Brett Kavanaugh

[Spartanmack]

I don't have a ton of doubt here. It's pretty straightforward. I believe you don't like everything about Trump but I also believe that he would have far less support on this board if not for you. You don't consider yourself a supporter as a description of who you are, but you often support him. That's a thing that you do.



While I voted overwhelmingly republican in a lot of elections, I haven't considered myself to be a republican for a long time. Far more frustrated with republicans than democrats because I'd like to still be a republican. Seems like there was a question directed at the board conservatives and I answered "I don't know if I have any conservative cred left, but...".

I support conservatives like Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy, etc. I defend Trump against the absurd criticisms and allegations and since there are very few on DSF who do, by comparison that may make me look like a supporter but I consider myself as defending more than supporting. I'm someone who looks at these things case by case and call bull shit when appropriate.

 

[Spartanmack]

Weird that bob didn't post this story with yet another repeat of his verbal diarrhea about the evils of Citizens United. Leftists were literally blackmailing Collins to vote against Kavanaugh or they were going to spend millions on her opponent in the next election...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...for-trying-to-buy-votes/ar-BBO5wgW?ocid=ientp

 

[Thumb]

Weird that bob didn't post this story with yet another repeat of his verbal diarrhea about the evils of Citizens United. Leftists were literally blackmailing Collins to vote against Kavanaugh or they were going to spend millions on her opponent in the next election...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...for-trying-to-buy-votes/ar-BBO5wgW?ocid=ientp

I don't think it was blackmail, because they were going to spend that money on her opponent anyways. Everyone knows that, and I'm sure she knew that as well.

But I'm interested to hear what you think is the difference between that and when someone takes a shitload of money from the NRA or some other lobbyist to vote the way they want them to, is that not also trying to buy votes? Or does it only count when you throw the word "activists" in from of it?

 

[tigermud]

Weird that bob didn't post this story with yet another repeat of his verbal diarrhea about the evils of Citizens United. Leftists were literally blackmailing Collins to vote against Kavanaugh or they were going to spend millions on her opponent in the next election...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...for-trying-to-buy-votes/ar-BBO5wgW?ocid=ientp

The left is off the rails, there is nothing left to say.

https://www.infowars.com/leftist-tantrum-a-ticking-time-bomb/

https://www.infowars.com/video-anti...direct-traffic-threaten-people-who-dont-obey/

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't think it was blackmail, because they were going to spend that money on her opponent anyways. Everyone knows that, and I'm sure she knew that as well.

But I'm interested to hear what you think is the difference between that and when someone takes a shitload of money from the NRA or some other lobbyist to vote the way they want them to, is that not also trying to buy votes? Or does it only count when you throw the word "activists" in from of it?

The word activist has nothing to do with it and I never said anything about buying votes. If what is reported is true, that they threatened to fund her opposition to the tune of millions if she didn't vote a certain way, that sounds like blackmail to me.

As for my position on the NRA, I've said many times the NRA's actual political donations are small - a rounding error compared to other special interest groups. And as long as unions and other special interest groups get to pump millions into elections (many times more than the NRA), and as long as there are government sector unions, supporting elected officials they directly negotiate collective bargaining agreements with, then the NRA should also be able to throw millions of dollars into elections. To answer your question, I don't see a difference but I'm not the partisan hypocrite here when it comes to Citizens United.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The word activist has nothing to do with it and I never said anything about buying votes. If what is reported is true, that they threatened to fund her opposition to the tune of millions if she didn't vote a certain way, that sounds like blackmail to me.

Looks like Collins would be up for reelection in 2020. I doubt she’s even announced yet that she’s going to seek reelection; it would be atypical to make an announcement like that with an intervening election not yet having taken place.

I don’t know how many millions of dollars are typically spent by each candidate on a senatorial race in Maine.

I do have to say that I see Thumb’s point here-assuming Collins runs and is nominated by the Republicans again, Democrats and their traditional supporters are going to donate money to opponent anyway.

I don’t know where parttisan donating ends and blackmail begins.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don?t know where parttisan donating ends and blackmail begins.

I don't know either, I was just shocked that headline didn't spark a Citizen's United rant by the resident Citizen's United ranter.

 

[Thumb]

The word activist has nothing to do with it and I never said anything about buying votes. If what is reported is true, that they threatened to fund her opposition to the tune of millions if she didn't vote a certain way, that sounds like blackmail to me.

As for my position on the NRA, I've said many times the NRA's actual political donations are small - a rounding error compared to other special interest groups. And as long as unions and other special interest groups get to pump millions into elections (many times more than the NRA), and as long as there are government sector unions, supporting elected officials they directly negotiate collective bargaining agreements with, then the NRA should also be able to throw millions of dollars into elections. To answer your question, I don't see a difference but I'm not the partisan hypocrite here when it comes to Citizens United.

It was in the title of the link you posted, and a quoted from Susan Collins, so I assumed it was fair game to question you about.

Also, I didn't ask your position on the NRA...frankly I could care less, I was pointing out that lobbyists and the NRA (and unions) giving money while expecting a certain outcome on votes is really no different than what Susan Collins is claiming people are trying to buy votes with.

 

[Spartanmack]

It was in the title of the link you posted, and a quoted from Susan Collins, so I assumed it was fair game to question you about.

Also, I didn't ask your position on the NRA...frankly I could care less, I was pointing out that lobbyists and the NRA (and unions) giving money while expecting a certain outcome on votes is really no different than what Susan Collins is claiming people are trying to buy votes with.

maybe you should just stick to questions about what I actually say.

You asked me how the NRA spending money was different. I gave you my position on the NRA spending money, but left out that I was specifically talking about spending money - whoa, you really got me there. Except I did answer your question directly in that paragraph - it should be obvious that's what I was talking about. It's no different but again, that's not the issue I'm bringing up here, that should also be obvious - especially considering I've now stated twice that I don't see a difference in spending by the NRA or "activists."

 

[Gulo Blue]

The word activist has nothing to do with it and I never said anything about buying votes. If what is reported is true, that they threatened to fund her opposition to the tune of millions if she didn't vote a certain way, that sounds like blackmail to me.

As for my position on the NRA, I've said many times the NRA's actual political donations are small - a rounding error compared to other special interest groups. And as long as unions and other special interest groups get to pump millions into elections (many times more than the NRA), and as long as there are government sector unions, supporting elected officials they directly negotiate collective bargaining agreements with, then the NRA should also be able to throw millions of dollars into elections. To answer your question, I don't see a difference but I'm not the partisan hypocrite here when it comes to Citizens United.

We're you saying they spent like $3-4 million?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I don’t know where parttisan donating ends and blackmail begins.

I always thought of blackmail as a demand for money, otherwise you threaten to do something. Offering money to get what you want is a bribe. Threatening to give money to an opponent to get what you want, has elements of both, but I'm not sure if there's a word for it. I don't think it's dirty if it's grassroots and open like this. Far dirtier if it's a single source negotiating behind the scenes.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I always thought of blackmail as a demand for money, otherwise you threaten to do something. Offering money to get what you want is a bribe. Threatening to give money to an opponent to get what you want, has elements of both, but I'm not sure if there's a word for it. I don't think it's dirty if it's grassroots and open like this. Far dirtier if it's a single source negotiating behind the scenes.

Yeah, sounds like word is politics to me.

Manchin voted for Kavanaugh yet Trump is endorsing his Republican opponent-he?s the state Attorney General, I forget his name and I don?t feel like looking it up right now-anyway.

Assuming Collins is the Republican candidate in 2020, liberal organizations are going to donate money to her Democrat opponent anyway.

Donating money to her democrat opponent in 2020 because she voted for Kavanagh seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

 

[Thumb]

As far as the whole "blackmail" thing, I think it's a poor definition, picked simply to sensationalize what happened. Any other day of the week it would just be called politics.

 

[Gulo Blue]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ett-kavanaugh-nomination-by-a-28-point-margin


Only 41% wanted Kavanaugh confirmed and only 36% approve of how the democrats handled things.

 

[Spartanmack]

We're you saying they spent like $3-4 million?

who is they?

 

[Gulo Blue]

who is they?

The NRA.



And I make my fair share of typing/spelling/grammar errors, but whoo, "we're" instead of "weren't" is 2 errors in 1 word. That's a pretty good one.


But where I'm going is that I seem to remember having some conversation and you were talking about how little the NRA contributes using some small number of millions, and shortly after that conversation a news article came out talking about how the NRA pumped hundreds of millions into political activities that people weren't accounting for when they cited the handful of millions of direct political contributions they make. I think there's even some investigation about some of that money being Russian.

 

[Spartanmack]

The NRA.



And I make my fair share of typing/spelling/grammar errors, but whoo, "we're" instead of "weren't" is 2 errors in 1 word. That's a pretty good one.


But where I'm going is that I seem to remember having some conversation and you were talking about how little the NRA contributes using some small number of millions, and shortly after that conversation a news article came out talking about how the NRA pumped hundreds of millions into political activities that people weren't accounting for when they cited the handful of millions of direct political contributions they make. I think there's even some investigation about some of that money being Russian.

that's not the point, but if it were, what the NRA spent in total on 2016 was less than 1/3 of the money spent by unions.

I also never said anything about buying votes. My post was simply asking why Bob wasn't up in arms about Citzens United allowing millions to be sent to Super PACs or wherever it was going to be spent on an election. He claims it's bad when either side does it, but we never seem to hear about it if it's not going to republicans. It's an appropriate and fair question.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that's not the point, but if it were, what the NRA spent in total on 2016 was less than 1/3 of the money spent by unions.

I also never said anything about buying votes. My post was simply asking why Bob wasn't up in arms about Citzens United allowing millions to be sent to Super PACs or wherever it was going to be spent on an election. He claims it's bad when either side does it, but we never seem to hear about it if it's not going to republicans. It's an appropriate and fair question.

We've gone from "a rounding error compared to other special interest groups" in the post I replied to to "less than 1/3 of the money spent by unions". I feel like that shift fairly reflects the change from a handful of millions to wherever it is now.

 

[Spartanmack]

We've gone from "a rounding error compared to other special interest groups" in the post I replied to to "less than 1/3 of the money spent by unions". I feel like that shift fairly reflects the change from a handful of millions to wherever it is now.

no, we haven't. We've gone from that's not the point to that's not the point while you're trying to change the subject.

And I haven't gone from a rounding error to less than a 1/3 of the money spent by unions. The $ the NRA spends on direct political donations and lobbying is a rounding error. When you include indirect spending on things like targeted ads, they're still just a fraction of what unions and other special interest groups spend. It's comical to think Washington is bought and paid for by the NRA, which is the argument we're usually having when people bring up spending by the NRA. But again, that's not the point of my post.

 

[Gulo Blue]

no, we haven't. We've gone from that's not the point to that's not the point while you're trying to change the subject.

And I haven't gone from a rounding error to less than a 1/3 of the money spent by unions. The $ the NRA spends on direct political donations and lobbying is a rounding error. When you include indirect spending on things like targeted ads, they're still just a fraction of what unions and other special interest groups spend. It's comical to think Washington is bought and paid for by the NRA, which is the argument we're usually having when people bring up spending by the NRA. But again, that's not the point of my post.

I certainly never made that claim, the Washington bought and paid for bit.