Reply With Quote
So you don't believe in justice.
I agree that the evidentiary basis of Rick Scott's complaint resembles CBF's. Nil.
So you don't believe in justice.
I believe voters deserve the bona fide service of their representatives regardless of their personal character.
Yet the dems considered it good enough for a no vote and to claim they believed her, and protesters out front acted like they were certain she was raped, and the liberal news media toed that line. Did you cry foul?
Only if it benefits their side though, so rules of engagement are "anything goes" as long as your side is benefited. Cry foul if it's used against you?
It's not an abuse of power to make committee votes based on politicized BS.
Indeed, it's the way it's commonly done. Senators vote their conscience, or whatever they say their conscience is. No evidence is necessary or even required for that.
They have to have penalties for this
Fines of jail
They just can not break the laws and have no penalities
Complaining is legit.
Call a foul if you think there was a foul.
In Kavanaugh's case, even had he not been confirmed, DJT would have gotten another bite at the apple. Next one in the pipeline might even have been more conservative.
If you allow dishonesty for political gain, you're going to get dishonesty that doesn't favor you, eventually. It's just the law of the jungle.
This is why I say an electorate who allows favorable corruption doesn't deserve honesty. We aren't children.
fine.
you argue for the law of the jungle, and I'll argue for a cons utional republic
This is just a red herring.
Did you cry foul? You said the two cases are similar. You're crying foul here.
DMC now pearl clutching over dishonesty in politics.
You'll get the law of the jungle regardless what you name it. If you allow your kid to be a thief as long as you get money from it, one day he'll steal from you. Don't expect anyone to give a when you cry about it.
I said the evidentiary basis is similar; the contexts differ.
a private citizen knocking the reputation of a judicial nominee isn't an abuse of political power; Rick Scott and DJT putting their thumb on the election scale by prevaricating about fraud certainly is.
That's it, use your buzzwords. You're making a difference.
Oddly you're the one pearl clutching here over Rick Scott. I'm just pointing out the selective nature of your concerns.
Utter philosophical abstraction.
You said you thought corrupt electorate deserves honesty.
You used circular reasoning to explain why.
You're acting like we can't have a government of men, because we're not all angels.
You act like we'll get a government of men without acting like men.
not sure what you mean
If we continue to expect honesty from the opposing viewpoint side while allowing dishonesty on our own, we'll never have the government you speak of. People have to police their own base, but it's not happening. It's anything goes for the big win... anything.
Adults are discussing things. Go in your hands and smear it on the wall somewhere else.
Can someone cliff notes this DMC/Winehole exchange? I don’t feel like reading through it.
Winehole: Corruption in Florida
DMC: Ya but Kavanaugh
So basically Winehole has you over a barrel.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions