I see the comments. People want J to do something. What, exactly? Silence dissent? Are you on this site so that you’re never, ever disagreed with? That wasn’t the intent of this site, as far as I know. Otherwise you wouldn’t need all those tools you have like block and mute. If you prefer a echo chamber safe space, use those tools.

@Kronykal Disagreement is one thing. Using block and mute because someone disagrees with you is petty.

People do, however, come to this site for respectful discourse, intelligent well informed debate and meaningful friendship. Not baiting comments, not insults, not derisive remarks.

And J has spoken. There are, as he rightly points out, a range of tools available for use against those with nothing better to do then come in itching for an online fight. People should use them more often.

@code

Other than my first post, which I admit was baiting, I don’t think I was insulting in the least. Anything I said that was perceived as such was said because I absolutely meant it. And I’d say it again.

@Kronykal I'd like it if you didn't bait. I like to view dissenting opinions and learn from other perspectives. Sometimes (even often) you appear to not want the same and that you just want to pick a fight. I love to be a swizzle stick, too. Even knowing that it's difficult to not perceive you as insufferable, which I'm sure you are. I'm also confident that you are probably not bad 😉 There was a reason I asked a clarification and backed out. It was a hint, fyi. @code

@Stace @code

Do you think posts like “The orange goblin needs to be impeached today!” is any less baiting from my perspective?

@Kronykal I imagine your perspective is yours and if that ruffles your feathers then I can imagine that it is baiting you and makes you feel baited. However, that is not how you baited or what you said. You came in and said that he did nothing wrong and should be put in immediately. As a former 15 year old that was pushed into a car after a football game and attacked and had to fight but didn't report, I needed to know your POV so I could filter. Others might not have. ..... @code

@Stace @code

I still believe he did nothing wrong and they should have the vote today. Post haste.

Well, fine. If we are going to have this one out.

As a staunch Republican who steadfastly holds true to the US political system and upholds the Constitution (assumptions, correct me otherwise), you cannot in good faith think that appointment to one of the highest seats in the land can be done because a group of people "believe" an accusation of crime not to be true.

It must be found beyond reasonable doubt not to have occurred.

Otherwise your legal system can be corrupted.

@Kronykal @Stace

@code @Kronykal @Stace
While I agree that there should be an investigation and consideration of the accusations, I have to point out that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the prosecution's job, not the defendant's.

Generally, I think it's possible Dr Ford and others are lying. I don't think that's the case, but it is at least possible. I hope people on the other side appreciate the possibility that she's not lying. If it is even possible, should you dismiss it prima facie?

@britt
Not meaning to butt in here. And I'm not trying to do more than asking a question overall. As I'm personally on the side of something did happen

But isn't that the point? The ONLY way to truly hash this out is to actually take the time necessary to investigate fully the claims of both sides, along with the claims and statements of supporters?
And aren't the people trying to ram-rod a vote, trying to openly deny that from happening?
And this is why the yelling?

@Stace @Kronykal @code

@InvaderGzim @britt @Stace @code

Investigate what? The Senate Judiciary whose job it is it investigate this has been investigating. Everyone contacted has said either they don’t remember or it didn’t happen. You want the FBI to go around getting told the same thing when it isn’t even their jurisdiction?

@Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim It IS their jurisdiction. This exact same thing happened with Frank / Thomas. The Senate Judiciary is not even remotely an investigatory body; having Republican aides call people to get the quotes the want isn't an investigation.

@britt @InvaderGzim @Stace @code

This was explained and I’ve posted it a few times. Here’s the beginning of the thread.

https://twitter.com/senjudiciary/status/1042824909267849221?s=21

@Kronykal @code @Stace @InvaderGzim
Sorry, Kron, but I don't put a lot of faith in a tweet from an account run by the republicans that don't want this investigated. I don't think there's any room for us to meet in the middle on this if you think the Senate Judiciary is better suited than the FBI to investigate rape charges and perform background checks.

@britt @code @Stace @InvaderGzim

You’re right. There’s no room for us to meet in the middle on this. That’s been evident since yesterday on this site.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @Stace @code
If you want to give me an actual argument, I'll try to listen, but I have not heard a single good argument for the Senate doing background checks or investigating rape, or how an FBI investigation would be unreasonable, or how these allegations are inherently false. Give me a real argument based on precedent, law, rules, and fact. Precedent, law, rules, and facts support the FBI performing at least a cursory investigation.

@britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

While they could request the President ask the FBI to investigate, the problem I and many others have is time. The ultimate goal, in my opinion (and I think if people are honest they’d admit this is the case) is to push this past midterms. That’s why all of this has been executed at the last minute and why everything has been a stall tactic, including this woman’s indecisive, constant foot dragging on whether she’ll testify or not.

I don’t see how 1/2

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt Perhaps they feel the Merrick Garland treatment is justified. We watch as our democracy bends but does not break.

@USAPatriot @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

Ok. Then I hope you like not filling that seat at all for the next 2-6 years. Better hope Ginsburg doesn’t croak.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt Who set the precedent? I generally hope no one croaks, except croakers, who do it so well.

@USAPatriot @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

Obama got 2 SCOTUS appointments.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt @USAPatriot

There is no set number of "allowable" SCOTUS appts.

He was denied a hearing on a qualified appointee based on nothing but partisanship.

@tyghebright @USAPatriot @britt @Stace @code @InvaderGzim

He had enough. It was his last year and a presidential election year. No. Too bad.

Let’s see the Democrats try to pull that for years.

@Kronykal @InvaderGzim @code @Stace @britt @USAPatriot

This is a purely emotional, partisan opinion based on nothing in our system of government, nothing codified and no precedent.