***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[junglejim]

I didn’t make you do anything. I didn’t even ask you to.

And I’m not going to go on a quoting spree because you ask me to.

Like I said, it is clear that you place a different level of scrutiny on my posts because of the candidate I support.

At least dacomeup acknowledged the higher level of scrutiny given to my posts. You pretending that’s not what you’re doing is disingenuous.

so you are claiming people are doing something without actual proof while I actually pulled in context quotes of you doing things you say you aren't is being disingenuous? Like you are doing it right now and you dont even ******* realize it. Its truly amazing. I'm not doing constant whataboutisms while currently doing said whataboutism.

Either way I'm done here. Continue on trolling

 

[boris]

I didn’t make you do anything. I didn’t even ask you to.

And I’m not going to go on a quoting spree because you ask me to.

Like I said, it is clear that you place a different level of scrutiny on my posts because of the candidate I support.

At least dacomeup acknowledged the higher level of scrutiny given to my posts. You pretending that’s not what you’re doing is disingenuous.

Can you post the quote from dacomeup ?

 

[dwalk31]

she was asked if she thinks roe v. wade was correctly decided or how she would have ruled on the matter. this isn't asking for a pre-judgment on hypothetical scenarios. it's a case that was already litigated and decided by the supreme court. her answer to the question goes to the issue of competency. if she answers with someone wholly nonsensical with unrecognized judicial interpretation principles, she's likely not competent. if her rationale is so wildly different than the opinions already on the books by the justices who decided the case, she's likely not competend.

if she can't formulate an opinion on a case with already established facts (which she has had no problem doing before this hearing), how can she be competent?

Her personal opinion on prior rulings is only relevant to the extent that it’d be used to show how she’d rule on a similar issue in the future.

Since she’s said that she would review the facts of each individual case, and apply the law to the facts, despite her personal/religious views, that answers the question.

She currently sits on US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. This Senate has already confirmed her for a lifetime post. The American Bar Association has given her its highest rating—the gold standard.

The idea that she is an incompetent jurist is absurd, respectfully.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[dwalk31]

Can you post the quote from dacomeup ?

Very very long time ago. And like I said, I’m not going on a search spree for old posts.

But in the exchange I stated that my posts were given a higher level of scrutiny. He agreed, but said it is because I deserve it.

 

[dwalk31]

Either way I'm done here.

Agreed. I think this is best.

 

[IATT]

Her personal opinion on prior rulings

 

[daruma]

 

[Mark Antony]

Props to Cube for being the latest prop.

 

[junglejim]

Can you post the quote from dacomeup ?

That appears to be it. Talk about lying by omission, woof

 

[Hahahaha]

Damn, Cube a super clown. I seen Herschel Walker’s comments, truly embarrassing.

Cube went from **** the police to **** with the police. Sad to see.

This reminds me of when they gave Creed made up work to do in The Office. They just gave Cube a fake plan to work on. Hahahahaha

 

[Upptempo]

Props to Cube for being the latest prop.

He joined the New White Alliance

 

[dacomeup]

My leverage argument doesn’t hinge on who you decide to vote for instead.

It is about who you refuse to vote for as a reliable voting block. I know you’d prefer to conflate the two.

Any party not being able to rely on 90% of the black vote forces progress on black issues, in my opinion.

This leverage argument doesn't make any sense. It's as if you've never engaged in a negotiation of any sort -- which seems unbelievable for a lawyer. Refusing to vote for the Dems as a reliable voting bloc likely minimizes the voice of Black people within the party.

And your idea of not discussing who your vote for instead absolutely matters, regardless of how you'd like to diminish it. You're talking about a leverage argument in a scenario where there are two parties to vote for given our political system. The other option entirely matters -- if you are threatening withhold your vote for the only party who is actively campaigning to cater towards the needs of Black people, then withholding your vote does not offer much leverage. It's a net loss for Black people. The Republican Party doesn't even want Black people to vote.

 

[Upptempo]

Cube went from **** the Police to Suck The Police

 

[blastercombo]

Cube was an actor, his own boys called his *** out time and time again. He was never doing the things he said

 

[reformeDWS]

Her personal opinion on prior rulings is only relevant to the extent that it’d be used to show how she’d rule on a similar issue in the future.

Disagree. Her personal opinion on prior rulings is relevant to analyze her judicial philosophy and confirm that it not only adheres to well-established methods of judicial interpretation, but also to how she alleges she rules. While it may give us an idea on how she'd rule on a similar issue in the future, she is not being asked to give an opinion on future hypotheticals. She's being asked to analyze a set of facts already before the supreme court and detail how she would have ruled on that very set of facts. Law students across the country do this in moot court competitions. Her refusal to give opinions on cases already settled by the Supreme Court is troubling.

Since she’s said that she would review the facts of each individual case, and apply the law to the facts, despite her personal/religious views, that answers the question.

Oh. Well I guess if she said it then that settles it. Why even have a hearing? If she fed you a bowl of **** and said it was chocolate pudding, would you keep eating?

She currently sits on US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. This Senate has already confirmed her for a lifetime post. The American Bar Association has given her its highest rating—the gold standard.

You'll agree that the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit is not the highest court in the US, correct? Regardless if she's on the 7th Circuit for the rest of her life, her opinions are still subject to the Supreme Court. Accordingly, I think she should be more forthcoming with her analysis and discussion of previously decided cases if she will sit on the highest court.

The idea that she is an incompetent jurist is absurd, respectfully.

Rather than display her competency, she'll continue to deflect narrowly tailored questions about her opinions, beliefs, and judicial philosophy.

Here's this gem:



I'd like to think if I was interviewing to sit as a Justice on the Supreme Court, I'd at least have brushed up on the constitution. This is a con-law 101 question and she flailed.

 

[Cashflow]

 

[boris]

That appears to be it. Talk about lying by omission, woof

Very very long time ago. And like I said, I’m not going on a search spree for old posts.

But in the exchange I stated that my posts were given a higher level of scrutiny. He agreed, but said it is because I deserve it.

So, it seems you conveniently omitted important information. Of note, dacomeup doesn't say your posts deserve higher scrutiny because of the candidate you support.

What does it mean when you have to pick and choose bits and pieces of what people say to fit your narrative?

 

[Hahahaha]

 

[dwalk31]

Oh. Well I guess if she said it then that settles it. Why even have a hearing? If she fed you a bowl of **** and said it was chocolate pudding, would you keep eating?

I would not. In fact, I would not start eating it either.

 

[frink85]

How y'all talking about the GOP playbook and forgot about the #1 play:

"the Annexation of Hillary's Emails"

 

[junglejim]

How y'all talking about the GOP playbook and forgot about the #1 play:

"the Annexation of Hillary's Emails"

No, no, no, we have moved on to Hunter Biden's emails. Please try to keep up

 

[reformeDWS]

caping for a white women who wrote an opinion saying the n-word is bad but being called the n-word doesn't create a hostile or abusive work environment, especially given the fact that she adopted 2 black children, is a new low in this thread.

 

[dwalk31]

So, it seems you conveniently omitted important information. Of note, dacomeup doesn't say your posts deserve higher scrutiny because of the candidate you support.

What does it mean when you have to pick and choose bits and pieces of what people say to fit your narrative?

My point was that my posts are held to a higher level of scrutiny by posters in here.

I said he agreed that is the case—he did.

The rest of what he said doesn’t negate that point.

I’m not hiding the ball on any of this. If I wanted to spend the time searching for old posts, or knew how to quickly find old posts—like junglejim —then I would have.

 

[wavycrocket]

I will say, the resentment for the “me too movement”, “cancel culture” “LGBTQ folks” and “liberals” and anti-intellectualism, anti-semiticsm....mixed with contrarianism, some half truths and also some rightful skepticism is at an all time high.

I’ve seen sane rational people be completely driven by resentment to these things to support smiling, cultish racist with welcoming arms, who just want to use you as a pawn .

Almost exclusively men too. *****s will chose racism than accountability or re-examining the way they thought lol.

I think Cube will find his way.