I'm a rare conservative leaning person who would prefer a slightly more middle ground nominee, simply because I am almost certain that Kavanaugh will tilt the court enough that it does away with roe v wade. I support abortion. Making it illegal throughout half of the nation simply is going to fuck over poor people. People with money will fly out to a state that supports it.

They have more documents than the last 5 nominees combined.

@bobknight33 --

I'm interested in what your thoughts on McCain were in 2008, when he was the Republican candidate for president. If I looked back at your comment history from that era, would you have criticized him in the same ways back then? Were you OK with him being the Republican nominee?

Opinions can legitimately shift over time. But, that's usually a gradual process. If your opinions on McCain shifted radically in a short span of time (since, say, 2016 -- a date I've completely randomly selected for no particular reason), you might want to consider that perhaps some external actor is more responsible for that shift than your own internal feelings.

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinions. However, it seems possible that this one is not precisely "your own". McCain's willingness to break away from groupthink and be a "maverick" was one of the things that people on both side of the aisle respected the most about him.

Normally I'd agree but something about the boldness of these kids this weekend sparked a visceral ray of hope deep within me [like the gut feeling I had that Trump WOULD win the moment he was declared the nominee]. They made me sit up and take notice ... I'm choosing to root for and support them. They are the future and I'm so weary of the current state of disarray.

Congratulations! Your video, trump judicial nominee can’t answer any basic questions, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 3 Badge!

Your video, trump judicial nominee can’t answer any basic questions, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

So, drone film festivals are a thing i just figured out. Here are links to the 2017 winners of the Los Angeles and New York drone film festivals.

Los Angeless
https://www.losangelesdronefilmfestival.com/2017ladffwinners/
New York
http://www.nycdronefilmfestival.com/2017-nominees/

There is still some debate on the authenticity of this.

I read an article last night by a lawyer (uninvolved with the DNC) who openly questioned whether Donna Brazile was looking at the 2015 or the 2016 JFA. The reason she was asking, was that the 2016 JFA, of course, contains nothing but mentions of HRC because she was at that time the nominee, which is to be expected.

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it was a fascinating article. I spent about 5 minutes trying to find it right now, but I read it last night at home on my iPad, so I don't have the history handy to find the article again easily.

Doesn't happen everyday that a longstanding apparatschik of a major party throws her predecessor (DWS), her party's former Presidential Nominee (HRC), and a former President (Obama) under the bus like this. I like it. Smells like rats leaving a sinking ship.

Money laundering is the cherry on top, really.

Quit picking Hillary to be your nominee. Instant hope.

I never talked about the nomination, only about liberals pointing out that Sanders would stand a much better shot at winning against Trump.

Yet Sanders not winning the Democratic nomination is sort of the point. The DNC and the talking heads had their mind set on a candidate from amongst their midst, and put their combined weight behind her. They went with a candidate who was vulnerable on just about every angle to attacks from Trump, due to her being a continuation of previous policies. That's not picking the candidate who stands the highest chance of winning the Presidential Election, that's picking someone who represents their own interests. Which is fair enough. But then don't blame the purist liberals for pointing out the dangers of this strategy.

Thing is, we know the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign. Even more details of this are coming in bit by bit through discovery during the class-action lawsuit filed against the DNC. To call the Hillary Victory Fund a money-laundering operation for the Clinton campaign might even be too kind by now.

We also know that they actively pushed for Trump to be the nominee, thinking the election would be a cakewalk then. Brilliant strategists, the lot of them.

And the same people are running „the Resistence“ now, doubling down on what they did before. How is that for learning a lesson. Instead, they play the blame game. And Maher, in this clip, jumped in and blamed „purist liberals“. Not the DNC, not Clinton for running a campaign based on platitudes, clichés, and everything except policy substance.

If you want to blame the purist liberals for anything, blame them for not having campaigned hard enough, for not having put enough pressure to either get their candidate nominated or to get Clinton to at least pretend to be willing to do something about the suffering of the lower class. Blame the liberals for being content with a few improvements in social policies while swallowing economic policies that cause a continuous degredation of the standard of living of the lower class.

Still, purist liberals kept saying that the antidote against right-wing populism is left-wing populism. Sanders was not vulnerable on policy issues. In fact, this 187 year old bloke with bad posture is nigh untouchable on policy issues. When even Trump voters in West Virginia admit that a guy from the Northeast is a better advocate of theirs than local Republicans, you know his policies are not open to attack from right-wing populists.

As for purity vs pragmatism: pragmatism is a label for the policies that led to the current state of affairs. It's the policies that led to large-scale devastation across the country. It's not pragmatic to vote for more of the same if it means a continuation of policies that led you into despair. Purity is the label talking heads apply to a principled stance when they don't agree with it, plain and simple. Both labels allow them to distract from discussions about policy substance.

Your video, 10 Tragically Ridiculous Darwin Award Nominees, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Oops.....
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Trumps-Wiretapping-Claims-Destroyed-By-Comey
And they've had to publicly apologize to the Brits too.

What's ironic is, Trump is also accused of enlisting a foreign intelligence office to spy on and damage a political opponent, and there's a lot of evidence indicating that it really happened, coming not only directly from multiple sources in the intelligence community, (not conspiracy theory loving fake news talking heads with a clear bias) but also directly from Trump's mouth when he publicly asked the Russians to hack Clinton and release any emails they find....which they actually did in a clear attempt to help him get elected.

I think any nomination hearings need to be postponed until this investigation is complete, because if it does find what seems apparent, that Trump and his administration colluded with a hostile foreign power to rig our election, that makes them treasonous traitors, and we certainly don't want that kind of person installing Supreme Court judges (or any other nominees for permanent or important positions) that are working for our enemies. As long as there's serious question of Trump's Russian ties, it's possible treason to follow his lead in any way. If it finds collusion, anyone involved should probably be executed as traitors after conviction, with their assets seized.

Once that investigation is over...if it finds no collusion...it's time to start a second investigation into his mental condition, as it seems he's developing dementia at a rapid pace, and that's a legal reason to remove him from office. He needs to prove he's not mentally impaired using accepted medical tests and standards...the long form tests.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

"No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

Wait, so does that mean that any senator put forward as a nominee for a cabinet position can't be accused of any "conduct or motive... unbecoming of a Senator" during their confirmation hearings? Nice way to keep all the dirt nice and hidden, or at least not mentioned in a highly public manner.

I would assume this rule was designed to prevent Senators from fighting with each other during Senate proceedings, and to stick to policy matters. Sessions at the time of his hearing was present as a cabinet nominee. Why would the rule apply when he isn't there as a Senator? The purpose of the hearings is to learn enough about the nominees to provide some solid Advice and Consent to the larger group. Hard to do that when nothing negative can be said, or the person saying it will be silenced.