Whataboutism is a pot and kettle thing – which side is the worst? I thought we were talking about (dis)qualification for a specific position.
Christine is definitely not up for a SCOTUS position here, so whether she’s honest, dishonest, or confused is only one piece of the puzzle. If Christine turned out to be bribed or brainwashed by a Hillaruminati conspiracy, of course that would matter, but whether she’s a credible witness is not the same question as whether Brett should get the job, and that in turn is not the same question as whether he should get it right now.
So again, my question is whether Brett turning out not to be a credible witness – or Brett committing perjury – would be a disqualification. It’s a separate question from what makes Christine tick.
Or to put it another way, if they’re both lying (or both confused), you might say that “cancels out”, but you don’t usually succeed in a job interview by proving someone else is as dishonest (or confused) as you are.
result nobody nominated.
Of all the lawyers, judges, and law degree holderstotally random people in the country, they can’t find anyone else they like?
Edit:
Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.
Interesting point. Although it would be pretty upsetting for him personally if he didn’t get the job because of a false(?) accusation, it wouldn’t be a big deal for the country.
OTOH, since all men are rapists, that means the only plausible replacement would have to be female.
Pretty odd that you don’t (theoretically) have to have any particular qualifications to serve on the SC.
I can sort of cope with that. I mean, all they really have to do is sit there and snort occasionally and say ‘hear, hear!’ or ‘balderdash!’. Any inbred peer can cope with that. Their powers are fairly limited. The SC has to actually rule on complex legal cases, and their decisions set precedent for rulings by lower courts.
I read an opinion piece once that argued that the House of Lords was actually much more representative of the UK population than the professional politicians in the House of Commons. Some truth in that, I feel.
Of all the lawyers, judges, and law degree holderstotally random people in the country, they can’t find anyone else they like?
This is a misunderstanding of the Republican position. To the GOP, the last month has seen an attempt by the Democrats to block any candidate nominated by Trump. Their goal was to block confirmation of any nominees until 2020 (at least), or until Democrats are in sufficient control.
GOP judged that - given the goals of the Democrats - the personality of their nominees therefore did not matter. Neither did Democrat arguments about individual personality, temperament, etc. All made irrelevant given what Democrats wanted to accomplish. Of course since Democrats control the media their attacks have wide exposure, and politics must be managed (for example, the one-week delay after Jeff Flake was ambushed by activists and CNN in a Hart Bldg. elevator).
To allow the Democrats to “win” this confirmation battle would be to capitulate to Democrats and their tactics for the indefinite future. The stakes were much higher than Brett Kavanaugh. Dropping him and nominating anyone else would just kick off the same cycle of attacks.
Then when they do it and the 4th estate goes along, people don’t believe the 4th estate is that corrupt to go along with it, but they are. Even when details of the wrap up smear come out, the corrupt 4th estate will refuse to cover it.
Plus there are no consequences as long as you can control the FBI and DOJ. After reading the FBI’s follow up report it looks like Dianne Feinstein just realized they no longer have that control. Perhaps there will be consequences this time.
What are your thoughts on non-us media? Dems control those as well, or why is it that e.g Swedish media also wrote about how he most likely lied under oath about Devil’s Triangle, the anus thing and in general was a bit billigerant.
Anyway, in general the non-us media I read didn’t paint a particularly positive picture about him
Not going to speculate as I stopped reading most media accounts years ago, US and non-US both.
That said, I do not make the conclusion that since the non-US media and the Democrat media agree then their stories are accurate, because stereo and because they’re independent of each other.
No idea how old you are, but Europeans have a long history of attempting to influence American politics (and somewhat vice-versa, but not as extensively).
I think that of the people who don’t wish for great harm to come to the US, they seem to have a kind of existential investment in the idea of America. Hence a great many non-Americans have very strong opinions about US politics. The trend seems to be that the US should become more like them. I think non-US media influences this trend to a very large extent.
It would be stupid to say something is accurate just because it is repeated, and nothing I said in my original post either.
But, if you look at things like press freedom countries in Scandinavia usually rank in the top 5 or so, and Europe in general a lot higher than the US. Although press freedom by itself does not mean its accurate, countries with low press freedom tend to have less accurate news.
So, I am not sure how old you are either but we have in school this thing called history so I now a bit about things before my time, e.g, normandy, ECSC, etc. All events which shaped European history far more the last 7 decades or so than any influence Europe might have had on American politics.
But, if I understand your post correctly you imply that foreign press write knowingly/unknowingly inaccurate news with the aim of influencing us domestic politics.
Trump stuck by him and he is now a Supreme Court justice, and he`ll be a great one! When Trump went after Ford at the rally, it provided the much-needed momentum. To illustrate to the nasty smearing tactics of the left that this will be fought tooth and nail. And do you know what? It may help the Repubs retain the House.
And do you know what? I predict Trump will appoint replacements for Breyer and Ginsberg during his second term. I`ll drink to that. And I look forward to laughing at the smelly activists making noise in the galleries of the Senate bwahahahahahahaah
No, you don’t understand. I believe most news media are capable of writing straight news accounts that are more or less accurate and more or less vanilla.
Where media bias comes into play is providing context in longer analysis pieces and of course in their editorial stance. They have a worldview and the news must fit that ecosystem (for lack of a better word). Their customers depend on their ability to fit the straight news into that ecosystem, at least superficially. Analysis and editorials are the bending tools they use for that purpose.
For example, many Europeans agree with some Americans that the US has a problem with gun ownership (some even believe that this is undeniable)*. There is a media market for these Europeans and these Americans. The news organizations that serve this market rarely support civilian gun ownership (if ever).
Do they collude in their editorial stances, Europeans and Americans? I can only speculate. In this case I see Europeans trying to influence domestic American politics in ways that would make Americans become more European. In this example, I believe that European news organizations both knowingly and unknowingly attempt to influence American domestic policy, although again I can only speculate on the extent of their collusion (if any).
*-Not trying to veer off topic. Gun ownership is simply the most black and white example, and that’s the only reason I chose it.
I think the US media is doing a good job at explaining the whole SC situation and giving an impartial description of Kav’s career, which of course will result in people having an educated and well informed opini…
Yeah, I do not recommend going to the Washington Post and reading the comments to their BK stories. Their Democrats are even nuttier than they were in 2003. Lots of Hitler talk, nazi talk, arson talk, violence talk, some very odd things about castration, too (what is with the left and castration?!). Some comments are practically unreadable due to alternate spelling and nazi references and because they’re fucking disturbed.
All hosted by the nation’s newspaper (motto: Democracy Dies in Darkness).
