phillysailor

Members
  • Content count

    3,465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

593 F'n Saint

About phillysailor

  • Rank
    Super Anarchist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. phillysailor

    When Rosenstein gets fired

    I remember that skit!
  2. phillysailor

    Kaven-No?

    I’ve two points to make. First, if I were a Republican on the committee I wouldn’t ask her any questions. I’d thank her for testifying and look her in the eye and tell her I appreciate her coming forward. Secondly, do we want to permit a single person with unsubstantiated claims from decades ago to force a branch of government to suspend its process & investigate a powerful figure? This establishes a precedent providing a compelling individual with a powerful tool over our elected leaders. If they can be so easily manipulated by heart-wrenching stories, are we the people in charge, or are those who usurp our powers not manipulating our representatives? I believe the lady, but isn’t there a greater standard to be sought than this? Must there be such paltry evidence to force this drama? This brings to mind “the Resistance” operating within the WH, sneakily protecting America from her selected leaders. This is governance by accusation & hashtag. I trust it less than I trust a Trump.
  3. phillysailor

    Nuclear Option

    We are realizing just how important the 60 vote minimum was for ensuring Senatorial amity. Maybe this shit will help us heal. Need to acknowledge we have a disease before we take our medicine.
  4. phillysailor

    Question's surround Kavanaugh's accuser

    Personally, I am disappointed with Ford as a witness. She has little to substantiate her claims, requested anonymity which limited the investigation of her claims and did not provide an opportunity for other women or witnesses to come forward in a timely fashion to be heard and considered during hearings. She has set conditions on her providing testimony and apparently thinks her testimony is so valuable that it should completely upend the functions of our government. BUT. In this era, we've got to take such claims seriously, and Ford seems to be the victim in all of this, first in that bedroom so many years ago and now again, receiving death threats for reporting her story. A SCOTUS nominee must be judged on all available evidence and scrutinized for honesty and desire to protect the weak and innocent. BUT. Doing "Advise and Consent" by hashtag and Twitter is an inept and untrustworthy approach to governance. Ordering an investigation and delaying these nomination hearings on scanty evidence may well empower individuals to completely paralyze our government based on claims with scanty evidence as well as open up a lucrative of #metoo lawyers to threaten and extort legal fees and other such bribery from powerful men and (possibly) damaged women. Its a conundrum. I'm ok with any of the following: the committee holds the hearing on Monday, and hear what testimony is offered. If Ford refuses to testify, then there is little to go on, and Kavanaugh wins by default after a Committee vote. If she does testify, and the Committee is unimpressed, then ditto, with the caveat that the Dems will be pissed off that the GOP ignores #metoo complaints and are a rich, white old men's club (all true, but not exactly news). On the other hand, the Committee could find her credible and request an investigation before going forward, in which case the party of Trump will eat those turncoat RINOs for lunch. Senator Flake probably won't care much. He's got an ample supply of popcorn and a cushy pension. Whatever, it's all possible in our system. IMO the Senate needs to go back to 60 votes needed to approve SCOTUS nominees. It avoids much of the inevitable turmoil that will result from Garland's farcical nomination and this debacle in process.
  5. phillysailor

    Kaven-No?

    @Dog is just saying that he cannot be held responsible for for what he posts. It’s not his fault he was sucked into spreading lies. He’s the victim here! He’d make a great welfare queen, shifting the blame for his failures onto “the system” or his parents. Dog and his ilk should be allowed to make unsubstantiated claims without risk of censure, because political games like that are fine for Republicans... pizzaGate, Benghazi and chanting “Lock her up!” are ok for them, all the while bemoaning the loss of bipartisan amity and respect for traditions the Democrats show when politically explosive information is revealed. At the end of the day, this info needed to come out. If Kavanaugh was approved without this debate and Americans came to learn a Democrat sat on the info, they might be justifiably pissed that the confirmation process was a sham, that the rules are different for white men than Clarence T.
  6. phillysailor

    Mindset of Political Compromise

    We've been down this road before, Chessy. Democrats will only be compromising, in your opinion, when we espouse conservative values. But gays are loud and proud, minorities are becoming the majority, the GOP is a threat to our fiscal stability and morals, and we need to rein in the military industrial complex. We need science in our federal policies and in our schools, not sanctimonious white men telling all women what their medical options are. We need a representative democracy which thrives on compromise. The wage and wealth gap is a threat to our national security which dwarfs terrorism in its ability to become an existential threat. Universal healthcare = righteousness, not donations in a silver plate on Sunday. That is the antithesis of the GOP platform, for fuck's sake. When your party gets back to American values, then we can talk issues. Until then, we got issues.
  7. phillysailor

    Nuclear Option

    Apparently we need this period of self loathing leading to a debacle that can only be avoided with bipartisan effort. We had it when we saved the financial crisis from becoming a global meltdown, but we don't have it or responsible leadership now. At some point, thinking and patriotic Republicans will realize that the GOP has been responsible for Trump and for much of the partisan behavior infecting our nation. Only then will this cycle stop. They have the power, right now, to reinstitute a 60 vote minimum for confirmation. If they don't give a shit about bipartisan voices being important, then all they have to do is to carry on. Platitudes are nice, but don't mean a thing. Show us with concrete examples that you want a return to democracy. Until then, please stop whining about Democrats being apoplectic and accuse us of stupid crap. Expect candidates that have been fully vetted, and explore issues which make candidates demonstrably unfit for office. If faced with an accuser like Anita Hill, for example, request that Clarence Thomas withdraw his nomination. She was erudite, forthright and factual in her presentation, and it was abhorrent that he now sits on the highest court in the land. I'm not saying our latest accuser has anything like Anita's substance, and what I've seen speaks of much less, but lets hear her out, hear his response & then make a responsible, bipartisan decision and then move on. The most responsible decision might be to not vote to confirm until after a more thorough investigation (and therefore a delay until after the election), but it must be a GOP decision in order to happen. If the allow this to go forward, then the GOP has stated they don't want a bipartisan process, thank you very much, and they don't want to have the voters speak, and they publicly acknowledge & embrace their hypocrisy.
  8. phillysailor

    Kaven-No?

