Trump's SCOTUS

PartyOf5
Posts: 3657
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:15 am

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by PartyOf5 » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:49 pm

I hope people will become as enraged at the media as they STA says they are towards the Democrats.

This from the Onio.....I mean the New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... lasey-ford
Title: The Senate Republicans’ Less-Than-Human Treatment of Christine Blasey Ford

Less than human. :naughty: Because they didn't buy into her pretty pose act. Because they are supposed to believe her when no one else can corroborate her story. When she can't identify a time or place. when etc. etc... FU once.
I made the mistake of thinking that this thing was done—that nobody who watched Ford’s testimony would be able to dismiss it, and that it would halt the ascension to the Supreme Court of the man Ford said she was a-hundred-per-cent certain sexually assaulted her in high school.
Because her 100% certain means everything and his repeated unequivocal denials mean nothing. FU twice.
The error was a categorical one. I was thinking in human terms, rather than political terms. I was stuck on the details, such as how Ford looked into the eyes of Mark Judge, thinking that he might rescue her, and how, decades later, stricken by the fear of getting trapped again, she insisted on the construction of a second front door during a renovation of her home. (“Our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb,” she allowed.)
Stuck on the details. Hmmm, you ignored the detail that the additional door was years before she ever mentioned Kavanaugh. One of her many lies. What about the detail of four "witnesses" all denying this ever happened. Or the details where one time she says she heard them talking but later says she could not hear them. Or any of the other details. FU Three times.
And so, early on Friday afternoon, barely twenty-four hours after Ford left the witness stand, the eleven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—all white men, of course—
Just... :hand: :snooty: :naughty: ....FU again.

It goes on, but I just skimmed after that. I hope this type of "journalism" is being noted by the normies who don't normally question the media. They need to be replaced by real, honest journalists, if enough still exist.

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14775
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by The Conservative » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:55 pm

DBTrek wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:03 pm
The Conservative wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:54 pm
DBTrek wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:36 pm
Prosecuting her for using the wrong title seems like an exercise in pettiness that could backfire, bigly. You want to prosecute the false allegations or nothing at all in this case.
A title is not the issue. The issue, is she is calling herself something she’s not.
A “professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine”?
By California law she isn’t allowed to call herself a research psychologist in an educational setting.
#NotOneRedCent

User avatar
Martin Hash
Posts: 18667
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:02 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by Martin Hash » Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:57 pm

The Conservative wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:55 pm
DBTrek wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:03 pm
The Conservative wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:54 pm


A title is not the issue. The issue, is she is calling herself something she’s not.
A “professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine”?
By California law she isn’t allowed to call herself a research psychologist in an educational setting.
FYI: A person in Oregon who has an engineering degree and works as an engineer, can't call themselves an "engineer" without a license from the State of Oregon. (In fact, it's unclear if I, who has a "Professional Engineer" license from WA, could call myself an "engineer" in OR.)
Shamedia, Shamdemic, Shamucation, Shamlection, Shamconomy & Shamate Change

User avatar
Haumana
Posts: 4106
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:48 am

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by Haumana » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:15 pm

PartyOf5 wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:49 pm
I hope people will become as enraged at the media as they STA says they are towards the Democrats.

This from the Onio.....I mean the New Yorker:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... lasey-ford
Title: The Senate Republicans’ Less-Than-Human Treatment of Christine Blasey Ford

Less than human. :naughty: Because they didn't buy into her pretty pose act. Because they are supposed to believe her when no one else can corroborate her story. When she can't identify a time or place. when etc. etc... FU once.
I made the mistake of thinking that this thing was done—that nobody who watched Ford’s testimony would be able to dismiss it, and that it would halt the ascension to the Supreme Court of the man Ford said she was a-hundred-per-cent certain sexually assaulted her in high school.
Because her 100% certain means everything and his repeated unequivocal denials mean nothing. FU twice.
The error was a categorical one. I was thinking in human terms, rather than political terms. I was stuck on the details, such as how Ford looked into the eyes of Mark Judge, thinking that he might rescue her, and how, decades later, stricken by the fear of getting trapped again, she insisted on the construction of a second front door during a renovation of her home. (“Our house does not look aesthetically pleasing from the curb,” she allowed.)
Stuck on the details. Hmmm, you ignored the detail that the additional door was years before she ever mentioned Kavanaugh. One of her many lies. What about the detail of four "witnesses" all denying this ever happened. Or the details where one time she says she heard them talking but later says she could not hear them. Or any of the other details. FU Three times.
And so, early on Friday afternoon, barely twenty-four hours after Ford left the witness stand, the eleven Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—all white men, of course—
Just... :hand: :snooty: :naughty: ....FU again.

It goes on, but I just skimmed after that. I hope this type of "journalism" is being noted by the normies who don't normally question the media. They need to be replaced by real, honest journalists, if enough still exist.
I always like to go and see what their previous articles are too.

https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/john-cassidy

:roll:

User avatar
pineapplemike
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by pineapplemike » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:16 pm

@partyof5 i'm not optimistic. simpsons had their finger on the pulse decades ago


User avatar
Speaker to Animals
Posts: 38685
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:59 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by Speaker to Animals » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:35 pm

DBTrek wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:36 pm
Prosecuting her for using the wrong title seems like an exercise in pettiness that could backfire, bigly. You want to prosecute the false allegations or nothing at all in this case.
Start with the false allegations. :idea:

User avatar
The Conservative
Posts: 14775
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by The Conservative » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:42 pm

Martin Hash wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:57 pm
The Conservative wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:55 pm
DBTrek wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:03 pm


A “professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine”?
By California law she isn’t allowed to call herself a research psychologist in an educational setting.
FYI: A person in Oregon who has an engineering degree and works as an engineer, can't call themselves an "engineer" without a license from the State of Oregon. (In fact, it's unclear if I, who has a "Professional Engineer" license from WA, could call myself an "engineer" in OR.)
Ding...Ding...Ding! Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!
#NotOneRedCent

User avatar
clubgop
Posts: 7978
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by clubgop » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:45 pm

C-Mag wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 2:28 pm
For any idiots that said goes easy on the Dems and this shit, listen to her, don't subpoena her...…………. this is what you fucking get.
What are talking about? You subpoena her she shows up and testifies. Exactly as she did yesterday. Now half the country believes her. This is Flake, he is looking for political cover. The FBI investigation is like DB says"where do you start" they are just going to be rehashing all the testimony. Nothing new will come of this it is limited for 7 days they'll write a report with no conclusions like Joe Biden said and the Dems will make other excuses. I dont like it but Flake, Collins, and Murkowski will have no excuse after this.

User avatar
pineapplemike
Posts: 4650
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:34 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by pineapplemike » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:47 pm

Next week democrats will say they need an additional week to review the FBI report

User avatar
clubgop
Posts: 7978
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 5:47 pm

Re: Trump's SCOTUS

Post by clubgop » Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:48 pm

The Conservative wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:42 pm
Martin Hash wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:57 pm
The Conservative wrote:
Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:55 pm


By California law she isn’t allowed to call herself a research psychologist in an educational setting.
FYI: A person in Oregon who has an engineering degree and works as an engineer, can't call themselves an "engineer" without a license from the State of Oregon. (In fact, it's unclear if I, who has a "Professional Engineer" license from WA, could call myself an "engineer" in OR.)
Ding...Ding...Ding! Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner!
You are out of your fucking mind.