12
   

The hypocracy of the democrats concerning Northam.

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2019 02:43 pm
@coldjoint,
What he said
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2019 03:10 pm
@coldjoint,
I am once again going to point out that if a republican had done this same exact thing they would all refuse to recognize he did anything wrong just as they did for kavanaugh. The democrats eat their young and will continue to do so until we kick the old guard out so we can elect a liberal congress and president rather than a conservative lite democrat government.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2019 03:14 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
I am once again going to point out that if a republican had done this same exact thing they would all refuse to recognize he did anything wrong just as they did for kavanaugh

The Republicans called for due process, they denied nothing. They wanted proof that the Democrats did not have. Ask Justice Kavanaugh.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2019 04:04 pm
@RABEL222,
You're not very well read on current events

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-democrats-move-to-censure-rep-steve-king-over-racial-statements/2019/01/14/a56854e4-182e-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.ebc52287e96b
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2019 04:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
You're not very well read on current events

Can they squeeze Omar in there for her hate-filled anti- Semitic remarks, or do they feel it is not necessary?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Feb, 2019 07:18 pm
When it comes to the "indentured servant" comment, does the historical truth matter? There are reputable historians who say that slavery didn't start in Virginia until 1660, meaning that 400 years ago Africans in Virginia would have actually been indentured servants. Of course, this statement could be used to justify racist beliefs... or it could be a statement (or misstatement) of historical fact. It seems to me that judging the intent of the comment is the important thing.

The fact that he agreed immediately when the interviewer said "otherwise known as slavery" makes me think this isn't as outrageous as DailyKos wants you to think.

He isn't that bright... but I see no evidence that Northam is actually a racist.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2019 12:39 pm
@maxdancona,
Is Trump a racist?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2019 12:46 pm
How about some fake racism and hate?
Quote:
BREAKING: Jussie Smollett Story BLOWS UP in the Face of the Left

Not enough racism? Make some up.
https://theblacksphere.net/2019/02/breaking-jussie-smollett-story-blows-up-in-the-face-of-the-left/
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2019 01:07 pm
The similarities between the Kavannaugh hearings and Nordham's situation are superficial. While both of the transgressions (alleged, in Kavannaugh's case) happened thirty or more years ago, the assault charges against Kavannaugh are significantly more serious and a lot less easy to excuse, as there was an alleged victim making the accusation. None of the accusations against Northam concern illegal behavior. In addition, appointments to the Supreme Court are politically significant for the entire country, so it would make sense for the partisan opposition to be more intense.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 15 Feb, 2019 08:55 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
The similarities between the Kavannaugh hearings and Nordham's

It is Kavanaugh and Fairfax that are similar but not treated the same way. It makes the Dems look like the elite assholes they are with their two sets of law. Case closed. The party took one in it's gut for being unbelievably two faced.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 05:32 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

The similarities between the Kavannaugh hearings and Nordham's situation are superficial. While both of the transgressions (alleged, in Kavannaugh's case) happened thirty or more years ago, the assault charges against Kavannaugh are significantly more serious and a lot less easy to excuse, as there was an alleged victim making the accusation. None of the accusations against Northam concern illegal behavior. In addition, appointments to the Supreme Court are politically significant for the entire country, so it would make sense for the partisan opposition to be more intense.


I believe the alleged similarities involve the rather obvious political partisan motivations of the contending parties, and not the specifics of the accusations themselves, on which you chose to focus.. Nordham's offense involved no legal issues, but a crime against the exaggerated group values that have increasingly become the core of Democrat political values. In the "normal" public court for such offenses there is no acceptable defense. I don't happen to agree and believe the two decade old act did not merit the overturning of a public election.

The case against Kavanaugh did not involve any criminal accusation of a crime by any public jurisdiction. Indeed even after the testimony of the unfortunate accuser, and the denials of the witnesses she said were there, and the largely laughable accusation from the inevitable "me too" accusers, there was no body of evidence sufficient even to press charges. In short there was no "legal" issue.

Your allegation of a criminal distinction between the two was without any merit. Without a conviction or even sufficient evidence to press charges (Not to mention a not very credible witness both of who's cited observers denied any association with her story) there is only innocence.

The common element was the obvious political partisanship and advantage seeking behavior of the affected political parties and supporters.

I suspect the main reason Democrats will not in the end seek to displace Northam involves the subsequent accusations of sexual assault issues against the Lt. Governor. ( they are somewhat similar to the old accusations against Kavanaugh but the reported details involved a good deal more real assault than those involving Kavanaugh. That leaves the Democrats with the prospect of a worse situation in the event Northam is displaced -- no net gain for them.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 08:11 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:

The case against Kavanaugh did not involve any criminal accusation of a crime by any public jurisdiction. (...) In short there was no "legal" issue.

I think that once the most credible allegations became known, the committee had to determine (to the best of its limited ability) whether there was an issue. The subsequent hearings were not particularly helpful — but the committee couldn't be seen as summarily dismissing the accusations either. I certainly wasn't particularly heartened by any of the proceedings but that's pretty much the script these days.

I agree, it would have been different had it there been an accusation of a criminal offense (legal issue). But in today's political atmosphere, you can't expect a sizeable chunk of the electorate to simply give the prospective lifetime justice a pass. Your side would feel the same way. Again, I don't think the hearings represented any kind of high point, but the stories made a lot of people feel uncomfortable. As did Kavannaugh's demeanor.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 08:36 pm
@hightor,
I largely agree. The Democrats on the Judicial Committee got exactly the extension they asked for, and then, when it was done, claimed it was inadequate, despite the fact that no new accusatory evidence came forward, but some further discrediting of the accusers stories did. The fact that Senator Feinstein had the report and sat on it for several months without informing the Judicial Committee of which she was a member, and had a duty to do once the nomination was passed to the Committee, and cast it on the table only late in the Committee deliberations, gives me more than a little doubt about the sincerity of the Democrats expressed wish for a more thorough investigation.

It was indeed a very partisan political affair, reminiscent of that against Judge Thomas two decades ago. This has indeed increasingly become a no holds barred political contest. So far it has been mostly done by Democrats, but the Republicans are learning fast and will likely retaliate. A sad outcome for the nation.
glitterbag
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 10:56 pm
@georgeob1,
So, was Nixon railroaded?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2019 06:00 am
@glitterbag,
Of course.

The witch hunt against Nixon is Exhibit A in the case for outlawing the Democratic Party once and for all.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2019 03:22 pm
If he hadent agreed to retire he was headed to jail. He nogatiated with Ford for a pardon to keep his ass out of jail. They had him by the b-lls.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 18 Feb, 2019 03:33 pm
@RABEL222,
Nonsense. Nixon didn't do anything wrong. The Democrats just spun a witch hunt out of nothing like they are doing with Trump.

Except I think Trump has more mettle than they are counting on, and will fight back.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 06:47:31