And I am really trying to understand at what point the standard for assessing behavior became “serial sexual assault” instead of “one time sexual assault” because I’m quite sure that’s not what the standard is supposed to be

You should know that trolling him like this just lets him argue against the troll because he can pretend you mean it instead of addressing serious points others make lol

Not that I mind really because it’s funny to see Mets get all aflutter over a troll post and I’m sure his responses to the serious ones would just be frustrating and upsetting

Defining not getting into the Supreme Court as “ruining someone’s life” would be peak white male privilege.

We don’t need to prove he did it, we need to evaluate the evidence and see how comfortable people can be with the possibility of whom you’re putting in the court.

I’m now feeling extremely inadequate since I am a white male and I am also very unlikely to be confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court. I guess my life is ruined

Mets has a habit of ignoring 20 well thought out posts that make an argument and instead responding to the one post he feels equipped to respond then will complain that people won’t engage with him

I appreciate that you think my posts are well thought out, Bird

Don't we actually want kavanaugh confirmed atm, since he lied to the Senate more than once and trump can appoint any other ******* if kav walks away here?

What’s the endgame? He’s never getting thrown off the bench if confirmed, getting someone else through before the session ends will be difficult (although I have every confidence that McConnell will leave all standards and ethics at the door to do so) and there’s the possibility that Dems take the Senate before anyone else can be confirmed.

No.

Also this.

Only reason I can see for wanting Kavanaugh confirmed is that if he withdraws or is voted down and the democrats win the senate in November things could get really messy. Of course things are going to get really messy at some point here one way or the other so having it happen sooner rather than later might be preferable

"Could get really messy"?

McConnell literally stole a Supreme Court seat.

Which is why this is now on an inevitable path to that “really messy” outcome, among about 100 other things. It’s been building for a while, and it will eventually get to a point where it snaps. Trying to force through a SCOTUS confirmation during a lame duck session after Democrats won the senate back after all the “Americans need to be heard” nonsense that they provided as window dressing for the Garland fiasco could be that snapping point

The alternative is just to let the Republicans win everything.

The Democrats need to start behaving with the thought "what would Republicans do if they were in charge?" in mind if they ever get power again.

Basically everyone is currently play acting the idea that there are some kind of principles and traditions and “rules” that need to be followed because they believe people won’t accept a truly overt and naked power grab, but I’m guessing as we move forward the window dressing will become thinner and thinner on such things because I think the people will accept and kinda want a naked and overt power grab as long as it is their team grabbing the power.

My money is on the republicans coming out ahead in this particular game btw

Mine too. Because Democrats are pathetic at this stuff.

Oh I fully agree with you, and I think there’s basically no remedy too extreme at this point

Don’t just make DC and PR states, split California up into 5 or 6 Democratic leaning pieces too (to roughly balance the senate) then abolish the electoral college to prevent this Trumpian minority government tragedy from repeating itself. Pack the Supreme Court if necessary and abolish pretty much all minority party protections in Congress if necessary (since they have now stopped being anything but a paper shield) register voters as aggressively as republicans have tried to purge them.

Basically catch up to the way the other side has been fighting for years

The above, btw, is far leftist fiction, because Democrats in general are still very concerned about breaking things that Republicans know are already broken (and act accordingly)

So if Luvkbox was saying Mets is the most right because he doesn’t actually believe a lot of the bull**** he says but loyally repeats it anyways I suppose the joke is on all of us

Agreed. Any candidate not running on expanding the court to 13 should have no warrant in the next election.

It's more like if you want to come to a decent understanding of anything you'll need to synthesize Mets and Birdman as they are both anti-establishment enough (birdman more than Mets and if we start seeing Mets get excited about a Pence presidency then I'll have to reevaluate my position there)*

*besides Filthy the other 95% of the thread would be super happy with some standard neocon despite whatever they tell you.

If Mets has meaningful anti establishment opinions I’ve yet to see evidence of them

Ditto for his theoretical unhappiness with any standard neocon

You might be right. He does hold some fairly standard views and lacks the conspiratorial element that made vmf so great.