[Chas_P]

 Winstonm, on 2018-September-06, 17:06, said:

I have to admit I had no strong opinion of Kavanaugh either way other than I knew him to be conservative, but today after watching just 5 minutes of the confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh was so disingenuous and so unwilling to answer questions that it was obvious he was hiding something.

Vote no on the guy.

I watched a lot of it. I watched all the grandstanding by Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Richard Blumenthal, et al and I watched a lot of Judge Kavanagh's thoughtful answers to the senators' questions. But the most memorable moment for me was this. It's about 15 minutes long, so if you don't have 15 minutes to spare don't bother.

[Winstonm]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-09, 18:12, said:

I watched a lot of it. I watched all the grandstanding by Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Richard Blumenthal, et al and I watched a lot of Judge Kavanagh's thoughtful answers to the senators' questions. But the most memorable moment for me was this. It's about 15 minutes long, so if you don't have 15 minutes to spare don't bother.

I watched enough to see that it was a 15-minute ad for Kavanaugh by a Republican Senator, simply Sasse's opinons in ad form - an ad for Kavanaugh who could not offer to a real question a genuine answer for how he came to see e-mails stolen from the Democrats, whose own writing indicates he believes that Roe v Wade should be repealed but who refuses to answer questions about that possibility.

Btw, did you also think that Trey Gowdy and the Republican's performaces in the Benghazi hearings was "grandstanding".

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2018-September-09, 20:21, said:

I watched enough to see that it was a 15-minute ad for Kavanaugh by a Republican Senator, simply Sasse's opinons in ad form - an ad for Kavanaugh who could not offer to a real question a genuine answer for how he came to see e-mails stolen from the Democrats, whose own writing indicates he believes that Roe v Wade should be repealed but who refuses to answer questions about that possibility.

To be fair, my understanding is that this is the normal way these candidates try to answer questions like these.

A justice is supposed to rule on the facts of a case, the words of the law and Constitution, and precedents; they shouldn't allow their personal preferences to affect their decision. So whether he thinks Roe v Wade is a "good" law should theoretically be irrelevant. He can't speculate how he might rule on any particular case that involves it, because the particulars of the case matter.

The Democrats were trying to goad him into admitting that he'd vote to overturn Roe if given the chance. He avoided falling into that trap, as should anyone else sitting in that chair (if he couldn't sidestep the question, that would probably make him less qualified).

This whole process is really just for show. The eventual resolution is just a foregone conclusion, since no one expects any Republicans to defect. The Democrats were just showing that they did their best to try to derail it, which will be good for them going into the midterms.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2018-September-09, 20:21, said:

I watched enough to see that it was a 15-minute ad for Kavanaugh by a Republican Senator, simply Sasse's opinons in ad form

You must have quit after about 3 minutes. The rest of it was not about Kavanaugh at all, it was a rant about the relationship between the three branches of government, and why the legislative branch has become ineffective in modern times.

[Winstonm]

 barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:29, said:

To be fair, my understanding is that this is the normal way these candidates try to answer questions like these.

A justice is supposed to rule on the facts of a case, the words of the law and Constitution, and precedents; they shouldn't allow their personal preferences to affect their decision. So whether he thinks Roe v Wade is a "good" law should theoretically be irrelevant. He can't speculate how he might rule on any particular case that involves it, because the particulars of the case matter.

The Democrats were trying to goad him into admitting that he'd vote to overturn Roe if given the chance. He avoided falling into that trap, as should anyone else sitting in that chair (if he couldn't sidestep the question, that would probably make him less qualified).

This whole process is really just for show. The eventual resolution is just a foregone conclusion, since no one expects any Republicans to defect. The Democrats were just showing that they did their best to try to derail it, which will be good for them going into the midterms.

It seemed to me the Democrats were trying to show that character matters, and previous actions taken by Kavanaugh show him to be an unqualified candidate.

[ggwhiz]

 Winstonm, on 2018-September-10, 07:32, said:

It seemed to me the Democrats were trying to show that character matters, and previous actions taken by Kavanaugh show him to be an unqualified candidate.

The only thing that should disqualify him imo is if he lied under oath in 2006 or was even less than forthright as to whether he discussed Mueller with anyone from the Trump connected law firm.

I'm far from satisfied that the answer to that will ever be known or known in time and may be buried in a paper trail or an e-mail that will never see the light of day thanks to the GOP.

[y66]

From Matt Yglesias:

Quote

Trump says things.

Quote

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

The GDP Rate (4.2%) is higher than the Unemployment Rate (3.9%) for the first time in over 100 years!

You could talk about Trump tweets all day, but this one struck me on a number of levels. First off, the comparison makes no sense — it's a rate of change versus a level and the ratio has no significance. Second, it's not true — this has happened many times in the past. Last but by no means least, it's just a bizarre form of commentary because the economy really is good, so there's no need to make up fake indicators to prove that.

Bottom line: Having a president who has no idea what he's talking about turns out to make surprisingly little difference to economic performance.

[Winstonm]

 ggwhiz, on 2018-September-10, 09:13, said:

The only thing that should disqualify him imo is if he lied under oath in 2006 or was even less than forthright as to whether he discussed Mueller with anyone from the Trump connected law firm.

I'm far from satisfied that the answer to that will ever be known or known in time and may be buried in a paper trail or an e-mail that will never see the light of day thanks to the GOP.

Given the paper trail, there is at least some chance that years down the road he could be impeached and removed.

[Winstonm]

 y66, on 2018-September-10, 11:48, said:

From Matt Yglesias:

Quote

Fox News Calls BS on Trump’s Boast About the Economy
The president’s Monday morning claim about the GDP and unemployment was so patently false that even his favorite cable channel went after him for it.

I'm pretty certain this is treason...DOJ needs to look into it.

[Chas_P]

 barmar, on 2018-September-10, 00:29, said:

This whole process is really just for show. The eventual resolution is just a foregone conclusion, since no one expects any Republicans to defect. The Democrats were just showing that they did their best to try to derail it, which will be good for them going into the midterms.

Exactly. All the Dems had said they would vote nay before the hearings even opened. All the Repubs had said they would vote aye. The Repubs outnumber the Dems, so we all know how the movie ends before the show even starts. Why bother?

[hrothgar]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-10, 17:58, said:

Exactly. All the Dems had said they would vote nay before the hearings even opened. All the Repubs had said they would vote aye. The Repubs outnumber the Dems, so we all know how the movie ends before the show even starts. Why bother?

Let's see

1. Once upon a time, demonstrating that a someone had committed perjury was sufficient to get people to change their vote. Perhaps some hope that its still is... (It's not like Trump can't go and nominate some other neanderthal...)

2. In order to rile up the base and demonstrate how important the November midterms are

3. To lay the groundwork to impeach Kavanaugh

[kenberg]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-10, 17:58, said:

Exactly. All the Dems had said they would vote nay before the hearings even opened. All the Repubs had said they would vote aye. The Repubs outnumber the Dems, so we all know how the movie ends before the show even starts. Why bother?

I suppose people hope someone else can be persuaded. Each person thinks "Of course I won't be changing my mind because obviously I am right, but maybe that other idiot will see the light." Surprise, all 100 idiots still believe the same thing they believed before the hearing.

[Chas_P]

 kenberg, on 2018-September-10, 18:41, said:

I suppose people hope someone else can be persuaded. Each person thinks "Of course I won't be changing my mind because obviously I am right, but maybe that other idiot will see the light." Surprise, all 100 idiots still believe the same thing they believed before the hearing.

Q. E. D.

[cherdano]

Let's stop a second and think about how ridiculous it is that we are even debating "perjury". This is, in a sense, a job interview for one of the 9 or 10 most influential positions in the US political system. "Perjury" means "willfully lying under oath".

In any normal job interview for an assistant manager position of a new branch of a supermarket chain, the question wouldn't be whether the candidate "willfully lied under oath". No, anyone who appears to be less than forthcoming on questions about their related job experience would have a hard time getting the job.

[barmar]

This isn't really a job interview. The Constitution says that the Senate provides "advice and consent" on the presidential appointment. There isn't even any requirement for a hearing, it's just the normal practice, so they can give the appearance of making an informed decision.

[johnu]

Dennison Calls Maria Response an ‘Unsung Success’ After 2,975 Deaths

You don't want to know what a failure looks like

[hrothgar]

 johnu, on 2018-September-11, 16:06, said:

Dennison Calls Maria Response an ‘Unsung Success’ After 2,975 Deaths

You don't want to know what a failure looks like

We may very well find out come Thursday... (Which is not to say that what happened in Puerto Rico wasn't a terrible tragedy. )

[Winstonm]

It is being reported tonight that Homeland Security has transferred $10,000,000 from FEMA to ICE to pay for beds and retention centers.

And right in the nick of time - we certainly need the midterm votes protected from those hoards of illegal who vote, while hurricane response is the best it has ever been - as long as you don't count anyone who actually died.

[Chas_P]

 johnu, on 2018-September-11, 16:06, said:

Dennison Calls Maria Response an ‘Unsung Success’ After 2,975 Deaths

You don't want to know what a failure looks like

Hurricane Harvey hit Texas on August 25, 2017. Texas has a population of ~24 million. FEMA deployed 30,000 personnel, 5.1 million meals, 4.5 million liters of water, and 20,000 tarps. 20 days later on September 10, Hurricane Irma hit Florida. Florida has a population of ~21 million. FEMA deployed 22,000 personnel, 10.9 million meals, and 98,000 tarps. 10 days later on September 20, Hurricane Irma hit Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has a population of ~3 million. Personnel was already stretched thin, key emergency supplies were already scarce, and basic provisions like food, water, and tarps were dangerously low. FEMA deployed 10,000 personnel, 1.6 million meals, 2.8 million liters of water, and 5,000 tarps. The National Hurricane Center describes a Cat 4 hurricane thusly:

4(major) 130-156 mph
113-136 kt
209-251 km/h Catastrophic damage will occur: Well-built framed homes can sustain severe damage with loss of most of the roof structure and/or some exterior walls. Most trees will be snapped or uprooted and power poles downed. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months.

So rather than sitting at your keyboard snarking about President Trump's "failure", if you have a masterplan to avert death and suffering from a natural disaster such as a Cat 4 hurricane please rush it to FEMA right away. Time is short.

[johnu]

 Chas_P, on 2018-September-11, 19:22, said:

So rather than sitting at your keyboard snarking about President Trump's "failure", if you have a masterplan to avert death and suffering from a natural disaster such as a Cat 4 hurricane please rush it to FEMA right away. Time is short.

Your "Master" has proclaimed that the Maria response was an "unsung success" without qualifications or excuses. Do you think you know more than Dennison?