Not only does Collins’ party place its collective and individual interests over country, she makes it even more offensive by placing ideology over justice.
As Collins Appears to Side with Kavanaugh Over Assault Allegation, Group Issues Warning: Women Won't Forget
That doesn’t mean she’ll vote for him. As I just posted, a Democratic Senator in an equally tight election, Claire McCaskill, announced her intention to vote no. In some states, looking objective matters, and appearing to oppose a judge based on political philosophy alone is not a positive.
McCaskill waited until after Kavanaugh’s Senate testimony and the Democrats presentation of his, well, challenging record. That’s not an unfair thing to do. I don’t know how Heitkamp will vote, but her red state colleague gave her guidance on how things can be done.
I really like Madame Mayham too. I’m a bread baker and learned that Ciabatta means shoe in Italian because of the shape of the bread. It looks like a clown shoe as a matter of fact. So instead of changing the gender, we could just go for Madam Killer Ciabatta…or something…
But that isn’t enough. Cory Booker or someone else doing a good job of questioning Kavanaugh at some hearing, or some report the Democrats write up on him, that doesn’t cut it. You know what is at stake, you know how long this is going to impact the country. If you were to ask the average American that follows politics, what is the Democrats’ message on his record, what he will do, what the implications will be for the country, working people, our ability to fight against corruption and corporate power, etc., would anyone be able to answer that? Of course not, because it doesn’t exist. It’s probably a fitting finality to the trajectory Reagan set us on, as this whole thing finally comes together, the opposition party that has been over time been completely tamed just lets it happen. There’s been an inevitability to this rightward drift for years now because of this. Given what is at stake, how does the party not organize town halls and teach ins across the country, pressuring anyone even remotely on the fence? How does it not create a coherent message and argument against him, clearly explaining the implications of what he will do when given power? How is delaying this until after the elections not front and center, given the importance of this seat? I mean, I do want the Democrats to gain seats in the coming election, but this is another reason why I don’t put much faith in things actually getting better. I don’t see any vision at all really, just reaction against Trump. There will be no radical change to the context that produced Trump because of this, and so it’s hard to feel good about the situation, even if the Democrats win. It could be the start of the Republicans finally going the way of the Whigs, or it can be a two year break before they return. Or maybe neither and the Democrats as they are now, roughly, just maintain power. And because nothing changes, things continue to get worse. I don’t think I am being overly pessimistic either. I think these scenarios are far more likely than the Democrats getting elected and putting in place long overdue changes. And I also think that another crash is almost certain. If that happens with the composition of politicians we have in government, I think that they will make a really bad situation even worse, as they did after the last crash.
We should always stay active and work on organizing people, pushing for changes, but things are as they are, and there are many barriers to change in the Democratic Party that are very difficult to overcome.
They sure did forget Bill Clinton’s rapes.
[quote=“Edward_A_Hara, post:35, topic:55718, full:true”]
Wait a moment, “Mr. O’Hara”—you’re supposedly a devout Catholic.
You post here frequently, telling everyone that if we all just followed the teachings of the Catholic Church, all would be well with us.
You post here frequently, telling everyone that our failure to do so—particularly with regard to the Church’s teachings on sexuality—is the root cause of the political, social, and economic crises we so undeniably confront here in Earth.
(So far, I haven’t seen you address our collective ecological crisis—the crisis that makes it difficult-to-impossible to resolve our “other” crises to a higher level. That might bring up the issue of nearly 8 billion and counting top-of-the-food-chain two-leggeds trying to pretend that resources for their consumption are unlimited, on a materially-finite Earth…that might bring up issues regarding our fertility…that might reveal the sham of the Catholic Church’s position on women’s innate human right to choose how we shall exercise our fertility…)
The Catholic Church has opposed contraception for as long as as anything worthy of the name has existed.
So, aren’t you one of those people who would like to see contraception restricted?
If not, why not?
If you’re not simply a bot or a paid troll, you ought to be able to tell us whether you personally support women’s human right to express Self-determination through the use of whatever contraceptive methods we ourselves find fitting.
If you say you yourself support women’s freedom to direct our fertility through the use of contraception, then—if you’re not a bot or a paid troll—you ought to be able to tell us how you square your position with the position of your revered Church on this topic.
If you’re not a bot or a paid troll, you ought be be able to tell us on what basis you claim standing to say “no” to the Church’s teachings on contraception while insisting that everyone else should follow the teachings of the Catholic Church in every regard.
