• (Opinion) How Brett Kavanaugh could harm the legitimacy of the Supreme Court
    179 replies, posted
Baseless whining about the echo chamber. Not an argument. Jouska isn't being honest though. Based on posts you have made in the past, I just think you agree with his posts because they "trigger the libs". I'm not sure how this is going to lead to more insightful or productive conversations on FP. Just because someone is arguing against the majority opinion doesn't make them right. You go first, we will be right behind you :^) Wow I wonder why literally nobody thought this post was sarcastic. Thats a big think. Capstone of useless whiny post is to take something you could make an honest argument against and take the absolute easiest, lowest road possible, doing literally the "haha look at this DUDE guys amiright" type posts you criticize us for doing.
See, that is where you are wrong, I like Facepunch because the posts are not rating controlled nor heavily moderated like reddit, there are still meaningful discussions taking place and the mods are reluctant to just ban differing opinions, which in my eyes is better, most outrageous and nonsensical is already out, not saying most FP posters are enlightened by any means but the discussions actually centre around evidence, common-sense and moderate viewpoints which I like. FP isn't just an echochamber, there are still some things I honestly change my mind about. Honestly, the right of the US has moved so much off the extremist edge, most stuff considered left in the US is quite centrist and moderate in most of Europe, and the conservative posters seem to lack any form of empathy or understanding of context or usage of common sense that is quite surprising.
dogpiling is getting quite boring to see
How many people should be allowed to respond to a single post?
idiots shouldn't be allowed to run around unopposed.
as many that want to, but it doesn't change things getting repetitive after the first few posters respond in essentially the same manner.
Yeah but I am, and questions are how you foster debate. He has positions and perspectives I'm curious about, and this is an open forum. Even if he doesn't answer the questions himself, there's always the chance someone else reading the thread might have some answers of their own, and that's an opportunity I'm not willing to pass up. Questions on a public forum are an open invitation to everyone else to join the conversation and throw in their two cents, and a good way to shape the debate landscape of a given community If they're interested in an open dialogue, they'll stick around and engage in open dialogue. If they're not, you'd be amazed just how quickly you can run a person arguing in bad faith out of a thread just by earnestly asking them to clarify and explain their thoughts, positions, opinions, and where their perspective comes from. It's been happening to me pretty consistently over the last couple years If nothing else, it's a good excuse to keep looping back around to my posts about rhetoric and try and shape the landscape of my chosen community myself It's kind of a win-win-win situation, I think, asking questions
Ok sure, I don't reply to posts that have already had several replies made about them, but I don't shit on those people replying either. Fair enough, I'm just setting expectations.
Glad to see we're still having the same discussions on this since 2012 https://youtu.be/It2l8CM32iY
i'm not meaning to shit on anyone, i know i am as guilty of having dogpiled people in the past as much as most on this forum are. not that it is particularly exclusive to this forum, now that i think of it. it just doesn't feel like compelling reading to me.
Watch out libtards, this guy's got an MSPaint picture! You're fucked now!
wtf I'm selling my fp account, I'm done.
If people want others to respect their opinions so much, they should get some opinions worth respecting. Also coming in as if their one-dimensional views are godly and disrespecting everyone else as a child and an idiot really helps them on the respect front too.
Once upon a time, supreme court justice nominees enjoyed fairly broad bipartisan support. Because partisan shitters weren't frequently nominated, mostly even-tempered moderates. Don't hate Kavanaugh because he's not "the left's guy". Don't hate him because he's from the right. Hate his manbaby ass for being a partisan cunt who lost his temper, yelled at and talked back to Senators in a way that'd never have been allowed in his own court, perjured himself repeatedly under oath in front of the Senate, and vowed revenge against the Democrats for what he described as a conspiracy by the Clintons. He's unfit to serve fries in the Congress cafeteria, much less the judicial seat he already occupied before being nominated or the Supreme Court seat he will be taking. He evaded questions, refused to endorse an investigation that would, if he's telling the truth, confirm his innocence and strengthen his case, and he altogether acted so badly that he'd have been denied at a job interview for a call center, during a job interview for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the US. Hate him because he has personally demonstrated that he is unfit for office, regardless of political affiliation.
