@coldjoint,
Quote:What does that have to do with facts?
One of the many things that right-wingers perpetually fail to "get" is that it's not all that difficult to distinguish between "facts" and
the way that facts get reported in the media. It doesn't matter what editorial slant you perceive — as long as you assume that it originates from a certain political/economic perspective you just adjust your glasses and adapt your focus accordingly.
Quote:It works to, look at your posts.
Hmm — I don't see where I'm being particularly "emotional". I'm just pointing out that it was discussed in the media; I didn't make it up as you implied. And alleged "self-righteousness" doesn't really apply in this case. You wanted to know why objections weren't raised about Kavanaugh when the Federalist Society first provided the list. You even
thanked me for reminding you. I gave a possible explanation based on the accounts and various opinions I'd heard expressed on the matter.
The explanation has nothing to do with anyone's guilt or innocence; it provides a context which helps understand people's motives. I think waiting to see who the eventual nominee turns out to be before going public with an exposé is perfectly sensible. Potential opponents to an objectionable nominee will save a lot of expense if they wait until they find out who the nominee actually is rather than having to check out everyone on a
list of twenty-five approved choices. Victims and whistleblowers shouldn't be expected to come forward with their stories and revelations about some name on a twenty-person list only to have one of the other nineteen chosen for the position.
