smjjames

I'd like to see the actual test itself, but to be honest, I personally don't really care whether she has Native American ancestry or not.

What about stuff like safety regulations or common sense stuff? Unless you expect companies to police themselves and not cut corners? Or perhaps regulations requiring companies to accomodate disabled people. Sure, they could get a little silly or too fine grained like a sign at the doctors office that I saw said 'OSHA regulations require no taking off of shoes' or something to that effect while standing on a weight scale (I was 'what even is that all about?' when I saw it). I suppose in that case one might worry about old people or other people tripping on the shoes, but it was in an alcove and there were handrails for someone to hold onto if neccesary. Surely you'd agree that some regulations are beneficial?

https://imgur.com/gallery/z8nxId1 lol. Being mean to the robot for science.

Would they do it at someplace as equivalently high profile as an embassy or consulate? Still, it's like the saying 'the plan works until it hits the enemy' or something like that. Basically, even the best prepared plans can go wrong once it starts getting actualized.

Heh, yeah, the failures aren't usually talked about much or glorified, plus we're kind of spoiled somewhat by movies.

You use 15 to take out someone you know is dangerous and has epic tier martial arts skills (well, okay more like 100, with most of those being low level goons to make said epic tier martial artist waste time), so, 15 seems like overkill. It's also not very subtle. If they wanted sublety, they'd have sent one or two (or maybe three) guys in, chloroform or whatever the guy, put him into a car, drive elsewhere and do what they want/need elsewhere. Sure, maybe only 1-3 were charged with the task of killing/capturing with the others having their duties, but the whole thing lacks the sublety we often see in movies or Cold War spy stories. Then again, it's not the CIA or M16 we're talking about here, so, if anything, it's not so much martial inepirude than us expecting CIA/M16/KGB level finesse in this kind of thing and being disappointed by something that is clearly not that tier.

Taylor Swift is known for her country songs though, so, her political leanings may be more independent rather than either party. Not that I personally care anyway. As for Nikki Haley, it appears that she resigned because she did her two years and she is resigning at the end of the year. Trump has also said that Haley had told him about six months ago that she was thinking of taking a break. Why he didn't have Pompeo and Bolton be in the loop, I don't know, but it's certainly in character. And yeah, theres probably no hay to be made out of it, but any resignation is noteable and this one seems to have been out of the blue for everybody except Trump and Haley. Though it's possible Trump was surprised as to the exact timing.

In an update on the axios link, she apparently talked with Trump last week, so, it's not actually completely out of the blue. And there was supposed to be a conference or something 10 min ago, but I guess expect something soon.

*stares at sharp_one* *thinks of doing a sharp retort at him* *decides not to* Anyways, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has resigned, no reason given or known yet, quite literally breaking news. https://www.axios.com/donald-trump-nikki-haley-resignation-d25b64a9-264e-483a-a79b-ae8a48e367db.html Trump and Haley are also going to make an announcement in the Oval Office in about 10 min.

That was my point, 5-4 decisions aren't actually all that common and only seem common because of controversial or polarized cases which grab the publics attention rather than the mundane stuff. As shadysands said, said controversial, polarized, or otherwise hot-button issues tend to be what politicians fight over for the nominee. Didn't end up happening that way.

Found at least one, so far: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12329263368522191663&q=kavanaugh+and+garland+concurrence&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130 edit: and https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11519945477632753592&q=kavanaugh+and+garland+concurrence+%22Opinion+for+the+Court+filed+by+circuit+Judge+GARLAND.%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,130 Would be nice to know how you found them because I can only narrow it down so far with the search results.

What were those decisions though? Not every decision is going to be a straight up 4-5 split. I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering what the context of the decisions were. Currently trying to look them up though.

Fixed. Reminder that he was one of the authors of the Starr Report that argued for impeaching Clinton. Hence me commenting about hypocrisy and whether he'd grant Democrats the same thing he'd happily give Trump when it comes to executive power.

