Law The Search For The 114th Supreme Court Justice: The Witch-Hunt Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh

[glenwo2]

would have liked to hear more about why Senator Feinstein chose to keep this under the table for months.

By the way I met Feinstein when i was in 6th grade and she is a total fucking bitch. Just saying.

She would fail a Polygraph test.

THAT is for certain.

 

[Trotsky]

haha i'll do the work for you playa
http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-intlstkidx.html

not looking good my dude

I don't think you know what you're citing to. Regardless, derp:

http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-intlstkidx-20141219.html?mod=mdc_pastcalendar

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I don't think you know what you're citing to. Regardless, derp:

http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3022-intlstkidx-20141219.html?mod=mdc_pastcalendar

uh i know exactly what i'm citing, there's ytd column playa (why is your link from 2014)
all these countries w/ massive USD held debt are experiencing currency devaluations, while ours is strengthening. Our debt becomes cheaper, while theirs becomes more expensive......Even better, unlike say China, we don't actually hold the debt so if they default it won't effect us as directly

Oh ya we're also now the leading Oil Producer in the world
https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/12/investing/us-oil-production-russia-saudi-arabia/index.html

 

[Jack V Savage]

We've officially reached the point where "the economy" is a completely meaningless reference. The deficit has exploded without justification or responsive growth, job growth and decline in unemployment have slowed, wages aren't improving despite approaching full employment, key industries are more highly concentrated and uncompetitive than at any point in 100 years, and costs of living and education continue to outpace personal income.

But, yeah, greatest economy in US history. Eat our dicks John Keynes and Alan Greenspan. There's a new economic wizard in town, and his knowledge of economics is bigly

I get the sense that Hunter thinks that the president is in a room somewhere playing a video game, and the "economy" is the result.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

I get the sense that Hunter thinks that the president is in a room somewhere playing a video game, and the "economy" is the result.

no, of course not, but it does absolutely show that whatever economic policy is in place is certainly not disastrous.
but remind me what the reelection rate is for someone presiding over the US during this type of economy.......and why is that

 

[Jack V Savage]

no, of course not, but it does absolutely show that whatever economic policy is in place is certainly not disastrous.

Yay for Trump not immediately tanking the economy, which would be pretty much impossible for a president to do anyway.

but remind me what the reelection rate is for someone presiding over the US during this type of economy.......and why is that

I don't know the numbers. The rate of change is actually more important than the level, and we're seeing different metrics move in different ways (real wages are actually falling, for example), so it would be hard to look up, and you're going to have a very small sample size anyway. As for the implied question (why does the public tend to reward incumbents for good economic news?), the answer is that the public as a whole has a very poor understanding of economics and gov't.

 

[RockstarChris]

the

She would fail a Polygraph test.

THAT is for certain.

the fact that she was a senator almost 30 years ago when i was in middle school pretty much sums up what is wrong with politics.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Yay for Trump not immediately tanking the economy, which would be pretty much impossible for a president to do anyway.



I don't know the numbers. The rate of change is actually more important than the level, and we're seeing different metrics move in different ways (real wages are actually falling, for example), so it would be hard to look up, and you're going to have a very small sample size anyway. As for the implied question (why does the public tend to reward incumbents for good economic news?), the answer is that the public as a whole has a very poor understanding of economics and gov't.

not only is it 'not tanking' it's increasing. HIghest growth rate in years, for instance. Unemployment decreased, stock market continues to rise....

It's not a month in my dude, and his trade war threats w/ China have easily had positive impact. Other countries were scared off by acquiring debt in Yuan, so they largely chose USD. Our stock market continues to be gangsta, theirs is atrocious right now. Their market is crumbling largely in part to them losing this trade war IOW, the selloff is real and backed by data

 

[Jack V Savage]

not only is it 'not tanking' it's increasing. HIghest growth rate in years, for instance. Unemployment decreased, stock market continues to rise....

It's not a month in my dude, and his trade war threats w/ China have easily had positive impact. Other countries were scared off by acquiring debt in Yuan, so they largely chose USD. Our stock market continues to be gangsta, theirs is atrocious right now. Their market is crumbling largely in part to them losing this trade war IOW, the selloff is real and backed by data

You were spewing this stuff in another thread, and you didn't explain your model. What's your theory of how trade wars are supposed to help the U.S. economy?

 

[BlacknBlue]

Well, you're presuming that it's "crafted" that way. We know that whether the described event occurred or not, he'd deny it. We know that if it happened or not, the same people who defended Roy Moore would defend him and that his political opponents would side with the accuser. It's possible that he'd be accused either way, though I think that one is kind of shaky (nothing like this happened with Gorsuch, and it's not like Trump is going to pick someone good if Kavanaugh falls through--the political advantage here is being overplayed, IMO).

Of course it was "crafted". Do you really believe that Democrats just presented this off-the-cuff and the timing and everything else are conincidental? I don't. But perhaps that is just my cynicism about politics in general. I would believe the same thing if the parties were reversed. I also think Gorsuch was different. He replaced Scalia. Nothing changed on the court really besides Democrats losing an opportunity to swing it in their favor. Kavanaugh is replacing a swing-vote that sided with the liberal side of the court numerous times. His nomination will potentially tip the court to the right on numerous issues, and for a long time. If Kavanaugh does tank and the Democrats do take back the Senate, would it really shock you if they don't vote on a Trump nominee for 2 years? I would actually expect that.

She won't be proven 100% correct. Even if we have a God's-eye view and can say with absolute certainty that she's telling the truth, there wouldn't be any way to prove it. I think it's kind of pointless trying to pick between unprovable narratives, especially in the current climate. I am disturbed by two types of posts:

1. If he did it, so what?
2. I know with certainty what happened.

The first type is repugnant. The second is pointless--you're just getting the time from a stopped clock.

So given that, as you said, she will not and cannot be proven correct, and there will be no way to prove she is telling the truth (or lying), would you conclude that we should go ahead with the vote on Kavanaugh? And that any attempt to delay or sink the Kavanaugh vote is simply political craftmanship? Does it not equally disturb you that anyone can make an accusation at any time that cannot be proven or disproven and have them potentially tip the balance of entire institutions?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

You were spewing this stuff in another thread, and you didn't explain your model. What's your theory of how trade wars are supposed to help the U.S. economy?

why, in your opinion, is the US dollar increasing in value while many many other major currencies (let's say the top 25 traded in FOREX for instance) are losing value?

I'm legit curious, i assume our rising Interest Rate and lessening of Money printing will be part of your answer (as it would be mine), but what explains the rest? I'm asking, b/c i generally trust your opinion on economic issues

 

[andnowweknow]

For my conservative chums who are woefully wrong on this topic...

You were spewing this stuff in another thread, and you didn't explain your model. What's your theory of how trade wars are supposed to help the U.S. economy?

You guys need to hug...

 

[BlacknBlue]

Let's focus on this for a bit :

WILL that happen?

I mean...I get that the House normally loses seats on either side but the Senate is a different animal altogether.


You really believe the Dems will have a Senate MAJORITY?

I just don't see it.

You are correct, the Senate is a long-shot for Democrats, but not impossible. The White House was a long-shot for Republicans (and the Senate was up in the air too) when they refused a vote on Garland, but that ended up paying off for them. Throw in the dynamic of having a Supreme Court seat on the line in November, and who knows exactly how it affects the energy and turnout for both parties.

So yeah, it is a long-shot, but since their will be a Republican in the White House for at least 2 more years, it is really they only shot they have at this seat.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

For my conservative chums who are woefully wrong on this topic...

You guys need to hug...

nah, we're cool
i don't take politics seriously, like at all, global economics i do however.

If i'm wrong, and JVS or Pan or Homer or some other person shows me the error of my ways, fair enough and well played. It's why we generally never get personal or insult each other and whatnot.

 

[luckyshot]

The Supreme Court has become so fucking politicized, it’s a joke.

We should just abolish it and when a case rises above the circuit of appeals, we the people decide that shit by referendum.

You want political engagement? Ho-ly shit, we’d have it.

And probably reach more sensible judgments than the 9 clowns in bathrobes, to boot.

 

[second sight]

"Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything."

It goes both ways liberals LOL

No they’re sticking with the ends justifies the means

 

[andnowweknow]

nah, we're cool
i don't take politics seriously, like at all, global economics i do however.

If i'm wrong, and JVS or Pan or Homer or some other person shows me the error of my ways, fair enough and well played. It's why we generally never get personal or insult each other and whatnot.

A humble sherdogger...you are a diamond sir.

A big bright shining star.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I also think Gorsuch was different. He replaced Scalia. Nothing changed on the court really besides Democrats losing an opportunity to swing it in their favor. Kavanaugh is replacing a swing-vote that sided with the liberal side of the court numerous times.

Strongly disagree here. Gorsuch's seat was filled illegitimately in my eyes and I think those of most Democrats. There was no justification for refusing to vote on Garland. Just a naked exercise of power. Conversely, Kavanaugh is a normal appointment. The thing is, Gorsuch appears to be a decent enough guy in life, while Kavanaugh appears to be pretty sleazy (even putting the allegation aside). I think you're way overstating the political aspect of all this. Senators were confronted with a serious allegation that they couldn't easily dismiss. There's no doubt that the reactions to it are shaped by partisanship, but the situation wasn't conjured out of thin air.

