• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch [W:22:273]

Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

Once all that information is gathered.......keeping it from going places is based on trusting operatives to keep it safe--and that doesn't always happen.

This could happen when someone was targeted (as Trump may have been) and I don't see how it would require a significant conspiracy.......could happen with just the two actors I mention.
Click to expand...


cpwill said:
2 Actors can't redirect US Collection like that
Click to expand...

But they CAN make use of the information after it's collected.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

cpwill said:
....it's possible, I suppose. I find it less likely. A politically motivated partisan seems more likely than a mid-level analyst deciding to throw away their career.
Click to expand...

If you covered your tracks well enough your career would be safe.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

Vox said:
But they CAN make use of the information after it's collected.
Click to expand...
Correct. What they CAN'T do is launch a new targeting program, as you initially described.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

cpwill said:
Correct. What they CAN'T do is launch a new targeting program, as you initially described.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have to start the targeting program......that could evolve naturally. Especially with a lightning rod like Trump.

All they'd have to do is use the info after it was collected.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

Vox said:
If you covered your tracks well enough your career would be safe.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. If only two people are in a natural position to know X, then both know where suspicion will fall.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

cpwill said:
Unlikely. If only two people are in a natural position to know X, then both know where suspicion will fall.
Click to expand...

I don't know that that is the case.

It's almost certain that many people would have access to the information......not just two.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

Vox said:
They wouldn't have to start the targeting program......that could evolve naturally. Especially with a lightning rod like Trump.

All they'd have to do is use the info after it was collected.
Click to expand...

SIGINT (and especially linguists) at that point are a pretty high-demand low-density item. You dont' end up accidentally wandering into collecting on entirely different target sets because we just kinda got curious and wandered around.... You target. You target based off of specific authorities, along defined priorities that are established at the national level.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

Vox said:
I don't know that that is the case.

It's almost certain that many people would have access to the information......not just two.
Click to expand...

Two is a stab, but I don't think "many" is appropriate - USPER data is stripped out in the processing and exploitation phase. Well before the report is published/released.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

cpwill said:
SIGINT (and especially linguists) at that point are a pretty high-demand low-density item. You dont' end up accidentally wandering into collecting on entirely different target sets because we just kinda got curious and wandered around.... You target. You target based off of specific authorities, along defined priorities that are established at the national level.
Click to expand...

All of which does not really render my scenario unlikely at all.

As to the question of access......if both "two" and "many" are problematic numbers.......I'll go with "enough."

As you say.....it's all theory at this point, but my post is meant to show that it is definitely possible.

Appreciate your polite comments.

:2usflag:
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

Democrats Have a Gorsuch Problem
Albert Hunt, Bloomberg

Neil Gorsuch will have the support of all 52 Senate Republicans for confirmation to the Supreme Court. He also could win the votes of a half-dozen or so Democrats, and therein lies a problem for that party.
Unlike President Donald Trump's budget or the Republican health-care plan, which are so flawed that it's easy for all Democrats to oppose them, backing Gorsuch may have some political appeal for Democrats from conservative states. That has inflamed left-wing activists, who have threatened to oppose any Senate Democrat who supports Trump's Supreme Court nominee. . . .
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

ReverendHellh0und said:
History says you are wrong, maybe in todays environment, possibly.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor_Supreme_Court_nomination

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan_Supreme_Court_nomination


In fact the opposite happened.
Click to expand...

Why the **** do you post stupid Wiki links and quote mw?

"The opposite happened"? How stupid can your posts be. I was talking about what would have happened had Hillary won the election. Yes, Trump won. I know that. WTF is with your stupid posts?
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

tres borrachos said:
Why the **** do you post stupid Wiki links and quote mw?

"The opposite happened"? How stupid can your posts be. I was talking about what would have happened had Hillary won the election. Yes, Trump won. I know that. WTF is with your stupid posts?
Click to expand...



You said:

tres borrachos said:
Yup, if we're being honest, had Hillary won the election (which isn't any more appealing than the person who actually did win it), the GOP would have done everything in their power to block her nominees, that's true. However, her first nominee would have been a liberal replacing a safe conservative vote (Scalia). That's why I think it's stupid for the Dems to block Gorsuch. It isn't like he's replacing someone who was liberal. They need to save that action, such as it is, for the next nominee, who will be replacing either a sure liberal vote (Ginsburg) or a swing vote (Kennedy).
Click to expand...


I pointed out, historically, you are incorrect as the confirmations of the two Obama picked, did not get as much static as we see now. It's actually quite simple to get, I find it Ironic you would call my post stupid, yet you were unable to grasp it's easy premise. The evidence that the same thing would have happened under hillary, isn't there. that's what my two links show.

I hope this makes my point understandable and you can calm down and try to respond civilly. Thanks!
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

ReverendHellh0und said:
You said:




I pointed out, historically, you are incorrect as the confirmations of the two Obama picked, did not get as much static as we see now. It's actually quite simple to get, I find it Ironic you would call my post stupid, yet you were unable to grasp it's easy premise. The evidence that the same thing would have happened under hillary, isn't there. that's what my two links show.

I hope this makes my point understandable and you can calm down and try to respond civilly. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Your point is irrelevant to my post. The GOP refused to even grant a hearing to a moderate like Garland because they knew that Scalia's seat was one of the most conservative on the court. Sotomayor replaced a very moderate Souter. Kagan replaced a very moderately borderline conservative John Paul Stevens. The GOP would have fought Hillary's liberal justice nomination and behaved exactly like the Democrats are with Gorsuch, which is stupid, as I pointed out, because the Democrats are not defending a liberal seat on the bench.

Your "point" doesn't change that. The confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan are not relevant in this particular discussion.
 
If dems are seriously you g to filibuster a guy who they not only couldn't lay a glove on but who slapped them around in his hearings, then they're going to so serious damage to themselves in the future. First of all, the most liberal justice on the court, RBG, received something like 82 votes. So don't ever tell me republicans are obstructionist when their supreme court nominees have trouble topping 55 votes and dems consistently get more that 60. Second, Trump is a vindictive bastard. If you think that he won't punish the democrats with his second nominee if he gets a chance at one if they filibuster Gorsuch, then you're a fool. If dems filibuster then you have to seriously consider that Trump nominates a guy like Ted Cruz if he gets another spot open. Just to give a middle finger to the left.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

tres borrachos said:
Your point is irrelevant to my post. The GOP refused to even grant a hearing to a moderate like Garland because they knew that Scalia's seat was one of the most conservative on the court. Sotomayor replaced a very moderate Souter. Kagan replaced a very moderately borderline conservative John Paul Stevens. The GOP would have fought Hillary's liberal justice nomination and behaved exactly like the Democrats are with Gorsuch, which is stupid, as I pointed out, because the Democrats are not defending a liberal seat on the bench.

Your "point" doesn't change that. The confirmations of Sotomayor and Kagan are not relevant in this particular discussion.
Click to expand...


lol, I guess when you cherry pick and omit things that don't help your point, ignore reality, maybe. :lol:
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch

Republicans win in this situation easily.

Obama nominates a judge that can't even get a hearing. Obama had an opportunity to sneak him in through a recess appointment, and failed to do so. The leadership of the Democratic party is broken.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch [W:22]

TurtleDude said:
The Democrat party is well known in pandering to various constituency groups. Picking Sotomayor was a bone thrown to hispanics and women. Kogan, women, Jews and perhaps lesbians. Now I strongly urged Bush II to appoint Peter Keisler and Lee Liberman and Steven Calabresi to the federal courts. All are Jewish. Bush certainly wasn't trying to pander to Catholics by appointing Roberts or Alito nor Italians in the case of the latter. He was picking who he thought were the best possible conservative picks.
Click to expand...

So we took care of the Hispanics and women, the Jews and lesbians, the women and the Jews, and then we put actual justices on the bench.

Wow. I don't like gun banners any more than the next gun tootin' cowboy, but I'd hate to think half the court are tokens and/or the result of "sexist/racist AA".
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch [W:22]

ecofarm said:
So we took care of the Hispanics and women, the Jews and lesbians, the women and the Jews, and then we put actual justices on the bench.

Wow. I don't like gun banners any more than the next gun tootin' cowboy, but I'd hate to think half the court are tokens and/or the result of "sexist/racist AA".
Click to expand...

Kagan and Sotomayor clearly were.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch [W:22]

ecofarm said:
Good thing no white male tokens.
Click to expand...

if you think any of the white men were picked to pander to that group, go ahead and try to prove it.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch [W:22]

TurtleDude said:
if you think any of the white men were picked to pander to that group, go ahead and try to prove it.
Click to expand...

White men don't favor white men, no way. White men lean towards minorities except those tokens.
 
Re: Key Democrats will filibuster Gorsuch [W:22]

ecofarm said:
White men don't favor white men, no way. White men lean towards minorities except those tokens.
Click to expand...

most of the people qualified to be supreme court judges at the time they were picked were white men. that being top graduates from the very best law schools who had substantial experience in federal appellate issues
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom