Jump to content

Huckleberry

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12097
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by Huckleberry

  1. 1 minute ago, MixtyMotions said:

    No, you were getting close.  You said "significan't", not "billions".   Don't act like they're the same.  You need to accept the credit I gave you.

    Come on, man. I recalled that off the top of my head after 7 years. I think I get an A+ and significant versus billions is an insignificant difference. See what I did there?

    • Like 4
  2. 2 minutes ago, sachick said:

    They need to ask if they think the assault happened by someone other than Kavanaugh. I've heard a lot rhetoric that they believe her but she's just confused as to who did it.

    I couldn't respond to that poll question as "definitely" in either direction and I quite honestly think there's a problem with anyone who can.

  3. 4 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

    You're getting close.

    No, turns out I pretty much nailed it.

    http://www.shaggytexas.com/board/showthread.php/94491-Race-Riots

    How should a police department handle race riots?

    When I was a teen there were a number of race riots. I remember Birmingham, Newark, Detroit and Watts (Los Angeles). Then there was the Rodney King riot in the early Nineties. The one that received the most police criticism was Birmingham. The police broke it up with fire hoses and Gernam Shepherds. In the others there were billions of dollars in damages. I think fire hoses and dogs is better than billions in damages.

    When I watched anti-war demonstrations at UT in the early Seventies I noted five types of people. (This is my amateur obsevation. I'm sure experts have better analysis.) There were the organizers, the true followers, the sympathizers, the curiosity seekers and the thugs. The thugs were usually not students and had no interest in the cause but they wanted to use the situation to steal or tear $#@! up. In a crowd of 50,000 there were only a few organizers, probably a thousand or so real follers, another few thousand sympathizers, tens of thousands of curiosity seekers and a handful of thugs.

    The police had a problem. Most of the curiosity seekers had a kind of arbiter role. If the police were two aggressive with the situation the crowd turned against them. But the crowd also didn't support a bunch of sixteen year old thugs tearing $#@! up for fun. The organizers wanted to get the crowd riled up, and if the riled up crowd provided cover for the thugs, and they caused damage the organizers declared victory even though they, and their supporters might not try to tear stuff up themselves.

    I never saw a race riot and I'm not sure that even if I did I could understand the dynamic as well as I could a demonstration at UT that got out of hand. It's my understanding that gangs used the Rodney King situation to steal and attack businesses they didn't like.

    I don't know how the police should handle this thing in London but I think allowing rioters to destroy billions of dollars of property is a mistake.

    • Like 2
  4. 1 minute ago, Aphelion said:

    Gorsuch replaced Scalia.  Kavanaugh nominated to replace swing vote.  Some announced they would block him prior to any accusations of sexual assault.  Pretty easy answer to your question if you’re looking. 

    Of course this has nothing to do with whether he assaulted Ford or not. Pretty much nothing discussed on this topic has any bearing on whether he actually assaulted her because there are so little facts to discuss.  But why dems would have extreme motivation to block him is about as obvious as it gets.  

    I am addressing the claim that a political party has people lined up and waiting, willing to falsely accuse nominees of various crimes, and that they will use them in all cases. That is what MM and others have claimed and that is what I'm refuting. I have already explicitly explained why the Democrats may oppose Kanavaugh more than Gorsuch due to whom was and is being replaced. You are making a point that I have already covered.

    Furthermore, your explanation doesn't hold any water anyway. Do you somehow believe that the more liberal and progressive Democrats wouldn't have loved to have replaced Scalia with a centrist or liberal Justice? Currently the GOP is hoping that Ginsburg leaves the Court during the next two years so they can replace her with a Justice more in line with their ideology. So why do you think that "flipping" a seat on the Supreme Court wouldn't appeal just as strongly to the Democrats?

     

  5. 1 minute ago, Amobie said:

    It didn't matter who Trump was going to nominate, they expected the left to attack him and do ANYTHING to stop his confirmation.

    So I take it you, too, are simply going to ignore that the left didn't take that "do ANYTHING" approach to Gorsuch's nomination? Why is it that Gorsuch didn't face what Kavanaugh faced.

    Neil Gorsuch literally went to the same high school that Brett Kavanaugh attended and graduated only two years after him. If there were some sort of conspiratorial Democratic effort to attack any Trump nominee they could have used basically the same people to attack Gorsuch for made-up high school behavior that they used for Kavanaugh. If they had all these Georgetown Prep people just waiting for a Trump nominee then they could have pulled them out then.

    The conspiracy theory makes zero sense whatsoever.

  6. 16 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

    I am NOT a big player.

    I am NOT  privy to the detailed internal discussions held by Washington Democrats.

    I DO have opinions to express on the Internet.  (which you are free to disbelieve)

    I don't have a problem with that, but you used language which heavily implied you knew these things, not that you think them.

    It's also an issue in that you're justifying future lies by your side because you think and believe that the others side is prepared to lie unless there's a 5 step reason for why they didn't lie in a particular case. You made up an entire scenario in your head to justify being dishonest.

    • Like 3
  7. 5 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

    They had 'em. But they wisely chose not to use them.  Using them would not have stopped the nomination, and would have backfired.

    There are some smart Dems who think the use of them here was unwise - that it will cost Senate seats and not stop the nomination.  We won't know for a few months whether the tactic was wise or not.

    In any case, their base left them no real choice.  The base was not ready to accept a decision not to play ugly, and go for control of the Senate.

     

    As a member of the "somewhat conservative" wing of the GOP I  am very familiar with the phenomenon of politicians being forced into the stupid, ugly choice instead of the smart choice.  The extremists wield lots of power.

    Your entire theory rests on the idea that Democrats knew Kennedy was going to resign 15+ months before he announced it. Not to mention that you argued on shaggy that you "just bring the doughnuts" to local Alabama GOP meetings and aren't really a big player but somehow now you're privy to the detailed internal discussions held by Washington Democrats. That's just silly, even for a political forum.

  8. 6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

     

    LOL. I've selected a series of twatters that reflect political positions that nearly 100% of non-lunatic Surly CR agrees with. Those twatters generally cover: out of control military spending, criminal justice reform, functional budget appropriation process, asset forfeiture reform, war powers of the executive branch, and tariffs.  That you decide to parse "everything" out of a tweet and use that as the core of your criticism related to Paul bringing attention to the sexual abuse of children by people we fund in afghanistan, while simultaneously telling me that I should try to post better...well, that is some prime grade lack of self-awareness. Be best huckleberry. 

    It isn't parsing when the phrase being focused on is the crux of the entire statement. Paul brought visibility to a serious issue and wants people to think that he is championing the cause to end it by any means necessary when in fact he is not doing so at all. All he has to say is he is working hard to end funding for these groups and then explain who is preventing the change and why they're doing so. But he chooses instead to exaggerate his efforts to make himself look like he's doing more than he really is. That's not unusual, of course, but it just shows that he is a garden variety politician with the only difference being that his platitudes appeal to you (and me) more than standard GOP and Democrat fare.

    It's not that difficult to simultaneously defend Paul against silly Stiglitz allegations while also simultaneously taking him to task for his shortcomings.

  9. 4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    The urgency to delay or defeat Kavanaugh was greater than versus Gorsuch because there are no options after committee.  There was no guarantee the R's would invoke the Nuclear Option with Gorsuch.  They will pay that bill downline, just as the D's will pay the bill for their tactics in this case.

    No, it was greater than with Gorsuch because Kennedy was the swing vote, as MM pointed out.

    Regardless, the logic that everyone will face accusers because they're all political hatchet jobs is exactly why you thought that Kavanaugh would face a stream of allegations this week during the investigation. That didn't happen, and the likeliest explanation for why it didn't happen is the same for why Gorsuch didn't face any.

  10. 17 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

    Oh they didn't know the specifics.  But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations.  I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations.  Thousands.  Some might even be true.  (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.)   But they KNEW there would be an "October surprise " political hit.