His nomination will potentially tip the court to the right on numerous issues, and for a long time. If Kavanaugh does tank and the Democrats do take back the Senate, would it really shock you if they don't vote on a Trump nominee for 2 years? I would actually expect that.

It wouldn't shock me, but I wouldn't expect it. It's not related to Kavanaugh, though. It's Gorsuch sitting in Garland's seat that would drive that kind of thing.

So given that, as you said, she will not and cannot be proven correct, and there will be no way to prove she is telling the truth (or lying), would you conclude that we should go ahead with the vote on Kavanaugh? And that any attempt to delay or sink the Kavanaugh vote is simply political craftmanship? Does it not equally disturb you that anyone can make an accusation at any time that cannot be proven or disproven and have them potentially tip the balance of entire institutions?

The first thing I'd say is that no one has a right to a SCOTUS seat, and because it's a lifetime appointment, their character really should be above reproach. I'd rather err on the side of caution. And we know that precisely because they are hard to prove or disprove, most people do not report these types of incidents. So the appropriate response is to be open to hearing them. But that does create a vulnerability for false accusations. I think it's a genuinely difficult question to grapple with (if you're trying in good faith--we know that there is a shipload of bad faith here), and I don't really have a good answer. It all disturbs me--that a false accusation can be damaging, and that people regularly get away with such attacks. As far as Kavanaugh getting a vote, I think he should, but I don't think he should be confirmed. I also think there should be some kind of deal to prevent something like the Garland incident from ever happening again, as it put a permanent stain on the institution. And I'm OK with Democrats disarming *first* but less OK with Democrats agreeing to play by rules that Republicans don't play by.

why, in your opinion, is the US dollar increasing in value while many many other major currencies (let's say the top 25 traded in FOREX for instance) are losing value?

So here's the USD Index chart:

I'm not really seeing anything weird that needs to be explained. And the question I keep asking is how you think that little bump since April is supposed to be helping us.

I'm legit curious, i assume our rising Interest Rate and lessening of Money printing will be part of your answer (as it would be mine), but what explains the rest? I'm asking, b/c i generally trust your opinion on economic issues

We have some signal crossed here. The economy is doing well, as it has been for a while.

Here's GDP:

and GDP growth:

Again, it's fine. Not really seeing where you're seeing any evidence that tariffs (which any economist would tell you is a uniformly bad idea) are helping.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Strongly disagree here. Gorsuch's seat was filled illegitimately in my eyes and I think those of most Democrats. There was no justification for refusing to vote on Garland. Just a naked exercise of power. Conversely, Kavanaugh is a normal appointment. The thing is, Gorsuch appears to be a decent enough guy in life, while Kavanaugh appears to be pretty sleazy (even putting the allegation aside). I think you're way overstating the political aspect of all this. Senators were confronted with a serious allegation that they couldn't easily dismiss. There's no doubt that the reactions to it are shaped by partisanship, but the situation wasn't conjured out of thin air.



It wouldn't shock me, but I wouldn't expect it. It's not related to Kavanaugh, though. It's Gorsuch sitting in Garland's seat that would drive that kind of thing.



The first thing I'd say is that no one has a right to a SCOTUS seat, and because it's a lifetime appointment, their character really should be above reproach. I'd rather err on the side of caution. And we know that precisely because they are hard to prove or disprove, most people do not report these types of incidents. So the appropriate response is to be open to hearing them. But that does create a vulnerability for false accusations. I think it's a genuinely difficult question to grapple with (if you're trying in good faith--we know that there is a shipload of bad faith here), and I don't really have a good answer. It all disturbs me--that a false accusation can be damaging, and that people regularly get away with such attacks. As far as Kavanaugh getting a vote, I think he should, but I don't think he should be confirmed. I also think there should be some kind of deal to prevent something like the Garland incident from ever happening again, as it put a permanent stain on the institution. And I'm OK with Democrats disarming *first* but less OK with Democrats agreeing to play by rules that Republicans don't play by.



So here's the USD Index chart:

I'm not really seeing anything weird that needs to be explained. And the question I keep asking is how you think that little bump since April is supposed to be helping us.



We have some signal crossed here. The economy is doing well, as it has been for a while.

Here's GDP:

and GDP growth:

Again, it's fine. Not really seeing where you're seeing any evidence that tariffs (which any economist would tell you is a uniformly bad idea) are helping.

Its helping our stock market specifically

Just look at the last few SEC Qrtly filings from the Swiss National Bank, Japanese bank and others. Money that was going to China and EM in recent past is being heavily diverted particularly into FAANG stocks (well not FB). This was a recent trend exacerbated by our trade war with China and lack of trust for FDI there or denominating debt in Yuan

 

[My Spot]

Current Dems and libs: