not do that, I just state the facts as I see them. Now I have to take a shower for even kind of "defending" these pieces of garbage.
The Democratic women don't seem to have a problem with the workload, Chuck, you 85 year old dinosaur. Surprised you don't keep the Republican women off the Judiciary Committee because of female hysteria and lunar cycles. Four of the 10 Democrats on Judiciary are women, including two former prosecutors, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.).
Particularly with the Ramirez incident, witnesses are coming forward tonight to te their stories and ask why they were not interviewed.