     

    And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years.  The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone.  The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks.  This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

     

    3 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

    I watched that one quite a bit.  There was a huge debate among Dems about how to play the two nominations.  One of the big issues was whether to have two attacks or one.  The forces that lobbied for one won out.

     

    The thinking on going after Gorsuch were that:

    1. they couldn't really win anything.  There would just be a "new Gorsuch".

    2. they'd lose political capital for the Kennedy replacement fight.

    3. it was possible to "win" the Kennedy replacement issue with delay, followed by winning the Senate in '18.

    4. the Kennedy replacement fight was more potent, as it meant a true 5-4 Court, whereas Gorsuch didn't affect the balance.

    Your first quoted post says that all nominees will have this happen. Your second quoted post lays out the reasoning for a nominee not to face such accusations, logic which may apply to nominations in the future. Which is it? Will all nominees face this or will there be certain circumstances that will prevent some from facing this?

  11. 1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

    Comparing the two confirmations doesn't really work because there is now no filibuster.

    Democrats filibustered Gorsuch.  

    That doesn't make sense. If you take one arrow out of the quiver then they are more likely to use a different arrow, not fail to use it entirely when defeat is assured (Gorsuch was going to win any vote, just as Kavanaugh would have before these allegations). If every nomination is going to have accusers pop up at the last second then the previous existence of the filibuster is not a valid explanation for why Gorsuch didn't have any accusers.

  12. Just now, Amobie said:

    You are acting like those are mutually exclusive things...

    You can be prosecuted and be innocent of the crimes you are being accused of.  She could believe that he is the person who assaulted her.   Meanwhile her statements were inconsistent and there could be innocent reasons for that.  They could make the case she was being intentionally deceptive about the flying deal which could be used as the basis for digging deeper into her story.

    I know everyone seems to think she did a great job on the stand but the prosecutor that the Republicans hired to grill her certainly didn't.  If she was politically active and that's the reason she scrubbed her social media, this could blow up in her face because the FBI can look at all her text messages and scrubbed social media if they really want to. 

    When the FBI is looking at these accusations that have no evidence, they immediately start investigating the person making the accusations. Operation kitchen sink has resulted in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.

    My question is why are you saying it's "likely" she's going to be prosecuted. What is the basis for that belief.

  13. 5 minutes ago, MixtyMotions said:

    Oh they didn't know the specifics.  But they were ready to bet the house that there would be allegations.  I'm sure the operatives have collected thousands of allegations.  Thousands.  Some might even be true.  (e.g. Kavanaugh probably did throw ice in a guy's face.)   But they KNEW there would be an "October surprise " political hit.

     

    And there will be for all the nominees for the next twenty years.  The days of Ginsberg getting confirmed 96-3 are gone.  The new era will be all ugly unfounded attacks.  This will be true no matter the President, the nominee or the party in control of the Senate.

    Where were Gorsuch's accusers and his last inning surprise?

  14. So do you expect representatives to be honest or not? You're strictly both sides so apply your standards evenly. Why do you unceasingly defend Rand Paul and yet not only allow his lies but actively post them here? You defend him as principled yet ignore his lack of principles (as pointed out with respect to Kavanaugh's executive authoritarian leanings). What exactly is your position on Rand Paul?

    I used to think you were a good poster but all you've got here is pasting tweets, misrepresenting my position, and now a gif that helps you avoid the discussion. You're like a Hugo Stiglitz clone at this point.

    • Like 1
  15. 3 minutes ago, Amobie said:

    It is starting to look like this FBI investigation thing has allowed Republicans time to dig up dirt on Kavanaugh's accusers and it's working.  Ford is likely going to be prosecuted for lying under oath because of the shenanigans of her stupid ass lawyers.  Considering this might be a case of mistaken identity, that is extremely fucked up.

    I see three possible scenarios.

    1) She was sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh

    2) She was sexually assaulted but it's a case of mistaken identity.

    3) She fabricated a story.