After you get through with all that, you might share how you fail to see that Kavanaugh’s remarks about contraception being a form of abortion are, in fact, indicative of the presence of a powerful minority within these “United” States that does, indeed, oppose a woman’s right to determine how to apply the resources of her body, mind, heart and Spirit. You might address how you fail to see that many members of the Church you revere are among that minority.
Good luck with that, “O’Hara”!
I look forward to your reply. It should make an excellent example for lobbying CD for an expanded definition of offenses for which one may be flagged or banned here.
For to attack the integral intelligence of readers here—as you do with this self-contradictory comment—to write solely for the purpose of stirring up divisiveness, stirring up violence—is violent.
While freedom of speech is precious, we as a species have long been capable of recognizing that certain forms of speech ARE violent. We have long been capable of recognizing that violent speech poses a grave threat to public health. We have long been able to recognize that some forms of speech thus require from us an active and strong response in order to stop the spread of violence.
It would be even better if you’d simply give it up, “Mr. O’Hara”.
Simply report to your superiors that your cover is blown in this context, and that you can therefore no longer be effective in performing your violent function here. There are plenty of other assignments for a hired assassin like yourself, and I’m sure they’ll be happy to redeploy you to one where you can be more useful to them.
Capitalism has to fall. Again? Do we really have time for that?
How about if we start with the root problem?
It is also the issue at hand.
People need to be able to get birth control, whenever they want.
This will help stop the insane cult of natalism that is destroying the planet.
See the Carolinas today for details.
So that’s your defense of Kavanaugh? ‘There were bad people on BOTH sides’.
Who would have thought of Trump parroting the Nazis at Nuremberg, for the benefit of the Nazis at Charlottesville.
There is another comparison. If Bill Clinton was sworn in as a member of the SCOTUS in January of 1993 instead of the Presidency, then he, at 72 yrs old, would most probably still be a justice on the SCOTUS, with the potential for many additional years. Four years per term, two terms maximum versus a lifetime appointment. Even right-wingers can count. Sort of.
Since we’ve had some nice discussions in the past, I have to ask you your opinion on this subject. I don’t condone sexual assault in any way, and if there is actual evidence against Kavanaugh, it doesn’t matter how long ago or what age he was at the time. He’d immediately be invalidated as a judge, and depending on the circumstances, should be in jail (the mitigating circumstance to prison time would be the statute of limitations).
But to be fair and non-partisan, I have to ask, where are the feminists that call out Bill Clinton every time he gets to speak at public venues or in front of the DNC? Certainly the accusations alone against him are longfold. And if you presented the list and then replaced the name Bill Clinton with Brett Kavanaugh or any other prominent member of the GOP (and I’m not a Repblican btw), the howls would be ear piercing. So why the continued support for Clinton? Or am I missing something here?
It’s not all right wing. It may not be purely left wing (some states are slowing things down), but I think we will have a more left-leaning country after the November election. And even more so after the 2020 election.
Collins is a historical tease. Remember her performance during the ACA scam.
I don’t know what you are talking about anymore. The Democrats on the Committee weren’t just doing this for the public, the primary audience was their colleagues, “moderates” like Collins and Murkowski etc. They want them to feel the heat, for the press to ask them questions, for them to delay the vote (and they’ve already delayed the Committee vote twice). They did an excellent job at that, playing a tough hand better than I expected. Keep in mind, Democrats don’t control the schedule and Republicans create the timeline, such as it is, and McConnell timed the vote to give Republicans leverage.
Where was this “not enough” idea when progressives had their chance to make a difference in 2016 anyway? Whenever I brought up the Court here, I was told I was pushing “fear voting.” And, “progressives” were just telling Democrats to walk out of the hearings, rather than do what they did: demonstrate the lack of fitness of Kavanaugh. We wouldn’t know half of what we know about him if they listened to “progressives.” So forgive me if I think the Democrats have been far more strategic and smart about things than the progressive twitter and CD experts I see. Organizing townhalls is nice, but Democrats on the Committee are playing the game where it matters, in the Senate. They turn two votes, and Kavanaugh is in trouble.
Here’s what I recommend: yell at them after you help give them Senate control. If they advance a nominee like Kavanaugh, we both will.
Collins is probably not going to run again.
