cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:10 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:59 am
DMac wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:20 am
cradle, are you using two screen names these days?
I'm guessing the other one is Bandito.
Kristalmighty, what's happened to you?
This particular rant does indeed look just like our resident wild-eyed troll.
Strange. I didn't figure C&S for being this off the hook.
Occasionally angry and out of control with the insults, but this race train is off the tracks in a total, ugly pile-up.
But you could be right that he's previously saved this race stuff for the other screen name and just got lost in this discussion.
Unfortunately, the other explanation of two such angry posters is more likely the case...there are quite a few folks out there with is this kind of uncontrolled anger.
MD, the discussion regarding the credibility of Anita Hills testimony does revolve around a nagging little fact. Ms Hill did follow Judge Thomas when he changed jobs. It may not prove anything but.... is this something that a person who is creeped out by someone do? IMO it creates a reasonable doubt. There does seem to be an interesting coincidence that when a Republican POTUS nominates someone to the SCOTUS the Democrats always can find the skeletons in the closet to drag out.
Hey, no sweat if you want to discuss the merits of the Hill vs Thomas dispute, it was the level of virulent, ugly name calling you were expressing that needed to be addressed. All the racial stuff was way off-base, IMO. Just as it was when Thomas played that ugly card.
I don't agree that Dems are the exclusive seekers of skeletons in closets. I'm pretty darn sure that my party is quite willing (and pretty much always has been) to point to any skeletons they find in any nominees to any office or judgeship.
This comes with the turf of being a nominee or political office seeker. Got serious skeletons, don't submit yourself to scrutiny.
And if you're appointing folks, look in their closet before announcing them!
BTW, I don't think Dems have less nor R's have less such skeletons in their closets. Pretty evenly distributed as far as history appears to tell us.
SCOTUS is a much smaller sample set, so hard to draw any particular conclusions about that, other than maybe that R's for the past 40 years or so have been more focused in their judicial appointments on political ideology than on other vetting. This has been an out in the open strategy objective of the GOP, for better or worse. Dems have been somewhat less focused on ideology though certainly not oblivious.
What we're seeing in the McConnell-Trump era goes way, way beyond prior periods in which the GOP controlled judicial appointments, the actual dismissal of prior experience as even of interest. I don't include that of the SCOTUS appointments as both have been qualified jurists. But the Merrick Garland debacle, that grossly naked power play by McConnell, puts a stain on the Court's natural composition.
Again, this stuff can be discussed and debated without name calling or race-baiting.