    In every possible scenario here, he lawyers completely fucked her on this.  All it takes is one person that doesn't like you to discredit your story.  Given how public this story is, there is bound to be more than a few people willing to discredit her.  We know he ex-boyfriend of 6 years has already given statements and i'm sure old neighbors and colleagues will step forward as well.  Normally all this would be done behind the scenes and these people would be interviewed without knowing all these additional details that are now public.  When asked about flying, confined spaces and all that, they know how to answer if they want to discredit her.  By the same token, friends can answer in a manner to help give her credibility.  It's a fucking mess.

     

    This post is all over the place. How can you say that she is likely going to be prosecuted for lying under oath and then immediately say that her having told the complete truth is still a possible scenario. Where are you getting that she may be prosecuted. Is there a link? Honest question.

    1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

    So Ford didn’t know the committee offered to fly out to California to meet her?  How is that possible?

    Same honest question here. And if it's true then the only possibility is her lawyers didn't tell her. 

  16. There's a joke in there, probably about fingering, but I can't put it together right now. Somebody help me out.

    AND DO NOT RESPOND THAT YOU HELPED MY MOM OUT WITH FINGERING LAST NIGHT

  17. 3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    LOL Huckleberry.  You think that it is politically effective to leverage his vote on a conservative SCOTUS appointment to end funding to afghan military and police forces?  Come on man, this is your gotcha..."he said everything on twitter!11". He used his position on committee to propose an amendment to withhold U.S. funding for Afghan security forces unless the U.S. government’s watchdog in Afghanistan could verify those forces were not using children as child soldiers or sex slaves.  He's making an issue and highlighting sex trafficking and abuse using the mechanisms at his disposal, including tweeting about it to raise awareness of the issue. What an unprincipled animal, basically an enemy of the united states at this point.  

    So your answer is no? You could have just said no.

    He said he would do anything in his power. That is clearly a lie. That's all I was wondering.

    Seems like you are misplacing some frustration with other posters on me. I've never accused him of being an unprincipled animal or an enemy of the US. You should try to post better.

  18. 15 minutes ago, RayDog said:

    There is a young guy on youtube who is trying to be some sort of election expert and he decided to do a Twitter poll on Beto v. Cruz. With over 2000 votes it was 90% Beto.

    That might give us some idea how the election is trending among the more social media savvy educated voters.

    I think there is a large undercounted group of younger voters who will impact this election.

    Betty polled her fellow players at Sun City Bingo Night and it was 95% Cruz with over 100 votes. Seems important.

  19. 30 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

    Yes, I’m the victim Mr. All Caps. I enjoy your hyperbolic nonsense though, it’s breaking up a rather monotonous Wednesday. I know you realize the difference of speaking about these topics on random internet boards versus the mainstream discussions taking place on larger stages, such as a college campus. Walk into any professor lounge on campus and question gender, in between sniffing their own farts, they’ll harangue you about being a homophobe. They’re no better than the homeless man peddling sharpened pencils on the side of the road. 

    Do you frequently find yourself in professor lounges? How many? Where? And when there, do you strike up random conversations on gender? No, these are all just made up stories in your head that frighten you. Here's a suggestion: if these stories that never actually happen scare you then stop making them up. No more nightmares, just like that.

    College campuses aren't mainstream, anyway. You display absolutely every characteristic of someone suffering from persecutory delusions. You think you and your close allies are in a battle against the man, which you call the mainstream, and nobody else understands it. There are just as many of you as there are of them. Your side makes fun of them just as much as they make fun of you. You have a major media outlet completely dedicated to people who think like you, just as they do. But you're scared of them and how they persecute you. It's really quite sad.

  20. 6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    I am very surprised there hasn't been a continual drip of sexual allegations this week.

    Yeah, it was mentioned several times here and elsewhere that the week of investigation would result in multiple new accusations. Which would obviously be true if, you know, people were just making up allegations to stop the nomination.

    Almost enough to make you think. Hmm.

    • Like 4
×
×
  • Create New...