She held up the bill because it was unpopular among her base, and she actively dismissed the threat facing Kavanaugh in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Your Don Jr. comment is whataboutism. My position is that we're in a sorry state of affairs all around, one in which no side has any sort of moral high ground. Your position is that the Democratic party is so morally principled, by comparison, that the only option, irrespective of your political beliefs, is to vote for one-party rule for the foreseeable future. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they clear that obscenely high bar.

Of course Schumer's attack was before the Kavanaugh incident, it was part of a long series of hysterical statements, all by high-profile Democrats, attacking the Court as illegitimate and an imminent threat to democracy. Except that the Court is clearly legitimate, appointed by our democratically elected representatives, and in keeping with a two-plus hundred year separation of powers. When Democrats attack the Court, and promise that a "price" needs to be paid, they're attacking republican democracy.

DePape as described by his boss

thanks to Mark Zuckergberg's confession on the JRE Podcast, we know that FBI rigged the 2020 election by instructing US social media giants to BLACKLIST a FACTUAL story of Biden family corruption via selling access to the white house for personal gain

furthermore, a cabal of government agents was caught in their effort to rig the 2020 election & betray the oath to their country by running a disinformation campaign against a sitting United States president in order to steal his second presidential term:
(the left-wing fascist "Democrat" party is yet to persecute any for clear treason)



Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN: Didn’t respond.

Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit: “Yes, I stand by the statement made AT THE TIME, and would call attention to its 5th paragraph. I think sounding such a cautionary note AT THE TIME was appropriate.”

Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary, now runs a public policy institute at California State University: Declined comment.

John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.

Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University: Didn’t respond.

Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank: Didn’t respond.

John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University: Didn’t respond.

Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University: Didn’t respond.

Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems: Didn’t respond.

Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico: Didn’t respond.

Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism: Didn’t respond.

Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director: “The letter explicitly stated that we didn’t know if the emails were genuine, but that we were concerned about Russian disinformation efforts. I spent 25 years as a Soviet/Russian analyst. Given the context of what the Russians were doing at the time (and continue to do — Ukraine being just the latest example), I considered the cautionary warning to be prudent.”

Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director: “As far as I know I do [stand by the statement] but I’m kind of busy right now.”

John Moseman, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.

Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group:
Didn’t respond.

Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC: Didn’t respond.

Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff: Didn’t respond.

Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel: Didn’t respond.

David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager: “Thank you for reaching out. I have no further comment at this time.”

Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis: Didn’t respond.

Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard: Didn’t respond.

David Buckley, former CIA inspector general: Didn’t respond.

Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute: Didn’t respond.

Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office: Didn’t respond.

David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst: Didn’t respond.

Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer: Didn’t respond.

Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst: Didn’t respond.

Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer: Didn’t respond.

Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC: “My position has not changed any. I believe the Russians made a huge effort to alter the course of the election . . . The Russians are masters of blending truth and fiction and making something feel incredibly real when it’s not. Nothing I have seen really changes my opinion. I can’t tell you what part is real and what part is fake, but the thesis still stands for me, that it was a media influence hit job.”

Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis: Didn’t respond.

Ron Marks, former CIA officer: Didn’t respond.

Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum: “I don’t have any comment. I would need a little more information.”

Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico: “I have not seen any information since then that would alter the decision behind signing the letter. That’s all I can go into. The whole issue was highly politicized and I don’t want to deal with that. I still stand by that letter.”

Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer: Didn’t respond.

Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director: Didn’t respond.

John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer: Declined to comment.

Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs:
Didn’t respond.

Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues: Didn’t respond.

Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director: Didn’t respond.

David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman: Couldn’t be reached.

Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “I’ll pass. I haven’t followed the case recently.”

Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis: Couldn’t be reached.

This conversation is so silly. All we have to do is compare the reaction to the Kavanaugh incident with the Paul Pelosi incident. In the Kavanaugh case, there was no chorus of prominent people on the left reacting in a manner similar to how the right is reacting to the Pelosi incident. Correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't see prominent politicians and media figures on the center-left come out with bizarre conspiracy theories, or cruel jokes. Nancy Pelosi delaying a bill for a week and Chuck Schumer using irresponsible rhetoric(which was in the aftermath of Roe getting overturned, not a prominent Republican politician's spouse getting nearly beaten to death), is different from what is happening here.

My position is that there's political violence on both sides, there's some irresponsible rhetoric on both sides, but it's clearly much worse on the right, and that's pretty obvious considering the reaction from the right since Pelosi's husband got nearly beaten to death by a guy who wanted to tie up and break Nancy Pelosi's kneecaps. The right-wing voter's mind is so jaded and poisoned, the incentive for politicians/media figures is to engage in vice signaling. It's pretty gross, and also dangerous.

My position is also that it takes people like yourself to enable right-wing authoritarianism and right-wing violence, because no matter how extreme or crazy the candidate is, no matter how cruel they are, you simply must vote for them because *reasons*.

I'm not even voting in 22 because the stakes are not high enough to support pro-abortion politicians. I have standards, you do not.

You're comparing media coverage of an event, versus very little media coverage of an event, and wondering why there's more talk related to one versus the other. That should be obvious. Just compare media coverage of the Rittenhouse trial versus media coverage of Darrell Brooks murderous rampage.

Bold - That's the bubble talking. At this point in time, I'm closer to the median American voter than you are. The argument for Biden and against Trump was that Trump was uniquely dangerous and that Biden would return us to normal. That hasn't come to pass. The administration has mismanaged the economy, mismanaged the energy supply, and foreign policy, all the while focusing the bulk of its attention on the persecution of its enemies and the management of narratives via a sycophantic media. At some point, you need to stop blaming the party that holds neither the House, nor the Senate, nor the Presidency, and ask why American voters are about to toss the Democrats unceremoniously from office and replace them with these destructive, vile Republicans. Let's assume they are just as bad as you say, then what the hell is wrong with the Democratic party?

I think if your "Left wing assassin" caved Kavenaugh's head in with a hammer you'd have seen greater media coverage than Paul Pelosi. Do you possibly think that it didn't receive as much coverage as Kavenaugh was never in real danger?

An armed man shows up with a gun to a Supreme Court Justice's house. He's stopped by the presence of armed marshalls, and turns himself in. He's there because he's angry about what he's heard, and what he has heard are Democratic talking points. The difference between the two scenarios is the presence of armed guards. The rhetoric and polarization that led to the situation are the same. But the argument we're hearing is not that there's a lack of family protection for members of Congress, it's that the deranged pro-nudist Canadian was inspired by Republican talking points, and those need to stop. On the other hand, Democrats are not to blame for a mentally ill man reading the news and concluding that Kavanaugh needs to die, and it's completely innocuous and appropriate for left-wing activist groups to share the location of Amy Barrett's children and picket illegally outside their homes.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Nov 1 2022 09:49pm

So you've got footage of a democratic politician saying we need to kill Brett, the same way the house minority leader said he wanted to hit Pelosi with a hammer?

read an article today asking how Pelosi doesn't have the protection she use to have anymore

a former neighbor was saying there use to be 2 black vehicles outside their place daily, and why isn't their an alarm when a door/window opens?