Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56

Thread: What Are The Odds

  1. #21
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    No corroboration?

    She disclosed details of the event to her therapist many years ago, long before "Cry baby Kavanaugh" was in the public eye.

    As for him being a douche: I believe her testimony: he lied, not just about trying to fuck her but about his drinking history and alleged celibacy.

    I wouldn't hire him to mow my lawn, much less pass judgment, and it's not just me: lots of leading lights in the legal profession think he shoudn't be confirmed due to character deficiencies.

    Now to watch the payback unfold.
    No corroboration. Her “witnesses” all deny her account. The therapist? As far I know, we don’t know what was in the therapist’s notes because they wouldn’t release them. The problem V, is that her narrative kept changing. One to the therapist, one to Feinstein, and one to the WaPost.

  2. #22
    The only comment here is that when there were traumatic events in my and other friends lives, I recalled everything in vivid detail. For one, I can still plainly see the evil looking eyes of the huge water moccasin I stepped on to this day. I remember taking my .22 to our little pond with the thought of swinging across the inlet of our little pond. I thought I had stepped on a cow patty and when I looked down, he was as big as my legl I picked up my rifle, but looked him in the eyes and said, " You didn't kill me-I won't kill you!" I was only 16 and we had no transportation or phone out n the country. Dad user the car for work.

  3. #23
    While I accept the result and will "move on," the experience has surely tainted both participants and has not served to advance notions of democracy / democratic ideals.

    My suggestion to avoid such a travesty again is simple: require a 60% vote to confirm, not 50%.

    The Republicans created this mess when they forced through the new rule change to reduce the necessary percentage from the pre-existing 60% to the current simple majority: it avoids the need to seek consensus and leads to further polarization.

    And yeah, there is something very wrong with that.
    What, Me Worry?

  4. #24
    I was under the impression the Dems changed it from 60% to a simple majority ( >50% ), even though the Republicans were thinking about it earlier. Were you bitching about this back then when the nuclear option was implemented, or just now because you think the Dems should be able to hold off on Kav? Nevermind, I think I know.
    #FreeTyde

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by RS__ View Post
    I was under the impression the Dems changed it from 60% to a simple majority ( >50% ), even though the Republicans were thinking about it earlier. Were you bitching about this back then when the nuclear option was implemented, or just now because you think the Dems should be able to hold off on Kav? Nevermind, I think I know.


    McConnell pushed through a rules change to end the filibuster on Supreme Court nominees and lower the threshold for confirmation from 60 to a simple majority.

    Yeah, I opposed the Republicans pushing through the "nuclear option" rule change as I knew that shit like this would be the end result.
    Last edited by MisterV; 10-06-2018 at 10:45 AM.
    What, Me Worry?

  6. #26
    I believe the Democrats started the "change" from the 60 percent rule five years ago for some appointments, but not any Supreme Court individuals. The Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" last year for Gorsuch. Hence, both parries have maneuvered themselves from the 60 percent majority, when they had the votes.

    As an Independent, it makes you long for the Whig party to reemerge.

  7. #27
    We certainly are ripe for the emergence of a viable third party, preferably one that will capture the attention and energy of those under forty.

    The young-uns need to get politically involved or else this clusterfuck will continue.
    What, Me Worry?

  8. #28
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    I believe the Democrats started the "change" from the 60 percent rule five years ago for some appointments, but not any Supreme Court individuals. The Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" last year for Gorsuch. Hence, both parries have maneuvered themselves from the 60 percent majority, when they had the votes.

    As an Independent, it makes you long for the Whig party to reemerge.
    You are correct Deech.

    In 2013 Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments (except for appointments to the Supreme Court). Thank Harry Reid.

    The problem now is, Democrats won’t accept republican nominations. Unlike Kagan and Sotamayor. Bipartisanship is just a word the dems throw around but gets thrown out the window when it comes to republican Supreme Court nominees (Joe Manchin) notwithstanding. It’s all about abortion, as if that’s not already settled law.

  9. #29
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    I believe the Democrats started the "change" from the 60 percent rule five years ago for some appointments, but not any Supreme Court individuals. The Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" last year for Gorsuch. Hence, both parries have maneuvered themselves from the 60 percent majority, when they had the votes.

    As an Independent, it makes you long for the Whig party to reemerge.
    You are correct Deech.