Speaking of executive power and hypocrisy, I wonder if Kavanaugh, with his views on executive power, would grant Democrats the same thing he'd happily give Trump? heh. On impeaching Kavanaugh, it's the exact same proccess that's used to impeach Presidents, so, the Democrats would have to somehow convince a significant chunk of the Republicans in the Senate that Kavanaugh did wrong. Which there is practically zero chance of, and the kind of majority needed to do it alone hasn't existed since the 1930s.

I think Wall Street is used to the unpredictability and political fights by now. Not like this is the first time that it has been that type of political situation and the economy was still good and there weren't any problems due to the political fighting. Also, seriously, that's the exact kind of argument Trump and other Republicans are making about Democrats, that the economy will fail when they are elected. So, you're just repeating their own political propoganda.

You're Canadian anyway. You seemed somewhat liberal to me, so, I'm a bit surprised. What state are you from? Just wondering.

lol....

I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to. Taking a bus trip would only work for those that are both able to afford it in monetary and time cost. Though I guess a program like you mentioned could work.

Sen. Collins said she'll vote yes for the cloture* vote (which is in about 12 min from now) and announce her final vote later this afternoon. *'cloture' is a procedural vote to end debate on something and move to the final vote, the Kavanaugh nomination in this case.

And, of course there would be small random complications because Senators have a life outside of the Senate and some things just can't be rescheduled: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-fbi-investigation-oct-18/h_d7e23dcb22a99af660d59f851a43e531

Not sure if you know already, but Sen. Heitkamp has already said she's voting no. So, thats 1 Democrat (Manchin) and 3 Republicans.

More specifically, they're trying to get at his credibility, not his drinking habits. Also, they didn't move goal posts, it's one that had all along that the GOP just didn't include in the FBI investigation. It would certainly be better if they pinned him for lying on something more substantial.

@ktchong: The Democrats claiming inappropriate behavior in previous FBI investigations at the last minute when theres no evidence that they brought it up previously certainly doesn't help things either. I'm willing to give Feinstein the benefit of the doubt on what she did, but what they're doing now is pretty blatant.

I already picked a side due to reasons unlreated to the accusations.

Except that we don't know what they looked at or talked to during those other six background checks, and we'll never know because it's all classified (not to mention a ton of private details). I do agree though, if he really did commit something, then the FBI really dropped the ball somewhere. Also, the Democrats are saying that there is evidence of inappropriate behavior in the previous six investigations (why they're bringing that up NOW rather than a whole bunch earlier in the proccess, I don't know), but again, the public can't see the stuff.... @ktchong: The FBI isn't supposed to reach a conclusion in the investigation as it's not a criminal investigation, all they're doing is gathering the facts. And yeah, it's hard to tell whether Kavanaugh actually did it or not as there is no conclusive evidence or not. The best way to find out is to do a full on investigation. Theres plenty of other reasons to oppose Kavanaugh like his judicial views for example. I know the FBI is not supposed to reach a conclusion in this case, but we can look at what the seven witnesses said in their interviews with the FBI and use reasons come to our own conclusions. Ford said Smyth and Keyser were at the party. Smyth and Keyser said they were not. So they were already the huge holes and problems in Ford's memory and/or testimony. So, if no one else really knew about the incident, if no one could confirm her allegation or corroborate her story, that means the whole thing basically becomes a "she says vs. he says" situation. And so we are back to square one: Why should we believe her over him? Because she seems more believable on the TV? Does he still have the presumption of innocence? Should we just assume he is guilty simply because a woman - or women - accuse him? Should we always believe a woman over a man over an allegation of sexual assault? Should we still always believe women after The Duke lacrosse and the "Rape on a Campus" story? IMO, Democrats - particularly Dianne Feinstein - have really botched this whole thing. It's also made a whole lot harder by the fact that it was like 35, 36 years ago, so, it's a heck of a lot harder to come by evidence. As for the Democrats, yeah, Grassley said that there are ways to review stuff like the letter that Dr. Ford sent to Feinstein and protect Dr. Fords identity at the same time. So, it certainly could have been dealt with earlier. Also the claim about the previous six FBI reports having indications of misconduct, but that's the first time I've heard that allegation from them, so, I'm like 'Why are you bringing that up NOW rather than earlier in the proccess?'