Kavanaugh Drama Risks Driving Moderates, Women Away From GOP

[Ridgerunner]

Plainly she felt judicial intervention was “difficult to justify” just as she said.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is the Senators who are voting. They know about these others issues.

Do you really think the congressmen care about, e.g. whether a president can pardon himself? Do you think they vote based on anything but political considerations? One notices that they didn’t get a gun opposer to accuse Kavanaugh, but an abortion-promoter.

There is a reason why there is only one Dem in Congress with a 100% prolife voting record, but many
Repubs. There is a reason why the Dem platform in 2016 included support of “choice”. There is a reason why Planned Parenthood contributes to the Dem party.

And that reason is support of abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, you think they didn’t care that SCOTUS ruled ACA constitutional by claiming

They probably cared, even though they didn’t know what it was when they voted on it.

No. It’s about abortion. They didn’t turn up one bogus adverse witness after another against Gorsuch. That’s because while Gorsuch might be suspected to be prolife because of general conservatism, he isn’t a faithful Catholic like Kavanaugh is. So they didn’t stereotype Gorsuch quite the same way or attack him as viciously. They can accept things like Citizens United, but not limitations on abortion.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Frankly that was one of the reasons I wanted Barret appointed instead of Kavanaugh. It was Kavanaugh who came up with the whole idea that the ACA was a tax so that the court could essentially bypass the question. The Court just picked up his argument.

 

[ProVobis]

maybe a little bit to do with overturning Citizens United, or Kavanaugh’s previous writings on Presidential self-pardon, his view of the Endangered Species Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, National Security vs. Privacy, Gun Control, net neutrality?

Also choosing Republican presidents (Gore vs Bush) and gerrymandering issues.

 

[Theo520]

Other than Citizens United, I doubt one out of 100,000 Americans knows what any of those are about.
And I think one would have to explain Citizens United to a lot of them. But I would also bet even few Dems would hold the same views on all of those.

I’m reminded of those “on the street” interviews where they state a policy but assign it to the opposite politician, and ask what people think of it.

The average joe goes with their party without comprehending the actual issues.

 

[dvdjs]

Do you really think the congressmen care about, e.g. whether a president can pardon himself?

Yes.

Do you think they vote based on anything but political considerations?

Yes.

One notices that they didn’t get a gun opposer to accuse Kavanaugh, but an abortion-promoter.

Promoter?

 

[Theo520]

No. It’s about abortion. They didn’t turn up one bogus adverse witness after another against Gorsuch. That’s because while Gorsuch might be suspected to be prolife because of general conservatism, he isn’t a faithful Catholic like Kavanaugh is. So they didn’t stereotype Gorsuch quite the same way or attack him as viciously. They can accept things like Citizens United, but not limitations on abortion.

I think they knew Gorsuch was to replace scalia, so the balance was maintained. This time it affects the balance, and they have a shot at a different outcome if it’s delayed past the midterm elections. Not a great shot, but they can’t ignore it.

Heck, McConnell didn’t have much confidence anyone would be hillary, but he went for it.

 

[Theo520]

Frankly that was one of the reasons I wanted Barret appointed instead of Kavanaugh. It was Kavanaugh who came up with the whole idea that the ACA was a tax so that the court could essentially bypass the question. The Court just picked up his argument.

I hated ACA but thought the tax angle was relevant. ACA was a bad law that Congress legally passed. So I don’t hold that against him.

However, Dems should never be allowed to shrug off responsibility for what they passed.

 

[ProVobis]

tax angle was relevant.

Yes and it was more than the mandate. They decreased the deductibility of medical expenses among other things.

 

[HarryStotle]

I think that the message that it is okay for a teenage boy to hold a girl down and cover her mouth so she cannot scream is a bigger problem . Let’s just believe the Prolife guy. This is why I sm having trouble with Christianity
. Not showing the Jesus I have believed in for my whole life
.

A glimpse into the world your favored ideology is creating.

Loading…

winteryknight.com

 

[dvdjs]

Op-ed in the NYT:

Loading…

www.nytimes.com

Regardless of what happens to Kavanaugh, however, this scandal has given us an X-ray view of the rotten foundations of elite male power. Despite Donald Trump’s populist posturing, there are few people more obsessed with Ivy League credentials. Kavanaugh’s nomination shows how sick the cultures that produce those credentials — and thus our ruling class — can be.
…

Watching all this unfold is radicalizing for reasons far beyond Republican mistreatment of Kavanaugh’s accusers. His story shows, in lurid microcosm, how a certain class of men guard and perpetuate their privileges. Women who struggle ceaselessly to be smart enough, attractive enough, ambitious enough and likable enough have been playing a rigged game. As they realize that, their incandescent fury is remaking our politics. We’ll know things have changed when palling around with sexual abusers carries more stigma than being abused does.

 

[Metis1]

There may well be some “sticker shock” when people get notice of their premium increases for 2019 this October because of the shortfall created when the mandate was ended.

 

[HarryStotle]

Op-ed in the NYT:
Opinion | Pigs All the Way Down - The New York Times

Regardless of what happens to Kavanaugh, however, this scandal has given us an X-ray view of the rotten foundations of elite male power. Despite Donald Trump’s populist posturing, there are few people more obsessed with Ivy League credentials. Kavanaugh’s nomination shows how sick the cultures that produce those credentials — and thus our ruling class — can be.
…

Watching all this unfold is radicalizing for reasons far beyond Republican mistreatment of Kavanaugh’s accusers. His story shows, in lurid microcosm, how a certain class of men guard and perpetuate their privileges. Women who struggle ceaselessly to be smart enough, attractive enough, ambitious enough and likable enough have been playing a rigged game. As they realize that, their incandescent fury is remaking our politics. We’ll know things have changed when palling around with sexual abusers carries more stigma than being abused does.

The only thing missing in the “X-Ray view” is the actual X-Ray showing the guilt of Kavanaugh. Or of anyone else for that matter, since it relies totally on the impressions of some or isolated incidents which have nothing to do with the case in question.

The presumption of guilt is brazen. Again, no sense of innocent until proven guilty, merely presumed guilt to further political aims.

You should feel just a touch of embarrassment for citing the article.

The NYT, a former newspaper, now a scandal rag.

 

[pnewton]

Are you denying that the mainstream media ill-informs the people? Even the vast majority of the people says they do.

The mainstream media is no longer the primary source of information, and it is far more helpful than the internet. So yes, any poll of what people think is useless, except as an exercise of how ignorant the population is becoming. It’s crazy to think that people can think they have a valid opinion about who is right and who is wrong here. If she will testify, then let her. If not, move on. Public opinion is irrelevant. As to the thread title, if the nomination and election of Trump did not send moderates and women out of the GOP, this nomination will not.

The NYT, a former newspaper, now a scandal rag.

It is a newspaper. Insulting media you do not like does not make them less valid. There currently is no better source for information than the media we have, flawed as it is, including FOX, which is a good alternative for those who have bought into the propaganda that news is “fake news.” Since you just quoted someone’s blog above, I will stick with any media where there is at least some checks in place, imperfect though they may be. Looking to bloggers and the internet for news will make us even more ignorant in coming generations. Information could be powerful, but misinformation is devastating.

 

[pnewton]

I think that the message that it is okay for a teenage boy to hold a girl down and cover her mouth so she cannot scream is a bigger problem .

Wow! I would thought ever one would agree with this. I mean who could disagree with it, until a read post 351, criticizing you for thinking this. This world has gone crazy.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Are you denying that the mainstream media ill-informs the people? Even the vast majority of the people says they do.

The mainstream media is no longer the primary source of information, and it is far more helpful than the internet. So yes, any poll of what people think is useless, except as an exercise of how ignorant the population is becoming. It’s crazy to think that people can think they have a valid opinion about who is right and who is wrong here. If she will testify, then let her. If not, move on. Public opinion is irrelevant. As to the thread title, if the nomination and election of Trump did not send moderates and women out of the GOP, this nomination will not.

The NYT, a former newspaper, now a scandal rag.

It is a newspaper. Insulting media you do not like does not make them less valid. There currently is no better source for information than the media we have, flawed as it is, including FOX, which is a good alternative for those who have bought into the propaganda that news is “fake news.”

All of the above is true, even the comment that, “Insulting media you do not like does not make them less valid.” What does make them less valid is the quality of what they write and the intent behind it.

If the standard for newspaper is that it publishes news on paper then, yes, it still is a newspaper, but barely. Its trajectory, however, is decidedly toward scandal rag, a class of publications which, arguably, still fit the loose definition of newspaper.

 

[Metis1]

The NYT, a former newspaper, now a scandal rag

The fact that you apparently believe that pretty much tells me where you’re coming from and why. Certainly no source is perfect, but the NYT does have a relatively stellar reputation, relatively speaking. Either way, it’s certainly head and shoulders over Trump and his usual daily barrage of lies and distortions.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The NYT, a former newspaper, now a scandal rag

The fact that you apparently believe that pretty much tells me where you’re coming from and why. Certainly no source is perfect, but the NYT does have a relatively stellar reputation, relatively speaking. Either way, it’s certainly head and shoulders over Trump and his usual daily barrage of lies and distortions.

No hint of your own bias there.

Kavanaugh, too, had a “stellar reputation.” Stuff happens. Sometimes warranted, sometimes not.

We would suppose that a good newspaper wouldn’t engage in unwarranted mud slinging, is all.

 

[Metis1]

No hint of your own bias there.

I have my “biases” because I have my opinions. I left that on the front doorstep as I did with my last post, but I have to admit that it left the door open for you to create a strawman for you to skew.