Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 191: Hey Now, You're a Lodestar

(+) Yeah! (+)

No, I can, because if the accuser didn't exist why the hell would Farrow put an article out about it and why would the FBI make a note of the information in Kavanaugh's background file? Do you think they'd do that if the accuser wasn't real?

this isn't hard. like holy hell.
---

xp1337 posted...

No, I can, because if the accuser didn't exist why the hell would Farrow put an article out about it and why would the FBI make a note of the information in Kavanaugh's background file? Do you think they'd do that if the accuser wasn't real?

this isn't hard. like holy hell.

? Are you talking to me? I agreed with you the accuser exists.
---

xp1337 posted...

this isn't hard.

okay but what if you're really REALLY stupid?
---

Yes I'm talking to you because you ****ing said I couldn't "put past the idea of it"

like yes i can and so can everyone
---

Obellisk posted...

Corrik posted...

Obellisk posted...

Corrik posted...

Eddv posted...

Corrik posted...

It would be absurd to delay his confirmation considering the political timing over an unsubstantiated claim.

Why?

Every claim is unsubstantiated until its investigated.

That's like....why they investigate

He can be investigated once confirmed. It's not like he magically is above the law if he is appointed. (Apparently the President is somehow supposedly and I disagree on that).

appoint the potential attempted rapist, we can always fix that later...

Welcome to innocent until proven guilty.

Yes innocent until proven guilty. But in a case like this where he is about to be appointed to the supreme court, I do not see why a few days cannot be taken to make sure its all a bunch of hooey.

No, not innocent until proven guilty, Innocent until proven guilty involves the perspective you're intended to take on a case, not "We should assume he's innocent and therefore appoint him to the highest court in the country without investigating"

Like, this is just a complete failure of the concept. You assume they're innocent while investigating, not not bother investigating at all, otherwise there would be no "Proven Guilty" part.
---

xp1337 posted...

Yes I'm talking to you because you ****ing said I couldn't "put past the idea of it"

like yes i can and so can everyone

I don't understand what you are talking about then.

I agreed this accuser exists. I said you can't put past the idea of the possibility of someone doing this.

Thus, there is precedence for someone doing this and possibly could be means someone is willing to possibly go, but in this scenario, the person is real.

I don't even understand why you are trying to disagree with me on something we are absolutely in agreement with?
---

Im gonna need to see a source for Corriks claim that Trumps rape accuser doesnt exist, because if thats true, then Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric are INCREDIBLE illusions.
---

Bleh, I don't like the ignore list. There probably are a few cases where I should use it, but I prefer to read all the posts. And obviously disagree that there's "no point" in talking with red sox or Corrik. If I feel like there's no point in a particular discussion I just don't talk to them. I sit out plenty of arguments they're involved in because I don't think it's valuable or interesting. I'm sure they do the same!

Admittedly, you could say this is such a situation and I should have stayed out of it here but I mean... sorry... I got emotional. I held back the first time but then it kept going and I felt I had to speak up. Sorry I lost grip of my self-control one time here?
---

xp1337 posted...

No, I can, because if the accuser didn't exist why the hell would Farrow put an article out about it and why would the FBI make a note of the information in Kavanaugh's background file? Do you think they'd do that if the accuser wasn't real?

this isn't hard. like holy hell.

The FBI would put a note whenever there was an accusation regardless of its merits. I apologize for upsetting you. I get quite upset when the principle of innocent until proven guilty is threatened.
---

Espeon posted...

Im gonna need to see a source for Corriks claim that Trumps rape accuser doesnt exist, because if thats true, then Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric are INCREDIBLE illusions.

There literally is not a single person who has claimed to have seen the supposed person he raped besides her attorney. And, that includes the two anonymous people who supposedly wrote statements in regards to it.

I mean, if I asked you to prove the person literally exists, you couldn't do it. That should tell you enough to know about it. And, it is why it went relatively unscratched by the media (surprisingly).
---

I mean, a SCOTUS confirmation isn't a trial. The standards for being confirmed or not isn't the same as a criminal trial. The Senate isn't choosing between confirming him to SCOTUS or sending him to jail.
---

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

Im gonna need to see a source for Corriks claim that Trumps rape accuser doesnt exist, because if thats true, then Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric are INCREDIBLE illusions.

There literally is not a single person who has claimed to have seen the supposed person he raped besides her attorney. And, that includes the two anonymous people who supposedly wrote statements in regards to it.

I mean, if I asked you to prove the person literally exists, you couldn't do it. That should tell you enough to know about it. And, it is why it went relatively unscratched by the media (surprisingly).

Well you see, I havent heard this rape accusation at all (aside from Ivana Trump), so again, please provide a source.
---

xp1337 posted...

And obviously disagree that there's "no point" in talking with red sox or Corrik.

Corrik isn't the issue on this one. But yes, there is quite literally zero point in talking to red sox. He does literally nothing except spew his disingenious, trolling bullshit. I can't even say Ulti is that bad in that one regard.

Corrik and Inviso, you two are talking about two different people. Corrik is referring to an allegation... one of them... I think I know the one but it's really, really telling that I'm not sure. Inviso is talking about statements made by Ivana (Trump's former wife.)
---

Espeon posted...

Im gonna need to see a source for Corriks claim that Trumps rape accuser doesnt exist, because if thats true, then Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric are INCREDIBLE illusions.

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
---

Corrik posted...

The accuser definitely exists, but you can't put past the idea of it because the accuser that Trump supposedly raped DID NOT EXIST.

You mean Ivana Trump?
---

xp1337 posted...

I mean, a SCOTUS confirmation isn't a trial. The standards for being confirmed or not isn't the same as a criminal trial. The Senate isn't choosing between confirming him to SCOTUS or sending him to jail.

Now THIS is a reality show. The STAKES
---

Reg posted...

xp1337 posted...

And obviously disagree that there's "no point" in talking with red sox or Corrik.

Corrik isn't the issue on this one. But yes, there is quite literally zero point in talking to red sox. He does literally nothing except spew his disingenious, trolling bullshit. I can't even say Ulti is that bad in that one regard.

Disagree. I've had interesting conversations with red sox about say, legal minutiae or other more philosophical/general stuff here. It's when the discussion gets increasingly politicized that things go off the rails IMO.
---

This would be tossed out of civil court too for failure to present any admissible evidence. If the Senate will listen to it, we can probably expect similar accusations to be made against every nominee in the future, by a president from either party.
---

Eddv posted...

xp1337 posted...

I mean, a SCOTUS confirmation isn't a trial. The standards for being confirmed or not isn't the same as a criminal trial. The Senate isn't choosing between confirming him to SCOTUS or sending him to jail.

Now THIS is a reality show. The STAKES

Athens did this. The loser of the election was exiled for 10 years, the winner got to take high office. I am fairly sure neither of our 2016 presidential nominees would have run if this was our system.
---

Corrik posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

A Democrat who shares 75% of your beliefs is far better than a Republican who shares none.

perhaps i'm not as hardcore leftist as some of the other people posting here, but i find it hard to imagine that a republican would share absolutely none of my beliefs.

Many in this topic view it very black and white. It is hard to imagine that they might share more views with me than some democrats. And vice versa.

I almost put 25%, but didnt because I didnt want to start an argument over percentages. I see I fucked that up.

The vice versa part brings up a key point about the polarization on both sides.

Obamas nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, was Trumps current pick, Kavanaughs boss, and they voted together 93% of the time.

Why exactly is the latter getting unanimous Republican support, while the former got 0? (And vice versa)
---

IDK, it's just... say Hardiman was chosen instead of Kavanaugh. I'm pretty damn confident you don't have this ****show happening. He'd sail through confirmations and get like 6 Dem votes.

There'd be grumbling, but I reject the notion that any SCOTUS nominee was going to end up like this. Kavanaugh was just a terrible choice. Again, McConnell warned Trump ahead of time he'd be the most challenging pick to get confirmed. He wouldn't have to do that if any choice would face the same thing. He'll still be confirmed but that's because the GOP just doesn't care.

Unfortunately we can't prove any what-ifs and even if by some miracle Kavanaugh withdrew and Hardiman was nominated in his place today I think the trainwreck that has already occurred and the time that has passed changes the atmosphere and Dems would stall for the midterms at the least.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Obamas nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, was Trumps current pick, Kavanaughs boss, and they voted together 93% of the time.

Why exactly is the latter getting unanimous Republican support, while the former got 0? (And vice versa)

That 93% stat came from Cruz and excludes cases. Some of which include: abortion, contraception, and warrantless police searches where they did not vote together.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/kavanaugh-hearing-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-faces-senate-grilling/
2018/09/05/97fda1ac-b081-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html

WaPo made me sad and did not cover this specifically and it's a long article here but skip down to the 3:50 pm marker for it.
---

xp1337 posted...

IDK, it's just... say Hardiman was chosen instead of Kavanaugh. I'm pretty damn confident you don't have this ****show happening. He'd sail through confirmations and get like 6 Dem votes.

There'd be grumbling, but I reject the notion that any SCOTUS nominee was going to end up like this. Kavanaugh was just a terrible choice. Again, McConnell warned Trump ahead of time he'd be the most challenging pick to get confirmed. He wouldn't have to do that if any choice would face the same thing. He'll still be confirmed but that's because the GOP just doesn't care.

Unfortunately we can't prove any what-ifs and even if by some miracle Kavanaugh withdrew and Hardiman was nominated in his place today I think the trainwreck that has already occurred and the time that has passed changes the atmosphere and Dems would stall for the midterms at the least.

I think this isn't the model either party is using anymore. Both are trying to get the most advantageous justice possible. If Hardiman is 97% and Kavanaugh is 100%, there's no reason for the GOP to compromise to confirm him with 54 votes instead of 51.

Obama offered Garland as a compromise and the GOP bet the farm on the election in 2016, which they won. So now they get their pick. If they had lost, Hillary would get to pick and the Dem Senate confirm, anyone she wanted.
---

Now, if Obama had nominated Hardiman, I daresay McConnell would have accepted. Probably would have happened with someone a bit less conservative too. But the time to negotiate is before the election. Afterwards, the loser has no leverage.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I think this isn't the model either party is using anymore. Both are trying to get the most advantageous justice possible. If Hardiman is 97% and Kavanaugh is 100%, there's no reason for the GOP to compromise to confirm him with 54 votes instead of 51.

That was covered by me saying "the GOP doesn't care."

But I think you've simplified it too much. I think the GOP would have preferred a smooth sailing confirmation with Hardiman over an ugly fight with Kavanaugh. The former is something they can brag about and with the veneer of bipartisan cover. The latter can come back to bite them by being a vote that is political damaging both to any vulnerable Senators (admittedly this is pretty much the cycle where that's not much of a concern) but also risks energizing an already irate Dem base.

Way back at the beginning of the process, McConnell tried to threaten the Senate Dems by saying if they tried to bog down Kavanaugh he'd set the confirmation near the midterms saying it'd be helpful to the GOP to do so by depressing the Dems by giving them a "loss" going into the midterms. But he protested too much. If that truly was the case, he wouldn't be bargaining with the Dems at all, he'd just put the votes there to maximize the GOP gain. He tried to bluff them into getting this over with fast.

The crux of the issue was McConnell isn't the one who got to pick the nominee. It was Trump, and Trump doesn't care about anyone but himself and so his choice was entirely based on Kavanaugh being someone who could protect him. He threw the mess into McConnell's lap without caring how it might play.

It'll still get done and Kavanaugh will be confirmed, but I don't think this is the scenario the GOP wanted if they had their pick.

Obama offered Garland as a compromise and the GOP bet the farm on the election in 2016, which they won. So now they get their pick. If they had lost, Hillary would get to pick and the Dem Senate confirm, anyone she wanted.

You assume she wins the Senate. The Republicans were already saying before the elections they'd obstruct her picks too and not let her seat a SCOTUS justice.
---

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.
---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032256443985084417?s=20

*record scratch*

Sometimes, life comes at you fast.
---

Im not sure everyone fully understands how crazy the rape allegations against Trump were that Corrik is referring to so Im going to post this again because it still is crazy to me. Heres some good investigative journalism from Anna Merlan at Jezebel. When she refused to run the story without first taking to the accuser, they refused to produce her and ultimately wound up sending aggressive and threatening text messages to her because she refused to run the story they wanted.

Also worth noting the people pushing this were conservative donors, not liberals, and it first occurred during the republican primaries, not the presidential race.

https://jezebel.com/heres-how-that-wild-lawsuit-accusing-trump-of-raping-a-1782447083

https://jezebel.com/the-source-pushing-the-trump-rape-lawsuits-may-not-be-w-1783270283

My call with Taylor didnt end pleasantly. I think youre a piece of shit and you can suck my dick, bitch, he concluded. He then hung up.

Later that night into early the next morning, something unusual happened: I received about 26 calls from a blocked number. The caller hung up as soon as I answered. The calls couldnt be traced, according to my phone company. I received a few more calls from a blocked number the following day before they stopped.

