Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[REDSTATEWARD]

I'm confused by anybody who uses terms they don't understand.

If I confused you perhaps you are the one lacking understanding.

[Yankguy1]

I understand enough to know that you don't know what you're talking about. "Due Process". Brilliant!

[facilitatorn]

A warning to shitpickle malodorous tapeworms; now that you are permanently in the shrinking minority, treat others as you wish to be treated after you have been stripped of all your power.

[kiidcarter8]

Read the transcript of the Collins speech, YG.

[REDSTATEWARD]

I understand enough to know that you don't know what you're talking about. "Due Process". Brilliant!

Here is your problem.
Kavanaugh was accused of something bad that may have occurred a long time ago.
There is nothing to back up the accuser’s charges.
No scene, no witnesses, no record of anything.
In fact one alleged witness , a longtime friend of the accuser, says she has no recollection of the claimed event and has never met Kavanaugh.
In short, the charge has no merit.
By our system of justice, codified in several parts of our constitution, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. He cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property with out due process of law.
So find another reason to reject him with 51 votes.
Of course we all know the democrats did not have those votes so they launched the “ Hail Mary o smear campaign” that Susan Collins effectively called a merciful halt to this afternoon.
So the dems are still 2 votes short.
To make matters worse their mockery of due process now threatens their chances in the mid-terms. .

[Yankguy1]

I understand enough to know that you don't know what you're talking about. "Due Process". Brilliant!

Here is your problem.
Kavanaugh was accused of something bad that may have occurred a long time ago.
There is nothing to back up the accuser’s charges.
No scene, no witnesses, no record of anything.
In fact one alleged witness , a longtime friend of the accuser, says she has no recollection of the claimed event and has never met Kavanaugh.
In short, the charge has no merit.
By our system of justice, codified in several parts of our constitution, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. He cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness with out due process of law.
So find another reason to reject him with 51 votes.
Of course we all know the democrats did not have those votes so they launched the “ Hail Mary smear campaign” that Susan Collins effectively called a merciful halt to this afternoon.
So the dems are still a vote short.
To make matters worse their mockery of due process now threatens their chances in the mid-terms. .

So your argument remains that a rejection of Kavanaugh based on the allegations would constitute a denial of due process. Fair enough. My argument remains you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A seat on the Supreme Court is simply not "life, liberty or property" the deprivation of which the Constitutional requirement of due process attaches. Again Kavanaugh could be rejected for any reason or none at all. Now you might want to argue "fairness". Fine. But "due process?" Nice try.

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/collins-murkowski-kavanaugh.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

[REDSTATEWARD]

I understand enough to know that you don't know what you're talking about. "Due Process". Brilliant!

Here is your problem.
Kavanaugh was accused of something bad that may have occurred a long time ago.
There is nothing to back up the accuser’s charges.
No scene, no witnesses, no record of anything.
In fact one alleged witness , a longtime friend of the accuser, says she has no recollection of the claimed event and has never met Kavanaugh.
In short, the charge has no merit.
By our system of justice, codified in several parts of our constitution, the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. He cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness with out due process of law.
So find another reason to reject him with 51 votes.
Of course we all know the democrats did not have those votes so they launched the “ Hail Mary smear campaign” that Susan Collins effectively called a merciful halt to this afternoon.
So the dems are still a vote short.
To make matters worse their mockery of due process now threatens their chances in the mid-terms. .

So your argument remains that a rejection of Kavanaugh based on the allegations would constitute a denial of due process. Fair enough. My argument remains you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The suggested reading assignments for you are the  5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.
Whether in a court or in an office, it is more than reasonable to ask that fairness, logic, and justice be a fundamental part of any process.
How this escapes you is perplexing.

[Yankguy1]

Do you highlight your little Federalist Society pocket Constitution in green or yellow, Red?I'll ask you again. Is it your argument that a no vote by the Senate would have constituted a denial of due process? Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question.

[josh]

The other problems are:

1) Kavanaugh was accused of multiple items from the past.

2) The Ramirez accusation was accurate and got substantiated. He perjured himself about that, about his drinking at the time, and about his knowledge of her allegations.

3) The 2004 and 2006 perjury accusations got proven this year. He perjured himself about those.

4) He perjured himself repeatedly in discussing high school years, which according to Kavanaugh among others is reason enough to discount his testimony on items.

5) His Thursday testimony was bad enough that he tried to apologize for it, while actually blaming everybody but himself.

Any of these would have been enough for the GOP to see a Democratic nominee as fatally flawed. That includes you.

[josh]

When asked why there aren't more female senators on the committee, Judiciary Committee Chairmisogynist Grassley said:

"Well, it's a lot of work. Don't forget, compared to a lot of committee meetings, we have an executive every Thursday. ... So it's a lot of work. Maybe they don't want to do it."

[REDSTATEWARD]

Do you highlight your little Federalist Society pocket Constitution in green or yellow, Red?I'll ask you again. Is it your argument that a no vote by the Senate would have constituted a denial of due process? Let's see if you can answer a simple yes or no question.

Of course it would.
Under the standard of due process there is no crime that can be corroborated.
But as you certainly noticed the democrats moved away from the “ crime” to talk about his love of beer and then his “ unseemly” temperament in defending himself.
But they drew the ill- advised last second Hail Mary play by throwing due process in the gutter and no matter how they explain it now they have greatly diminished their mid term election outlook.   

[Yankguy1]

You're wrong  There is no life, liberty or property right to a Supreme Court seat. The denial of such a seat for any reason or none at all does not constitute a denial of Due Process. But if you're going to continue that argument, Carswell and Haynsworth would have loved to hire you.

[REDSTATEWARD]

You're wrong  There is no life, liberty or property right to a Supreme Court seat.

Of course there is. Kavanaugh just proved it 

[Yankguy1]

Not only are you a Constitutional scholar, you're a master logician.