If you don't like it, go? No one holds you hostage here so that you can act like the most mature person here, somehow managing to contradict that assertion with every aspect of your behaviour.
But this isn't a criminal case, it's a glorified job interview. I don't think you can 'prove' that he did what it was claimed that he did, and I don't think that those claims are grounds for him being unfit for the position. But the fact that he acted out in the way that he did during the hearings, that marks him as unfit for the position. There is legal precedent for this as well, as other justices who have behaved in the manner he did were impeached. If he had kept himself in line, and been a fucking man rather than a shit-slinging baby, and hadn't vowed to use his power as a supreme court justice to get revenge against a whole political party, then as far as I'm concerned there would be nothing which marks him as unfit for the court. But he didn't. He started ranting about conspiracies and vowed not to interpret the law as written, but to make his decisions with an agenda in mind.
If he was being charged and the interview had been him in court, and it had been about whether or not he should be convicted of attempted rape, then absolutely yes. But this is about whether he should be appointed to the Supreme Court for life. The priorities are flipped; in the former case the benefit of the doubt should be his, in the latter it should be the American people's. His life wouldn't be ruined by not being appointed, so it's more important to be absolutely sure you've got the best guy. It's perfectly possible to ditch him from the appointment based on reasonable suspicion, while not convicting him of the crime based on a lack of evidence.
If you really feel that my post applies to you, that says all that needs to be said really, Cig. People come in here all smug and think they have the solution to everything, tossing out their opinions as facts and being a complete brick wall to any other posters words, no matter if it's a silly rebuttal or a requested wall of factual sources, to just bounce off of ineffectually. I am aware of the flaws in my views, why else would I always read threads from more conservative posters like Scorp, because balancing your opinions through a different lense and seeing what happens is important. What you people do is waltz in, automatically take the worst possible position from any objective standpoint, and make drive-by shitposts to derail the thread with worthless semantics for 8 unreadable pages, learn nothing, assume your positions are almighty and without need for reflection, then do it all again the next thread. It's old, and it's pathetic. Want respect? Show some. With an informed view. With direct conversation and not fearful shitposting that teaches and learns nothing. With a view on things that doesn't hinge on always being correct and everyone else around you always being wrong and part of some great beast of a shadow that hangs over your "odd-one-out" oh so logical viewpoint.
If Cigarettes said anything of substance in that narcissistic screed, it was that it sure is satisfying to be right.
@Unclejimmema did cigs get permad? I can't find any of his posts and the banned post was deleted.
I never thought I'd live to see the day that the world would discover something even more dense than neutron star matter.
They likely deleted their own account if you can't find any of their posts.
Wipe yourself from the discussion to own the libs
Dave Parker got nuked, Cigarettes got nuked, this is what we call progress.
As Donald Trump said, "If we have the nukes, why don't we just use them?"
Poor Cigarettes! The finest mind of his generation, come to such an end!
tbqh i wanted to have more discussion with Cigarettes to understand what the fuck was the point of that response the other day.
I assume their self-deletion was out of shame, and thus indirect admission that they fucked up and blatantly misunderstood your original post. There are a few other possibilities, but I think that "shit, I can't even show my face around there anymore" and being too afraid to apologize is the most likely one.
So the dozens and dozens of other times judges were elected without a democratic vote that was fine and completely democratic? I'm really happy people like you aren't able to vote on a persons innocence or merit as a judge. Also we are a Democratic Republic, read the constitution some time.
Brett said in his opening statement that he thinks it's possibly a conspiracy by the Clintons cause Hillary's mad she lost. He said that he wrote the statement himself and only one other person before he stated it. A federal judge wrote something not far off removed from Trump or Alex Jones rants, and kept it like that for at least a day, and didn't find fault with that. What you say has enormous importance in the courts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.