    The FBI cannot just investigate on someone's request. There has to be a violation of Federal Law, a crime has to be committed. This is different... this is a political process which was initiated by the White House when Trump nominated Kavanaugh. Only the White House can request this issue be investigated. My feelings are that Kavanaugh was appropriately nominated, hearings were held, and a vote is next. It is proper that this late issue receive attention, but that process remains fundatmentally the same. If the judiciary committee decides they cannot pass this forward without the FBI investigating, they can request that the White House start that process. Yes, this may delay the nomination past the election, but it can only occur with Republican input: they dominate the committee and can determine this resul. They could own the process while upholding American traditions of mutual respect and bipartisanship. But if they decide that the process go forward without the FBI investigating the issue, then they have said, "ok, let the political process determine the outcome." In other words, they acknowledge that they went political with Garland, and its the Democrat's turn to fight dirty. AKA, fuck the traditions, just play to win. The more times the GOP chooses warfare, the more likely they reap what they sow. Partisan hacks will whinge and bleat and blame it on the DemocRATS, but will only narrow their base and end up just being white men over 60.
  9. phillysailor

    Mindset of Political Compromise

    1. Face mirror 2. Open eyes
  10. phillysailor

    Question's surround Kavanaugh's accuser

    Or perhaps we just are taking Kavanaugh at his word when he helped judges Bush nominated: tell them you have no ideological agenda and will defer to settled law. The hearings were political theatre; Kavanaugh didn’t lie, didn’t tell the whole truth and didn’t let on if he has a political or social agenda. By refusing to truly engage questions, candidates invite this scrutiny. If they are more open, more willing to be judged by their ideological bent, then less inference is required.
  11. phillysailor

    Kaven-No?

    Pissant, I’ve gone on the record early in favor of Kavanaugh ‘s nomination on the basis of his accomplishments. I’ve also stated that I’ve got reservations about this 11th hour release of info and it’s paltry underpinnings. I’ve clearly stated in posts that if it’s just “he said, she said” it shouldn’t deter acceptance of Kavanaugh. Youve got no record of such neutral judgement on the issue, only a record of blaming Democrats for everything that you think is bad. You are the epitome of snowflake because you’re always whining about us. Grow a pair, ya wimp. The truth will out, that’s the only lesson here. If you can’t handle truth, don’t read the newspaper and unplug from the internet. If you can’t hack justifiable criticism and negative info about SCOTUS nominees, don’t post in PA. But now you do know that a nominee for the highest court in the land may have lied to coverup youthful indiscretions that sounds like attempted rape and all you care about is the party affiliation of his accuser? What an immoral partisan bitch you are.
  12. phillysailor

    Stormy Daniels' : Full Disclosure

    You are either a terrible judge of character or a racist by saying Michelle Obama was not classy. Laura Bush was similarly endowed with positive attributes You’re a bottom feeding asshole by comparison.
  13. phillysailor

    Kaven-No?

    You are making assumptions about tactics being the main driver of timing and why & how this information came to light. We don’t know what steps Feinstein took, nor the limits she tried to impose on the information prior to the public release. We do know she tried to keep the info private and she says the reason was the accuser’s desire for anonymity. You always ascribe negative motives for anything Dems do, but in this case Feinstein may well have thought an anonymous accuser’s statement less credible and therefore delayed release until she had permission to release more info publicly, or she may have waited until the FBI showed they weren’t going to help with due diligence before releasing info. She may not even have been the reason reporters got wind of the story in the first place. Many possible explanations, but to partisans like you, the only narrative is to blame DemocRats for the evil in the world. Grow up, Snowflake. The info is credible enough and serious enough that some Republicans want to resolve the issue responsibly. Learn from your betters and study their example.
  14. phillysailor

    Kaven-No?

    I think the GOPs efforts to respond do nothing to help a good decision get made. But their ready release of other women's accounts has no impact on how I view the scenario. I don't think that's evidence of smoke or innocence. Just political gamesmanship. Not sure why this wasn't resolved by Feinstein (I did a little reading, now) in person with Kavanaugh. Seems she could have sat the Judge down, perhaps even suggested a meeting with his accuser or her testimony so this could have been resolved in a more reliable forum. I get that Feinstein might have been trapped by having an accusation but having no permission to share her name... but as has been said, this is no average position. This is exactly why the Garland nomination with no vote sucks. It has irrevocably politicized the court.
  15. phillysailor

    Kaven-No?

    Does telling your shrink something qualify as "documentation"? No. It qualifies as telling one side of a story to someone who will never break confidence without permission. If it's "he said, she said" decades ago, and one instance without other evidentiary proof, then I'm afraid it's not enough to justify impacting a decision of this magnitude. There is no way to judge him as unfit for a position of responsibility without more substantial documentation or other instances of maltreatment of women. If it was enough, then our president should have been disqualified immediately. We've got to argue for some degree of responsible application of public disavowal. Popularity of a hashtag shouldn't be the standard by which this is adjudicated.