    In 2013 Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments (except for appointments to the Supreme Court). Thank Harry Reid.

    The problem now is, Democrats won’t accept republican nominations. Unlike Kagan and Sotamayor. Bipartisanship is just a word the dems throw around but gets thrown out the window when it comes to republican Supreme Court nominees (Joe Manchin) notwithstanding. It’s all about abortion, as if that’s not already settled law.
    This is correct, Harry Reid did start us down this road. He is to blame. Personally I think 60 votes is reasonable for a supreme court confirmation. Since it is rare that either party has 60 votes, it almost requires votes from both parties. A supreme court justice is supposed to be "special". They are supposed to be the best of the best of us. It is not unreasonable to ask that they get 60 votes.

    Since you brought up abortion, I have no position on abortion. I know it is a hot button issue, but I just don't care one way or the other. BUT here is my thought on the subject. The republicans (of which I am registered republican) want to over turn abortion. Republicans don't like Latinos and blacks. The repubs here will argue that, but it is true, in a general sense. So who do they think gets all the abortions? If you do away with abortion, you are going to have even more Latinos and blacks children, and eventually adults running around. You get rid of abortion and you increase the Latino and Black population.

    And BTW, the whites that want abortions, will still get theirs. They can afford to go to other countries if need be.

  10. #30
    Well he's in. Why does this feel so right and so wrong at the same time? Maybe Trump actually told the truth (for once)- everyone has a load of dirty laundry in their past.

  11. #31
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    We certainly are ripe for the emergence of a viable third party, preferably one that will capture the attention and energy of those under forty.

    The young-uns need to get politically involved or else this clusterfuck will continue.
    I disagree V. I think the “young-uns” are involved and are part of the reason we have this clusterfuck. Millennials are being told that socialism is good and getting free stuff is their birthright. They’re being taught to not revere the Constitution and the rule of law. Now, if you (dems) don’t control the house, don’t control the senate, and don’t control the White House, you (dems) resort to revolutionary tactics. Ambush people in restaurants, in elevators and at airports. Scream, harass, and get in their faces.

    President Obama said elections have consequences. It’s time more people accepted that notion.

  12. #32
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    Originally Posted by Deech View Post
    I believe the Democrats started the "change" from the 60 percent rule five years ago for some appointments, but not any Supreme Court individuals. The Republicans invoked the "nuclear option" last year for Gorsuch. Hence, both parries have maneuvered themselves from the 60 percent majority, when they had the votes.

    As an Independent, it makes you long for the Whig party to reemerge.
    You are correct Deech.

    In 2013 Democrats used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments (except for appointments to the Supreme Court). Thank Harry Reid.

    The problem now is, Democrats won’t accept republican nominations. Unlike Kagan and Sotamayor. Bipartisanship is just a word the dems throw around but gets thrown out the window when it comes to republican Supreme Court nominees (Joe Manchin) notwithstanding. It’s all about abortion, as if that’s not already settled law.
    This is correct, Harry Reid did start us down this road. He is to blame. Personally I think 60 votes is reasonable for a supreme court confirmation. Since it is rare that either party has 60 votes, it almost requires votes from both parties. A supreme court justice is supposed to be "special". They are supposed to be the best of the best of us. It is not unreasonable to ask that they get 60 votes.

    Since you brought up abortion, I have no position on abortion. I know it is a hot button issue, but I just don't care one way or the other. BUT here is my thought on the subject. The republicans (of which I am registered republican) want to over turn abortion. Republicans don't like Latinos and blacks. The repubs here will argue that, but it is true, in a general sense. So who do they think gets all the abortions? If you do away with abortion, you are going to have even more Latinos and blacks children, and eventually adults running around. You get rid of abortion and you increase the Latino and Black population.

    And BTW, the whites that want abortions, will still get theirs. They can afford to go to other countries if need be.
    KJ

    I disagree that republicans want to overturn abortion. Roe v Wade is settled law. I believe that most Democrats want abortion on demand, right up to birth. I also believe that most republicans are against late term abortions. That doesn’t mean they want to overturn abortion.

    I strongly disagree with your contention that republicans don’t like Latinos and blacks. I don’t feel that way nor know ANY republican that feels that way. The rest of your post I had trouble following. Republicans want to overturn abortion and don’t like blacks and Latinos, but if they succeeded in the former they’d get more of the latter?

