Could anyone support Kavanaugh but a rapist?

Jack said:
When there is a bi-partisan consensus on a nominee, that pretty well tells you if the person is 'impartial'. When it's 'Blue Team against Red Team', that pretty much tells you it is PARTISAN.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. But almost all votes are now partisan.

Most legislation used to be passed by a majority of members of both parties--those days are long gone. "Party unity" votes (majority of one party vs. majority of the other) increased from about 40% in the 1950's to 73% in the House in 2016. The Senate increased from 52% to about 70%.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch8_tbl3.pdf

So, the consensus bi-partisan votes have mostly disappeared.

Even candidates without the controversies surrounding Kav are partisan. The Gorsuch vote was 54-45 with every Republican voting yes and all but three Democrats voting no. The three Democrats voting yes are from red states (IN, ND, WV).
 
anonymoose said:
That post was a breath of fresh air for me. The last 2.5 weeks were all about whether he's a rapist as alleged by someone who clearly has histrionic personality disorder exacerbated by TDS and enabled by Diane Feinstein et al.
.
Back to the question. Every dim on that senate j. committee took Ballsey Ford's word for it despite no substantiation, despite she obviously has histrionic personality disorder. She said it so it must be true. She had no business even being heard. No, I do not believe he will be impartial. There will be payback. Not sure if I'd be the same but that's the cake those vile dims on the j. committee baked now they have to eat it.
Click to expand...

I think Blue Team is still pissed about McConnell holding up the Obama pick, Merrick Garland. This is the Blue Team reaction. This is a Partisan Red Team appointment, there is NO bipartisanship being presented here. This ISN'T suppose to be a 'political' position.

This is a good example why the 'Two-Party System' isn't the best political arrangement. A 'One-Party System' might be more efficient, but probably not too responsive to the Public. I'd be more interested in a 'Multi-Party System'. You know, MORE competition. What we have now is a 'Winner Take All' mentality, which seems to ensure 50% of the Country is always upset.
 
Flash said:
Yes, I agree. But almost all votes are now partisan.

Most legislation used to be passed by a majority of members of both parties--those days are long gone. "Party unity" votes (majority of one party vs. majority of the other) increased from about 40% in the 1950's to 73% in the House in 2016. The Senate increased from 52% to about 70%.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/vitalstats_ch8_tbl3.pdf

So, the consensus bi-partisan votes have mostly disappeared.

Even candidates without the controversies surrounding Kav are partisan. The Gorsuch vote was 54-45 with every Republican voting yes and all but three Democrats voting no. The three Democrats voting yes are from red states (IN, ND, WV).
Click to expand...

Notabably manchin, the dude who voted with the gop to keep lower cost drugs to be bought from canada. He's a fucking dino.

Mark my words. He will change to a motherfucking republican soon.
 
Anne and Margot said:
Can't invoke Clinton ,when you're pushing a drunken pervert.
Click to expand...

OK, forget Clinton. When the woman is accusing someone on the other side of something, believe her. If a woman is accusing someone on your side, don't believe her. You could have predicted a year ago which posters on JPP would believe Ford or Kav.
 
Flash said:
OK, forget Clinton. When the woman is accusing someone on the other side of something, believe her. If a woman is accusing someone on your side, don't believe her. You could have predicted a year ago whether most of the posters on JPP would believe Ford or Kav.
Click to expand...

Being a partisan,drunk is enough to disqualify him
 
Rune said:
You are too smart for thinking which is this simplistic.
It isn't good for the country when either party has too much power.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they should have too much power (and parties are rather weak organizations in the U. S. with relatively little power). What I said was both parties are seeking to gain power by winning elections. They may want to do "good things" when they obtain power, but they have to win elections to be able to do so.

How is that simplistic? Why are they seeking to win elections?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top