Term limits for all SCOTUS justices. And all Senate critters. Grassley and Hatch are the poster children for term limits. Hatch has never known an outside of the Senate existence. He cannot possibly relate to the 99% and certainly not issues such that women face.
Republicans would easily trade Collins losing her election in 2020 (should she even decides to run) for her vote in favor of Kavanaugh and getting him on the SCOTUS. Wonder if she has considered that.
To be clear, I was referring to the current occupant residing at 1600
Pennsylvania, otherwise known as Citizen KKKane, Swamp Thing et alia.
The reason for more women in politics is the same for more of all groups in politics. Diversity. And of course, not just politics. There’s no stronger virtue, no stronger attribute that any society can have. If we ever acquire true functioning democracy it will be due to the protection and strength of our diversity.
However, diversity is supposed to be a natural process. Merit and individual opportunity always trump mandated diversity for diversity’s sake. If I have ten people in a row vying for a job, five men / five women, and four of the men are better than all of the women, choosing to hire the women over those men is both unfair and, by definition, a suboptimal choice. If the situation was reversed, hiring the men would create the same inefficient result.
If we truly want to create a society with equal opportunity, only merit and skill should be the deciding factor, not arbitrary concepts like race and gender. If we create a society based on merit, diversity, which is still inevitable, would arise naturally.
The reason we didn’t have diversity in America historically was due to government mandates and laws (e.g. Jim Crow, segregation, not allowing women to vote, etc.).
This is her standard M.O.
She straddles the fence until the outcome is decided.
Then if her vote matters, she votes for the right-wing takeover of America and collects her check from the Koch brothers.
If her vote is not the deciding vote, then she will vote against the right-wing machine to preserve her well nurtured illusion that she is a “moderate” and then still collects her check from the Koch brothers.
She ain’t no moderate and never has been.
Somehow, she has used her position in Congress to become a multi-millionaire.
She must have a second night job at McDonalds to amass such a fortune.
You mentioned the Gilens and Page study. There were studies that countered the Gilens-Page study. There’s a lot that can be said about all these studies. When looking at justifications by political theorists as well as economists, one can’t help seeing that their range of information on human behavior stops after the first paragraph of the first page of the first chapter of a text on Psych 101. When looking at the soft sciences there’s a lot of wiggle room, which can make for more than a little teeth grinding. Granted it’s anything but routine and intuitive. Einstein reportedly said that compared to human interactions physics is easy. But what is often seen is reminiscent of the Bayesian devotees whose statistical religion replaces the very foundation of disciplines it gets applied to. That’s cultism. And we see that in economics and political science.
All political scientists assess numbers and try to give some reasoning although the theoreticians carry the latter further. Yet some counterintuitive polling is left without any explanatory effort. As an example, three times in the 1990s there were polls taken with median income persons and those in the 90 percentile, which amounted to $160,000 yearly. That is to say within that 1% range of the population the mean average is $160,000. The average is around $170,000 today. The question asked was should elections be publicly funded. The majority of the ‘median’ participants said no, while the majority of the ‘wealthy’ participants said yes. Well, this was considered so out of the norm that it was assigned to the funny examples category.
Yet that example is not inexplicable. The bottom 2/3 of the population have virtually zero influence. They are perpetually marginalized and when wealthier groups oppose their interests they have no voice. Those in the 70 to 90 percentile do have some influence. These represent much of the managerial class. They don’t buy yachts but represent a group of the population with the resources and connections to influence local, state and some national decisions. When those 90 percenters get steam rolled by those at the top, this is not a common experience for them. They’re pissed. Public spending on elections is a way to fight back. But for those at the median and below groups they rarely ever have any voice so the incentive isn’t there. It can account for their lower percentage of voter turnout. Understandable when people are left out of the political process.
Stating a comment JoanRobinson made and your following reply:
[JoanRobinson]: That is a systematic issue, not an issue of the individuals in government. Lots of studies showing a massive gap between what people want on policy and what the government does, and there is a strong correlation between what the rich want and policy, and a negative correlation between what the public wants and actual policy.
[Your reply]: How is this not an issue of the individuals in government…the individuals in Congress specifically. You are aware of the Gilens and Page study?
Granted you were replying to JoanRobinson, but as all comments are opened to everyone, I was wondering if you could flesh out just what you asking and how it tied in with the Gilens and Page study. Your comment to JoanRobinson was so abbreviated it was next to impossible to get a handle on what you were inquiring.