Conservatives and Liberals

[MDlaxfan76]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

[cradleandshoot]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

[MDlaxfan76]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

[Peter Brown]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

Christine Blasey Ford, a 3rd party Democratic operative.

“…. it is important to note that Ford is a registered Democrat. Her attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, were recommended to her by Feinstein and collectively have donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Katz attended an anti-Trump rally where she said, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Ford also has hired attorney Michael Bromwich, a former Obama official who now represents fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.”

Total political hit job. Read the article if you care about actual facts:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... y-problem/

[youthathletics]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

Christine Blasey Ford, a 3rd party Democratic operative.

“…. it is important to note that Ford is a registered Democrat. Her attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, were recommended to her by Feinstein and collectively have donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Katz attended an anti-Trump rally where she said, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Ford also has hired attorney Michael Bromwich, a former Obama official who now represents fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.”

Total political hit job. Read the article if you care about actual facts:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... y-problem/

I think Christopher Steele was tied up, so they went deep in to the bench for the Kavanaugh Hearings.

[jhu72]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

Christine Blasey Ford, a 3rd party Democratic operative.

“…. it is important to note that Ford is a registered Democrat. Her attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, were recommended to her by Feinstein and collectively have donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Katz attended an anti-Trump rally where she said, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Ford also has hired attorney Michael Bromwich, a former Obama official who now represents fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.”

Total political hit job. Read the article if you care about actual facts:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... y-problem/

more Kellyanne horse sh*t.

[Peter Brown]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

Christine Blasey Ford, a 3rd party Democratic operative.

“…. it is important to note that Ford is a registered Democrat. Her attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, were recommended to her by Feinstein and collectively have donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Katz attended an anti-Trump rally where she said, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Ford also has hired attorney Michael Bromwich, a former Obama official who now represents fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.”

Total political hit job. Read the article if you care about actual facts:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... y-problem/

more Kellyanne horse sh*t.

I’m being kind! That woman had a few screws loose.

[Peter Brown]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

Christine Blasey Ford, a 3rd party Democratic operative.

“…. it is important to note that Ford is a registered Democrat. Her attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, were recommended to her by Feinstein and collectively have donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Katz attended an anti-Trump rally where she said, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Ford also has hired attorney Michael Bromwich, a former Obama official who now represents fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.”

Total political hit job. Read the article if you care about actual facts:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... y-problem/

I think Christopher Steele was tied up, so they went deep in to the bench for the Kavanaugh Hearings.

(Where do the Dems find these people!!!)

[jhu72]

.

[Peter Brown]

Scott is who he is but, speaking as a white dude, I don’t see why race requires they all be in lockstep. Same with Hispanics. No group is monolithic. Harping on this is wrong IMO as it views Scott as Black and nothing more. He may not stand for much but he is a person.

Do I think much of Scott’s decision making and choices? No. But I don’t hold him responsible for elevating other black folks either. He’s responsible to his constituents and the country writ large.

I point this out I may because it’s the same slimy idiotic approach dirtbags use when they prior a black face up as evidence they aren’t racist or support biased and harmful policies to that cohort.

Totally get this and largely agree with you. I think the writer, Colby King, would tell you that Scott's "constituents" have to include other people of color. The article does not demand that he act in lockstep so much as he should have said something about the astonishing treatment of Jackson at the hands of Hawley, Cruz and Graham. It wouldn't have taken much, or many words, from Scott -- and nothing to hurt his reputation or standing among his GOP brethren -- to have obviated the need or desire for this opinion piece.

Sure he could’ve, but as a politician, not black man, he’s thrown his lot in with a certain group and is behaving accordingly. I think folks generally know what time it is with respect to Scott. The piece isn’t necessary. To expect Scott to behave differently at this point is kind of missing the picture of what and who he is. Same guy who got on stage for Trump and a puppet to prove those people aren’t racist. We all get it. We’d be the frog carrying the scorpion across water if we expected any different.

I dunno, I definitely expected better from Scott...it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski.

But yeah, he's let us know not to expect better...still, it's a bummer.

"it wouldn't have been too much to ask that he be of common mindset with Romney, Collins and Murkowski."

Now that is uber rich my friend. 95% of your party have nothing in common with Mittens, Collins and Murkowski. Your dead set on driving your parties bus off of moderate cliff and crash and burn into the abyss. There is one positive thing I can say about mittens, he can compose an awesome, heartfelt confession speech. Losing presidential elections in grand style is his forte in life. Maybe composing those concession speeches is what mittens was born to do. I hear rumors that mittens might be the keynote speaker at the Democrat national convention.

So, you thought that the treatment of Jackson was appropriate?

She was asked alot of tough questions. Some were not relevant. She got off way easier than Brett Kavanaugh did. She was not accused of being a serial rapist or a drunken louse. That is the new normal for any nominee, your going to get put through the wringer by the other side.

Again, ok with you?
Because you think Kav was treated worse? Or at least accused of worse? (worse than encouraging and supporting pedophiles and terrorists?!)

Can't expect Scott to stand up for better treatment from the Senate process than that?

Remember Kav was accused by third parties of misconduct and Jackson had no such issues in her background. And, on the merits, is far, far more qualified to be on SCOTUS than Kav.

Coming from less advantage, she's far more accomplished academically and professionally, with a much deeper background in federal law, and a more diverse legal background as well. Much more experience as a judge, and with far less obvious political/ideological determinations in her prior work or decisions.

Is it truly the "new normal" or was that really gross behavior by a handful of a-hole Senators, cheered on by those who think absolutely anything goes now?

And one of these two acted petulantly and angrily and tearfully in response to the pressure whereas the other maintained their composure and handled the pressure in a dignified manner throughout.

And Scott couldn't speak up?
He's in favor of the treatment??

Christine Blasey Ford, a 3rd party Democratic operative.

“…. it is important to note that Ford is a registered Democrat. Her attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, were recommended to her by Feinstein and collectively have donated to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). Katz attended an anti-Trump rally where she said, “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Ford also has hired attorney Michael Bromwich, a former Obama official who now represents fired FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.”

Total political hit job. Read the article if you care about actual facts:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4 ... y-problem/

more Kellyanne horse sh*t.

I’m being kind! That woman had a few screws loose.

... Kavanagh is a rapist that got away with it.

Keep telling yourself that…it helps with the anger.

[jhu72]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

[JoeMauer89]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

[JoeMauer89]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

[jhu72]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

Kavanaugh is a rapist. Period. Full stop.

[MDlaxfan76]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

[JoeMauer89]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

[jhu72]

-- its alarming.

[MDlaxfan76]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

[JoeMauer89]

Kavanaugh is a rapist !!

Boy. do you come off as an ornery SOB. Sad.

Joe

or, that's what he honestly believes.

I dunno what to believe, though I tend to think that Kav was more likely just a bad drunk at times and wasn't respectful to the girls and women he came into contact with, though 'grew up' considerably in the ensuing decades, but I do think that Kavanaugh demonstrated that he doesn't have the excellence of mind or temperament of the very best jurists. Certainly not comparable to Jackson.

It doesn't matter if he honestly believes it or not. It's a BOLD accusation, was he convicted of rape? NO. Blinded by anger, cannot see clearly. It's evident in nearly all of JHU's posts. Stop defending him, because you have similar narrow political ideologies. You've have the biggest hypocrite on FanLax all but sewed up.

Joe

I thought you respected people stating their "opinions" Joe.

So, your contribution is to attack him, assert his motivations as "anger", then pivot to attacking me?

Take a look in the mirror.

MD,

This is a ANONYMOUS internet lacrosse forum. If you can't take someone calling you out on a message board, what does that say about yourself? Are you that privileged that you feel you are immune from being challenged? It's not an "attack". An attack would be borne of no substance and not predicated by actions/posts, etc, that elicit a response from myself. JHU72 is one of the worst offenders on the entire site. He instantly, I mean instantly dismisses, trivializes, downplays and even downright expresses anger when somebody posts something counter to his extremely narrow political ideology. I don't need to look in the mirror, I am sick and tired of the cronyism and attempted restriction of political thought on this site. YOU are the worst offender. If you don't agree with the ideology or politics of post, you attempt to frame it either as misinformation, trolling or go on the offensive with the goal of downplaying the poster's original thought so that you and your FLP brethren can dismiss it, marginalize it, etc. Many have told you that you attempt to do this, yet you DOUBLE DOWN on it. You are incapable of seeing how you come off, because this type of behavior is so ingrained in your persona. It's quite alarming, actually

Joe

I repeat, take a look in the mirror.

I have zero objection to you or anyone else making a reasoned argument for a perspective different from my own. Zero.

But you haven't bothered to do so, you simply angrily attack, insultingly, anyone who you think is expressing something with which you disagree.

Please do make a reasoned argument for your views. Argue strenuously for them, using facts and logic. Explain yourself and your views.

Just don't blast others as your sole "contribution" to the discourse.

Stop with this disingenuous nonsense. I see right through it. You are some piece of work.

Trivializing me yet gain, because you don't like what you are hearing. It's not the opinions that I care about, it's the demonstrative effort to marginalize, trivialize, downplay, accuse of trolling, laugh at, etc. You are the ringleader of it all.

Joe