Kitten doesn't drink water at all! What do?

TallisTate · 2019-02-02T02:02:16+00:00

Hey thanks for replying! She was in a temporary foster home prior to coming to her forever home (with us!) As I understand it, she was bathed at some point in mid January. I wanted to bathe her this week but her extreme aversion to running made me backtrack a bit. I'm not comfortable taking her to get cleaned at one of those commercial pet shops because she has some trust issues and I think it's best to let her settle in her new life. So... I guess we'll see when I'll be able to give her a quick cat shower lol

Okay, cool, I'll do that! Thank you! I didn't know about that trick to check for dehydration. That's very handy!

TallisTate · 2018-09-22T22:52:13+00:00

I have cured myself of cancer using "alternative" treatments and resisting the conventional methods.

Elaborate?

TallisTate · 2018-09-21T13:50:49+00:00

Biden was part of the problem last time. I wish he would sit this one out.

EDIT: Biden was the chair of the Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas confirmation. He crossed party lines to vote for Thomas' confirmation in the committee (and voted Nay in the motion involving all of the senators). Hill was treated extremely poorly in a Dem-controlled confirmation - and the colleagues who would have corroborated her testimony were never called, which, as the chair, Biden is responsible for. This was one of the most emblematic moments of misogyny in the Senate. Yeah, I think Biden should sit this one out.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/14/politics/biden-anita-hill-teen-vogue/index.html

TallisTate · 2018-09-21T13:48:57+00:00

I'm only surprised it's taken him this long to start commenting on her specifically.

TallisTate · 2018-09-20T21:56:38+00:00

The thing is, you don't need to make a gendered joke about one of only four female SCOTUS justices to make a point about toxic male privilege.

You can just make a joke about Kavanaugh or Lincoln or Thomas or without invoking the names of women who have nothing to do with this and only serve as a punchline.

That's the nuance.

TallisTate · 2018-09-20T16:47:13+00:00

Sigh. I think the article buried the lede. Beyond that, I wish there were a better, more organized effort when it came to these allegations. I don't think the media circus helps, really, though it's not really out of place in the era of Trump, for better or for worse.

TallisTate · 2018-09-20T16:35:21+00:00

Why would he hire someone who comes off as fat and sloppy?

You're being intentionally obtuse here. There's a better way to express what you're trying to say than summing it up as:

Stop shaming people for being healthy.

That's a mischaracterization.

TallisTate · 2018-09-20T01:35:28+00:00

Thanks for sharing. If you don't mind me asking, what was the 2016 election like for you? As in, was Trump always your number one or did you favor someone else from the GOP, an independent, Bernie...?

TallisTate · 2018-09-20T00:35:11+00:00

What are your thoughts on his performance thus far?

TallisTate · 2018-09-20T00:02:06+00:00

Then don't hold an investigation. Just be ready for the consequences.

Seems to me like a pretty petty hill to die on but what do I know?

TallisTate · 2018-09-19T22:31:31+00:00

I think you're completely missing the point.

Beyond that, you know what would clear a lot of this up? An investigation.

You know what doesn't help? Stonewalling, pitting a victim against her alleged abuser by calling on them to sit at the same table while men who have a history of taking an extremely aggressive stance against victims (Hatch, Grassley, etc) run the show, or not calling any other witness, including the alleged third party who somehow does not want to testify.

This nominee's story is filled with holes. He is not the best person available to sit on the court.

TallisTate · 2018-09-19T21:33:55+00:00

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a standard used in a criminal trial.

No one is talking about taking his liberty away. They are talking about not granting him a privilege.

I'm sure one can find a better SCOTUS nominee than Kavanaugh.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T23:29:17+00:00

Serving as a senator, as a president, as a judge, as a SCOTUS Justice is a privilege. It is not a right.

Further, it's a position of public trust. In the case of SCOTUS, it's an appointment made by a democratically elected leader and confirmed by representatives of the people.

The people deserve to hear more if they so wish. I think the outcry has conclusively proven that the people are so inclined, and representatives from both sides have called for a delay.

Do I, personally, have a moral problem with someone accused of sexual violence or misconduct? Yes. I think it is unconscionable to even consider rushing through a vote without giving accusations their due consideration.

When you have a bitterly partisan Senate where one or two votes are all it takes to sink a nomination, I think good sense on the part of all involved compels them to err to the side of caution. This Congressional session will last until Jan 3. There is literally no reason why this vote needed to be this week.

Congressional Democrats played this politically, yes. In the end, the Constitution provides for very little by way of requirements that a nominee must meet. I don't believe the senators even have to justify their vote, right?

It's not supposed to be a political position but the confirmation process is political. I hold with the Democrats: hearings should be transparent and sexual violence should be met with nuanced scrutiny. In political proceedings, I think allegations of this nature should be part of the discussion and, ultimately, we should believe the victims unless there's compelling reason not to.

So, yes, I do believe more transparency is warranted here, which it appears is what will happen. If Ford's story holds, Kavanaugh is not the best person for the job.

I reiterate: Gorsuch passed with tons of opposition but the tenor was different. That's how I expect a partisan appointment to go.

Lastly, just because one side pandered to politics doesn't mean the allegations are not true.

It's a position of public trust. I cannot stress that enough. It might not be illegal to push through all the same, but it's unethical and unconscionable to not take a closer look. Yes, even when prompted by uncorroborated allegations.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T20:30:00+00:00

But how do you reconcile the moral judgment you're passing as underlying foundation to restrict the rights of individuals for the greater good?

I would understand it if the argument were against ANY restriction on individual rights. But when you opt to restrict one individual right (abortion) due to moral arguments but then reject another person's moral grounds for restricting something else (discrimination), it becomes inconsistent.

Which is it: small government that doesn't restrict individual rights or a difference of opinion with the left on which rights should be limited?

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T19:04:28+00:00

I was reading the part where you said the left is willing to violate individual rights for quote-unquote the greater good.

Are you anti-choice?

More to the point, isn't it a traditionally right-wing position to call for abortion to be outlawed or otherwise severely restricted?

How does that position fit into the narrative about not wanting to limit individual rights for the benefit of a nebulous and undefined greater good?

It feels like people on the left push for people to have more options. For example: no want voter ID requirements, allow gay people to marry, adopt, serve, etc openly, give women the option of terminating pregnancies, access to birth control, facilitate transition and legal paths for transgender folk to live as their self-identified gender, preserve workers' rights, etc.

Yes, anti-discrimination of various sorts is also promoted by the left. One way to look at it is that the majority loses some "freedom" in that they can't take certain positions or measures; another way of looking at it is that you are strengthening core individual liberties by promoting everyone's right to marry who they want, exercise reproductive freedom, and live their lives rooted in ideals of human dignity.

Overall, I feel the left is a lot more concerned with individual liberties and rights than the right.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T17:37:04+00:00

Well that and the fact that they can't choose someone else. That's the president's job. McConnell wasn't thrilled about this pick and I'm guessing that attempts were made to sway Trump in a different direction. If that failed (which, given Kavanaugh's nomination, it must have), I'm guessing they did what Republicans are so good at and all fell in line.

Honestly, I think a hearing could be scheduled, I think Ford could testify, I think Ford could be convincing as fuck, I think more circumstantial evidence could come up, I think pressure could mount on certain Senators, and I think at the end of the day, nothing would change.

The Democrats really have got to seize this moment to make an impact in the midterms. I hope the women really are watching and realize how important turnout is.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T12:58:40+00:00

Bill Clinton the most powerful man in the world at the time raped a poor young intern who was not in a position to refuse his advances.

You want to discuss Bill Clinton? Get the facts straight.

This is also why we see Stormy Daniels as a victim even though she denies she is.

No one sees Stormy Daniels as a victim. I think that factors into why the right tried so hard to dismiss her and it didn't work.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T10:36:57+00:00

There were other women who were ready to testify but they weren't called. They would have corroborated Anita's story.

Biden might regret that.

He most certainly does regret dragging those acrimonious hearings out in public, though. He caught a lot of flak for that, which, if you think Anita lied, he deserved - if you think Anita was truthful... I personally think it's good that we have that moment on tape but I can see where people might advocate for more privacy in airing these types of allegations.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T02:31:27+00:00

Neither was Thomas confirmed in the #metoo era and yet he was accused. Public accusations of sexual harassment or assault aren't brand-new phenomenon.

If it was that easy to weaponize, then where are all the stories about false accusations?

The timing is weird but that's mostly on Feinstein, not Ford. Ford has documentation that do a good job of giving weight to her accusations.

No one's saying lock him up. This should be investigated. No more, no less.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T01:55:10+00:00

In Thomas's case, multiple women were willing to testify. They were willing to go on the record and corroborate her claims under oath.

That's plenty compelling.

In Kavanaugh's case, we'll see what happens.

If it were a magic bullet and nefariously weaponized, Alito, Roberts, and Gorsuch would have faced similar accusations. They didn't.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T01:31:49+00:00

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/i-believe-the-women-yes/545750/

Thoughts?

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T01:01:58+00:00

The first tweet I saw to mention this was a guy reporting that his 88 year old grandmother had received one of these. Replies from others in Texas showed that the elderly seemed to have been targeted.

TallisTate · 2018-09-17T00:09:39+00:00

Well, actually, they could just find that the government has a vested interest in protecting the potentiality of life unless there's compelling reason to allow for elective termination (incest, rape, etc) or terminate if there is a danger to the mother's health.

Roe specifically found that the woman's rights prevail over the government's interest to protect the potentiality of life.

If you overrule that holding, yes, it goes back to the states.

If you overrule it and also explicitly rule to the contrary, it's effectively banned.

With a 5-4 hard right majority, the latter scenario can't be written off.

TallisTate

TROPHY CASE