---

Credit where its due: Trump is using his Twitter responsibly today, doing nothing but sharing important information for people in the path of Florence.
---

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

No, I would support immediate impeachment and removal from office. And hold the seats open until the next election.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Credit where its due: Trump is using his Twitter responsibly today, doing nothing but sharing important information for people in the path of Florence.

Credit where it's actually due: It's probably not actually him.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

No, I would support immediate impeachment and removal from office. And hold the seats open until the next election.

And what incentive would the Republican Senate have to do that, exactly, given your current ideology?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Credit where its due: Trump is using his Twitter responsibly today, doing nothing but sharing important information for people in the path of Florence.

This is the first good use of his Twitter platform since...well, ever.
---

Then thats still being responsible with his Twitter <_<
---

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

change this to 'a trump nut' instead of 'trump' doing the shooting and it's a better q
---

banananor posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

change this to 'a trump nut' instead of 'trump' doing the shooting and it's a better q

Well I was thinking more from the perspective of Trump doing the killing, them ramming through four new justices that all believe the president is above the law. But your method works too. Does Red Sox support terrorism if it benefits his side of the aisle?
---

I don't think you should get credit for doing what you're supposed to be doing. And while that might come off as dismissive, I mean that neutrally. No credit, but obviously not something to be attacked either.

It's similar to my feelings on Sessions's recusal. Yes, because of that we have the Mueller investigation in what appears to be rational, objective hands. No, he doesn't get points for doing what he's supposed to do. (And that's ignoring that he only had to do that because he gave false testimony under oath.)
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

No, I would support immediate impeachment and removal from office. And hold the seats open until the next election.

And what incentive would the Republican Senate have to do that, exactly, given your current ideology?

Love of country and constitution. To stop a dictatorship. To win the next election.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

No, I would support immediate impeachment and removal from office. And hold the seats open until the next election.

And what incentive would the Republican Senate have to do that, exactly, given your current ideology?

Love of country and constitution. To stop a dictatorship. To win the next election.

What about their current actions make you believe they give a shit about those first two? And how far gone do you think the country is that you think there's ANY chance of them finding a way to win the next election after their leader openly murdered four people?
---

Inviso posted...

banananor posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

change this to 'a trump nut' instead of 'trump' doing the shooting and it's a better q

Well I was thinking more from the perspective of Trump doing the killing, them ramming through four new justices that all believe the president is above the law. But your method works too. Does Red Sox support terrorism if it benefits his side of the aisle?

No.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

banananor posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

change this to 'a trump nut' instead of 'trump' doing the shooting and it's a better q

Well I was thinking more from the perspective of Trump doing the killing, them ramming through four new justices that all believe the president is above the law. But your method works too. Does Red Sox support terrorism if it benefits his side of the aisle?

No.

Well, your response to the initial question was "leave those seats open until the next election." That "solution" benefits your side in multiple ways, allowing you conveniently keep a 5-0 conservative majority unopposed on the court, and still leave yourself open for the POSSIBILITY that Republicans win the election and get to fill four seats with ideological conservatives, after a conservative terrorist committed murder to achieve that exact goal. Never mind that at BEST, a Democrat gets into office (and this is assuming the same Republican Party that blocked Garland for a year wouldn't be salivating at the thought of blocking four open spots until they can fill them) and replaces those four liberal judges with four new liberal judges...there's really no downside for the Republicans at that point. Nothing they've done in the past four years tells me they have any sort of morality to not take those heinous murders as a gift. So I think you're full of shit if you say you don't support terrorism in that scenario. You can say 'no', but your actions throughout this topic, and the consistent viewpoint you've held the whole time says otherwise.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Credit where its due: Trump is using his Twitter responsibly today, doing nothing but sharing important information for people in the path of Florence.

This is the first good use of his Twitter platform since...well, ever.

Just 19 hours ago he tweeted about John Kerry "illegally meeting with Iran".
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

No, I would support immediate impeachment and removal from office. And hold the seats open until the next election.

And what incentive would the Republican Senate have to do that, exactly, given your current ideology?

Love of country and constitution. To stop a dictatorship. To win the next election.

What about their current actions make you believe they give a shit about those first two? And how far gone do you think the country is that you think there's ANY chance of them finding a way to win the next election after their leader openly murdered four people?

You realize that in a Trump dictatorship they would have no power either. He could just dissolve Congress and make himself king.
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

banananor posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

change this to 'a trump nut' instead of 'trump' doing the shooting and it's a better q

Well I was thinking more from the perspective of Trump doing the killing, them ramming through four new justices that all believe the president is above the law. But your method works too. Does Red Sox support terrorism if it benefits his side of the aisle?

No.

Well, your response to the initial question was "leave those seats open until the next election." That "solution" benefits your side in multiple ways, allowing you conveniently keep a 5-0 conservative majority unopposed on the court, and still leave yourself open for the POSSIBILITY that Republicans win the election and get to fill four seats with ideological conservatives, after a conservative terrorist committed murder to achieve that exact goal. Never mind that at BEST, a Democrat gets into office (and this is assuming the same Republican Party that blocked Garland for a year wouldn't be salivating at the thought of blocking four open spots until they can fill them) and replaces those four liberal judges with four new liberal judges...there's really no downside for the Republicans at that point. Nothing they've done in the past four years tells me they have any sort of morality to not take those heinous murders as a gift. So I think you're full of shit if you say you don't support terrorism in that scenario. You can say 'no', but your actions throughout this topic, and the consistent viewpoint you've held the whole time says otherwise.

I said to hold the seats open because otherwise they would be filled by the vice president, who is also a Republican.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

No, I would support immediate impeachment and removal from office. And hold the seats open until the next election.

And what incentive would the Republican Senate have to do that, exactly, given your current ideology?

Love of country and constitution. To stop a dictatorship. To win the next election.

What about their current actions make you believe they give a shit about those first two? And how far gone do you think the country is that you think there's ANY chance of them finding a way to win the next election after their leader openly murdered four people?

You realize that in a Trump dictatorship they would have no power either. He could just dissolve Congress and make himself king.

Ah, the semantics argument. Never mind that I'm CLEARLY talking about Republicans abolishing democratic norms in order to further ensconce themselves in power at the expense of a growing majority in opposition to them (effectively a dictatorship run by a single party, not by one man.)
---

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

No, I would support immediate impeachment and removal from office. And hold the seats open until the next election.

And what incentive would the Republican Senate have to do that, exactly, given your current ideology?

Love of country and constitution. To stop a dictatorship. To win the next election.

What about their current actions make you believe they give a shit about those first two? And how far gone do you think the country is that you think there's ANY chance of them finding a way to win the next election after their leader openly murdered four people?

You realize that in a Trump dictatorship they would have no power either. He could just dissolve Congress and make himself king.

Ah, the semantics argument. Never mind that I'm CLEARLY talking about Republicans abolishing democratic norms in order to further ensconce themselves in power at the expense of a growing majority in opposition to them (effectively a dictatorship run by a single party, not by one man.)

It's not semantics. Congressional Republicans would have zero guarantee Trump wouldn't just boot them the first time they disagreed with him. A dictatorship can only be run by a single person.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Inviso posted...

banananor posted...

Espeon posted...

Red Sox, if Donald Trump himself went into the Supreme Court chambers and assassinated the four liberal justices, opening up four spots on the court, would you say that his administration deserves to fill those vacancies? Because your whole might makes right, ends justify the means, amoral mentality makes it seems frighteningly possible that youll say yes.

change this to 'a trump nut' instead of 'trump' doing the shooting and it's a better q

Well I was thinking more from the perspective of Trump doing the killing, them ramming through four new justices that all believe the president is above the law. But your method works too. Does Red Sox support terrorism if it benefits his side of the aisle?

No.

Well, your response to the initial question was "leave those seats open until the next election." That "solution" benefits your side in multiple ways, allowing you conveniently keep a 5-0 conservative majority unopposed on the court, and still leave yourself open for the POSSIBILITY that Republicans win the election and get to fill four seats with ideological conservatives, after a conservative terrorist committed murder to achieve that exact goal. Never mind that at BEST, a Democrat gets into office (and this is assuming the same Republican Party that blocked Garland for a year wouldn't be salivating at the thought of blocking four open spots until they can fill them) and replaces those four liberal judges with four new liberal judges...there's really no downside for the Republicans at that point. Nothing they've done in the past four years tells me they have any sort of morality to not take those heinous murders as a gift. So I think you're full of shit if you say you don't support terrorism in that scenario. You can say 'no', but your actions throughout this topic, and the consistent viewpoint you've held the whole time says otherwise.

I said to hold the seats open because otherwise they would be filled by the vice president, who is also a Republican.

Again, ignoring the fact that in this hypothetical scenario, the BEST case scenario for the Democrats is that they win the election and nothing happens, whereas ALL other outcomes wildly benefit the Republicans (whose policies would have spurred on the assassinations in the first place.) Your ambivalence is supporting hypothetical terrorism.
---