  13. #33
    51 republican senators. 48 white, 1 Black, 1 Latino (Rubio), 1 part Latino (Cruz). LOL!

  14. #34
    Kudos to kwqlJ. Twice he has given an honest independent thought on the hearings. Politics is difficult. In my opinion, there is no correct side to many arguments.

    As a parent, you do not want your daughter to testify in any setting. Likewise you do not want your son to be accused of certain transgressions. I have both, one son and one daughter. My wife is in fear as to what can happen to males. I am shocked by this. Yes, obviously, in the mid 80's her boss' boss made the moves. She made the evasive maneuvers.

    Politics stinks. Love you guys. Please MC/Monet give me a play.

  15. #35
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    I disagree V. I think the “young-uns” are involved and are part of the reason we have this clusterfuck.
    Neither of the current parties reflect their values.

    They should have a party which they can believe in.

    The only reason Herr Trump got elected was because of the schism with the Democrats: had Bernie not siphoned off votes the Wicked Bitch of the West would have gotten in.

    Have a two as opposed to a three party system: what could it hurt?

    Oh yeah, overturn the court decision which allows corporations to contribute: that's an abomination.
    What, Me Worry?

  16. #36
    Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
    Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
    I disagree V. I think the “young-uns” are involved and are part of the reason we have this clusterfuck.
    Neither of the current parties reflect their values.

    They should have a party which they can believe in.
    It sure seemed like they believed in Bernie’s message, but he got hosed by the DNC rigging it for Hillary. Perhaps he should have just ran on his own party platform as a Socialist.

  17. #37
    Harry Reid abused the hell out of the nuclear option sending a ton of judges through to a vote without debate. McConnel was pissed off to high heaven about it. The lower courts are now heavily stacked with lefty activist judges. Reid was repeatedly warned that the nuclear option could come back to bite dems in the ass. And that's what's happened. What goes around comes around. So I think what we are going to see now is SCOTUS overruling a lot of lower court decisions.

    The big question now is how long can Ruth Bader Ginsburg live. Trump might get to solidify the court even further.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  18. #38
    Originally Posted by kewlJ View Post
    The republicans (of which I am registered republican) want to over turn abortion. Republicans don't like Latinos and blacks. The repubs here will argue that, but it is true, in a general sense.
    You forgot that republicans also don't like cock-sucking queers. And stop with your nonsense claim of " I'm a registered republican". You believe in the republican party as much as we believe your bullshit claims of 15 years of counting cards successfully for a living in Las Vegas of all places.

    Everyone knows what I think of Mickey, but you have to give him credit when it comes to his political views based on facts.
    Last edited by blackhole; 10-07-2018 at 05:40 AM.

  19. #39
    And in other news Cory Booker has replaced Diane Feinstein as Chairman of the democratic party's Accuser Procurement Committee.
    "More importantly, mickey thought 8-4 was two games over .500. Argued about it. C'mon, man. Nothing can top that for math expertise. If GWAE ever has you on again, you can be sure I'll be calling in with that gem.'Nuff said." REDIETZ

  20. #40
    Originally Posted by blackhole View Post
    You forgot that republicans also don't like cock-sucking queers. And stop with your nonsense claim of " I'm a registered republican". You believe in the republican party as much as we believe your bullshit claims of 15 years of counting cards successfully for a living in Las Vegas of all places.

    Everyone knows what I think of Mickey, but you have to give him credit when it comes to his political views based on facts.
    Nobody cares what you think, including your homophobic rage. You are a "ghost" blackhole, dead and irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Schemectady, NY Rivers casino new odds
    By nevergiveup in forum Eastern US & Non-US Casinos
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-01-2018, 01:56 PM
  2. Repeater bet odds in craps
    By Alan Mendelson in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-31-2017, 10:17 AM
  3. Impeachment Odds
    By redietz in forum Sports & Sportsbetting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-18-2017, 06:59 AM
  4. Quick Note on Election Odds
    By redietz in forum Las Vegas
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 11-09-2016, 05:53 PM
  5. Rincon millionaire: what are the odds?
    By Alan Mendelson in forum California/Western US Casinos
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-07-2015, 04:57 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •