(09-28-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:43 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.
Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.
Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---
yes there is a fing problem.
but please feel free to isolate to one vote.
As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.
I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

Just for grins, after the events of the last few weeks, how many votes do you think Garland could get from this senate, or any senate with a republican majority?

As long as you have Flake, Collins, Murkowski, and Corker around Garland could be confirmed.

Right now what everyone in the GOP is kicking themselves over is how they lost Alabama by running that idiot Roy Moore.

(09-28-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:43 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.
Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.
Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---
yes there is a fing problem.
but please feel free to isolate to one vote.
As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.
I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

Just for grins, after the events of the last few weeks, how many votes do you think Garland could get from this senate, or any senate with a republican majority?

I think you need to state the numbers of Republican Senators in your question. My answer would be less than 10 per cent at this point. The toxicity levels are off the charts. Of course that has nothing to do with any other nomination.... ever....

It will be interesting at this point. The progressive believers seemingly really believe that Garland as some sort of equivalent to this, *and* that there was *no* basis for the refusal to consider Garland.

I think the landscape has fundamentally changed for a very long term basis. Good job.

(09-28-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:43 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.
Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.
Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---
yes there is a fing problem.
but please feel free to isolate to one vote.
As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.
I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

Just for grins, after the events of the last few weeks, how many votes do you think Garland could get from this senate, or any senate with a republican majority?

What do you mean? He got 0 before the events of the last few weeks, so why would that change now? Look, I'm happy to give you guys the last word on this one, but I'd like to throw in a couple of points that I think should also inform the analysis - or at least add some context to the raw vote numbers.

First, I think lamenting the demise of the "I disagree, but qualified" standard cuts both ways, in the sense that nominees (SCOTUS for sure, COA for sure, maybe not 100% for district court) now basically have to meet an ideological purity test to get on the short list anyway. There's no way in hell Souter or Brennan would ever be a conservative nominee nowadays. Consequently, predicting nominee ideology is much easier to do than it was 40 years ago.

Second, the ideological sorting of the parties is now complete, meaning bipartisan agreement on nominees, just like bipartisan agreement on literally anything else, will be harder to come by. Given the first point, it also means that parties can reliably predict that the other party's nominees will achieve outcomes completely contrary to their ideologies. This, of course, raises the stakes for each nomination.

Third, more and more "topics" (for lack of a better term), are becoming polarized. Pick virtually any topic important to a large number of people, and there's a fair bet you can tell what side republicans will take, and what side democrats will take. That means there are fewer and fewer cases decided by the Supreme Court that don't implicate some ideological disagreement. This, in turn, raises the stakes even more.

When you add in circumstances specific to each nominee, things get even more bonkers. If Kavanaugh were replacing Thomas, for instance, maybe you wouldn't see such disagreement (although, in the wake of Garland, who knows. But one might argue that the pushback on Garland was related to the fact that he was replacing Scalia. Had he been replacing Kennedy, maybe not as much pushback?).

Anyway, given these circumstances, what's the solution? Or are we just forever doomed to partisan heel-digging for every nominee until the end of time?

(09-28-2018 03:36 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:43 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---
yes there is a fing problem.
but please feel free to isolate to one vote.
As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.
I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

Just for grins, after the events of the last few weeks, how many votes do you think Garland could get from this senate, or any senate with a republican majority?

What do you mean? He got 0 before the events of the last few weeks, so why would that change now? Look, I'm happy to give you guys the last word on this one, but I'd like to throw in a couple of points that I think should also inform the analysis - or at least add some context to the raw vote numbers.

First, I think lamenting the demise of the "I disagree, but qualified" standard cuts both ways, in the sense that nominees (SCOTUS for sure, COA for sure, maybe not 100% for district court) now basically have to meet an ideological purity test to get on the short list anyway. There's no way in hell Souter or Brennan would ever be a conservative nominee nowadays. Consequently, opposing nominees on ideological grounds is much easier to do than it was 40 years ago.

Second, the ideological sorting of the parties is now complete, meaning bipartisan agreement on nominees, just like bipartisan agreement on literally anything else, will be harder to come by. Given the first point, it also means that parties can reliably predict that the other party's nominees will achieve outcomes completely contrary to their ideologies. This, of course, raises the stakes for each nomination.

Third, more and more "topics" (for lack of a better term), are becoming polarized. Pick virtually any topic important to a large number of people, and there's a fair bet you can tell what side republicans will take, and what side democrats will take. That means there are fewer and fewer cases decided by the Supreme Court that don't implicate some ideological disagreement. This, in turn, raises the stakes even more.

When you add in circumstances specific to each nominee, things get even more bonkers. If Kavanaugh were replacing Thomas, for instance, maybe you wouldn't see such disagreement (although, in the wake of Garland, who knows. But one might argue that the pushback on Garland was related to the fact that he was replacing Scalia. Had he been replacing Kennedy, maybe not as much pushback?).

Anyway, given these circumstances, what's the solution? Or are we just forever doomed to partisan heel-digging for every nominee until the end of time?

I think that is where the path has led us to. It is exacerbated in the Supreme Court since the fundamental touchstone of progressive thought and theocracy seems to be rooted in about 10 cases there.

The lamenting of the "I disagree but qualified" shouldnt be borne by the Democrats at present. That really hasnt existed there for a very long time. I am sure they *are* lamenting that they dont get to do the political version of beating up on Down's Syndrome kids who dont realize it will just happen again and again and again and just keep coming back expecting more of the good old days.

It is an entirely new ballgame when you play against someone who finally understands the rules that you have been employing for decades.

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  With these allegations, it boils down to a he said/she said situation and 36 years later, it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or the other what really went down. Some folks are more likely to believe the accuser, some folks are more likely to believe the accused. *shrug*

But man yesterday...I thought Kavanaugh straight up embarrassed himself. I get that he's pissed, but you gotta do more to at least try to come off as "above it all." He's literally being nominated for the most "above it all" position in the country. Folks in here talking Patrick Bateman-style calm, but I think there's a balance that could've been struck with defending yourself while still keeping your ish together. Show some professionalism.

Dude was up there crying about his daddy's calendars...his dad is still alive! No matter you think about Kavanaugh, that's pretty funny. Seriously, why is he crying??? Did no one prepare him for this? Geez lol

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Easier said than done, no doubt. I think I was struck by how emotional he was from the get-go. The whole "this is ME" bit...yeah...maybe he should've gotten a few more eyeballs on it first lol

It's been an emotional time for him sure, but he seemed to lean into that yesterday whereas I think he'd have been better served by better maintaining composure. How long did he have to prepare for this? And that's what he went with? Wasn't feelin it

(09-28-2018 05:52 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  With these allegations, it boils down to a he said/she said situation and 36 years later, it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or the other what really went down. Some folks are more likely to believe the accuser, some folks are more likely to believe the accused. *shrug*
But man yesterday...I thought Kavanaugh straight up embarrassed himself. I get that he's pissed, but you gotta do more to at least try to come off as "above it all." He's literally being nominated for the most "above it all" position in the country. Folks in here talking Patrick Bateman-style calm, but I think there's a balance that could've been struck with defending yourself while still keeping your ish together. Show some professionalism.
Dude was up there crying about his daddy's calendars...his dad is still alive! No matter you think about Kavanaugh, that's pretty funny. Seriously, why is he crying??? Did no one prepare him for this? Geez lol

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Easier said than done, no doubt. I think I was struck by how emotional he was from the get-go. The whole "this is ME" bit...yeah...maybe he should've gotten a few more eyeballs on it first lol
It's been an emotional time for him sure, but he seemed to lean into that yesterday whereas I think he'd have been better served by better maintaining composure. How long did he have to prepare for this? And that's what he went with? Wasn't feelin it

I thought he was a lot better yesterday than in the original hearing. I was glad to see him come out swinging.

(09-28-2018 05:52 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  With these allegations, it boils down to a he said/she said situation and 36 years later, it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or the other what really went down. Some folks are more likely to believe the accuser, some folks are more likely to believe the accused. *shrug*

But man yesterday...I thought Kavanaugh straight up embarrassed himself. I get that he's pissed, but you gotta do more to at least try to come off as "above it all." He's literally being nominated for the most "above it all" position in the country. Folks in here talking Patrick Bateman-style calm, but I think there's a balance that could've been struck with defending yourself while still keeping your ish together. Show some professionalism.

Dude was up there crying about his daddy's calendars...his dad is still alive! No matter you think about Kavanaugh, that's pretty funny. Seriously, why is he crying??? Did no one prepare him for this? Geez lol

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Easier said than done, no doubt. I think I was struck by how emotional he was from the get-go. The whole "this is ME" bit...yeah...maybe he should've gotten a few more eyeballs on it first lol

It's been an emotional time for him sure, but he seemed to lean into that yesterday whereas I think he'd have been better served by better maintaining composure. How long did he have to prepare for this? And that's what he went with? Wasn't feelin it

Agreed that there was a little bit too much 'me' stuff in there.

But seriously: he is being alleged to a) engage in forcible attempted rape, b) a sexual battery by shoving his schlong into someone's face, c) being a ringleader of a roofy em and chain train 'em gang, and a couple more that dont even rate a letter to denote them --- each with *zero* corroborating evidence. And a grand total amongst them of *zero* corroborating evidence.

I mean, this makes Kafka look sane......

And you want him calm as a cucumber after this? Seriously?

(09-28-2018 06:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 05:52 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 12:41 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  With these allegations, it boils down to a he said/she said situation and 36 years later, it's unlikely we'll ever know one way or the other what really went down. Some folks are more likely to believe the accuser, some folks are more likely to believe the accused. *shrug*
But man yesterday...I thought Kavanaugh straight up embarrassed himself. I get that he's pissed, but you gotta do more to at least try to come off as "above it all." He's literally being nominated for the most "above it all" position in the country. Folks in here talking Patrick Bateman-style calm, but I think there's a balance that could've been struck with defending yourself while still keeping your ish together. Show some professionalism.
Dude was up there crying about his daddy's calendars...his dad is still alive! No matter you think about Kavanaugh, that's pretty funny. Seriously, why is he crying??? Did no one prepare him for this? Geez lol

I suggest that you attempt to show professionalism if/when you might be falsely of sexual assault. Might be tough.

Easier said than done, no doubt. I think I was struck by how emotional he was from the get-go. The whole "this is ME" bit...yeah...maybe he should've gotten a few more eyeballs on it first lol
It's been an emotional time for him sure, but he seemed to lean into that yesterday whereas I think he'd have been better served by better maintaining composure. How long did he have to prepare for this? And that's what he went with? Wasn't feelin it

I thought he was a lot better yesterday than in the original hearing. I was glad to see him come out swinging.

This entire episode has made me rethink my rather deep critiques of the Trumpian mode. Seriously.

I already have done something in the last 24 hours I have never done before: I dumped a pretty healthy amount directly into some swing Republican Senate candidates, the NRC, and NRSC.

Didnt send any Cruz's way. By the middle of the day today I actually got emailed and texted by the Cruz campaign -- the same rather unused email account and Google voice-like phone number I tagged with my previous donations . Ended up giving to the ferret as well.

Oh well. Blew my entire yearly firearms budget on those. Maybe next year's as well. And at least a year's poker night funds, maybe more..... I guess I should use the calculator to figure how many billable hours I just flushed. No more than 4 days or so is my best guess.

My only regret is that I ended up giving to a ferret. And I'll have to ditch the (somewhat throw down) phone number and email address at some point.

(09-28-2018 03:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:43 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 02:20 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 01:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The Democratic attitude towards Republican SCOTUS picks going back thirty years hasnt helped either.
Look, there are issues with Kavanaugh no doubt. There are serious fing issues with the pretty constant tenor of 'burn the barn' coming from the Democratic ranks over the last thirty years.
Graham probably feels stupid (as he should) for taking the normal Republican stance of 'dont agree but qualified' with his votes. Them days is over..... (for some odd ongoing and persistent reason....)

Are you talking about Bork again? Just drop it with that guy. He participated in the Saturday Night Massacre. He was a historically unpopular nominee. He was voted down (note that he actually received a vote *cough* Garland *cough*) by six Republicans. The next Republican pick was Kennedy (97-0). Then Souter (90-9). Surely you're not going to make me defend the Thomas vote. Then it was 15 years until Roberts. If you're pointing to a 30-year pattern, I'm not seeing it. I also know none of this will make a difference to you, but I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.

Dude, there is a fing pattern with Bork, Estrada. When you plop in the 90+ votes for the friggin General Counsel of the ACLU, and the 70 votes for the equally radical Kagan and Sotomayor, and contrast with the 52 for Alito ---
yes there is a fing problem.
but please feel free to isolate to one vote.
As for Bork, yep, the entire script of personal attack versus professional disagreement was very much put into place. I suggest you actually compare your paragraph with what the supposed Lion of the Senate ripped Bork on. Just a tad different.
I guess with your paragraph above that would perfectly okay to equate this shitshow with being 'okay' since Kavanaugh was with the Starr investigation. Same difference there as you allege above, so go for it,

Yeah, still not seeing a "30-year" pattern. Also, you forgot the 0 votes for Garland. And what was the rationale for that, again?

Just for grins, after the events of the last few weeks, how many votes do you think Garland could get from this senate, or any senate with a republican majority?

Depends on if an investigation turned up evidence that he might of cheated on an English test in middle school.

Clearly we don’t need cheaters on the Court.

Or maybe he went to a frat party.

Is this thread still about the Senate race?

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Ted's committee has been busy. Bummer his work is going to cut into debate time.

Dont know what Robert is up to. Maybe he is in Hereford and Bovina so he can dazzle us with more of his geographic expertise and cute smile at his debate time.

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

My wife may very well get one of those when the Re-Elect the ferret shirt arrives.....

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Ted's committee has been busy. Bummer his work is going to cut into debate time.

Dont know what Robert is up to. Maybe he is in Hereford and Bovina so he can dazzle us with more of his geographic expertise and cute smile at his debate time.

I see that you keep making light of his decision to visit each county in Texas, but why? Is it a bad thing to do that? I thought Dems treating parts of the country as fly-over areas (or states) was bad?

(09-28-2018 11:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Guess not. I have been busy studying the history of tee shirts.

Do you think Lad would like this one?

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/men+are+t...s-t-shirts

Some fof his friends were wearing them while Ford testified.

Where should I send yours?

(09-28-2018 11:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 08:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-28-2018 07:46 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is this thread still about the Senate race?

Indirectly. Havent you been following the news?

Ted's committee has been busy. Bummer his work is going to cut into debate time.

Dont know what Robert is up to. Maybe he is in Hereford and Bovina so he can dazzle us with more of his geographic expertise and cute smile at his debate time.

I see that you keep making light of his decision to visit each county in Texas, but why? Is it a bad thing to do that? I thought Dems treating parts of the country as fly-over areas (or states) was bad?

Its not a bad thing at all. Google 'Al Gore lockbox'.

For the record I thought the lockbox was not such a bad idea either. Actually a good idea.

And, not that I am playing backseat political coach, and kudos for Robert and entourage's excellent adventure across Texas, but throwing it out as one of your two main emphases doesnt really convey anything substantive. I will say that the other emphasis is substantive (i.e. the white privilege mantra), but I dont think really resonates with most Texans. Even those in Booker.

Oooopsie...... fact checking is important Robert.

Beto O'Rourke's deported Panhandle honor student wasn't actually deported

Shot:
(quoted from the debate, via the article)

Quote:
"and we were surprised as we were going door to door to hear that the No. 1 concern for people in that community was the fate of Dreamers. There are nearly 200,000 in the state of Texas, and the salutatorian from Booker High School had just been deported back to his country of origin, and everyone there was concerned about his welfare. But they were also concerned about the fact that he'd just been sent back to a country whose language he didn't speak, where he no longer had family connections. Where if he was successful against those long odds, he'd be successful for that place and not here for Texas."

Chaser:

Quote:The Booker school district's superintendent said Thursday that back to 2008, there is no record of any student matching that description.

Maybe he got the location confused due to his long Tour of Texas itinerary.

The more time O’Rourke spends in places like Loving County, the better for Cruz.

(09-29-2018 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Oooopsie...... fact checking is important Robert.
Beto O'Rourke's deported Panhandle honor student wasn't actually deported
Shot:
(quoted from the debate, via the article)

Quote:
"and we were surprised as we were going door to door to hear that the No. 1 concern for people in that community was the fate of Dreamers. There are nearly 200,000 in the state of Texas, and the salutatorian from Booker High School had just been deported back to his country of origin, and everyone there was concerned about his welfare. But they were also concerned about the fact that he'd just been sent back to a country whose language he didn't speak, where he no longer had family connections. Where if he was successful against those long odds, he'd be successful for that place and not here for Texas."

Chaser:

Quote:The Booker school district's superintendent said Thursday that back to 2008, there is no record of any student matching that description.

Maybe he got the location confused due to his long Tour of Texas itinerary.

Shouldn't this be a Cruz advert starting immediately? I think Cruz is running a horrible campaign. So far the only Cruz advert I've seen is about kneeling for the national anthem. Ted, everybody who is with you on that one already knows. You need an approach that reaches out to more people than that. This plus the DWI pretty clearly establish Robert as a serial liar.