Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Iuz the Evil]

2 hours ago, Greywind said:

As for that, my taxes are between me, my preparer and the IRS. Nobody else's business.

As long as you aren't running for elected office, I agree with you.

[Hermit]

8 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

If you get pulled over on a routine traffic stop and the police officer asks you if he can search your vehicle, do you let him?

 

I don't think it's an indicator of guilt if you don't volunteer to be investigated. Nobody in their right mind wants to be investigated.

 

That said, I think we have plenty of other indicators of guilt or at least bad character here, and if the people deciding this had any integrity, they'd have already tossed Kavanaugh out.

 

Pretty much this. When folks say "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" or the like, I snort. I've seen that excuse used too often to violate privacy rights. BUT I'm drifting into a whole nother kettle there.

 

But as Dean points out, this isn't a criminal trial, and as you point out we have plenty of other indicators challenging his increasingly shaky looking qualifications, such as ethical standards, which ARE supposed to matter for judges.

 

I believe innocent until proven guilty is essential to a good democracy when it comes to court trials, but this is a job hire, not that. In a world where someone can find themselves denied a job for say "Dude" in an interview or wearing the wrong tie? Kavanugh should have been told 'thank you for your time' and shown the proverbial door.

 

Then again, I thought that when Trump was running and footage of him boasting about grabbing women by the P****y surely he had disqualified himself for PotUS, so what do I know?

 

 

[Greywind]

2 hours ago, Iuz the Evil said:

As long as you aren't running for elected office, I agree with you.

 

Doesn't matter if I do or not.

 

Have you seen Washington's tax returns? Lincoln's? Kennedy's?

[Starlord]

45 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

Doesn't matter if I do or not.

 

Have you seen Washington's tax returns? Lincoln's? Kennedy's?

 

 

I haven't seen their FBI background checks either....

[Hermit]

2 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

 

I haven't seen their FBI background checks either.

 

This Freemason ties are...alarming.

 

*Puts it in the file*

[Lord Liaden]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

 

Pretty much this. When folks say "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" or the like, I snort. I've seen that excuse used too often to violate privacy rights. BUT I'm drifting into a whole nother kettle there.

 

 

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."

-- Edward Snowden

[DShomshak]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

 

But as Dean points out, this isn't a criminal trial, and as you point out we have plenty of other indicators challenging his increasingly shaky looking qualifications, such as ethical standards, which ARE supposed to matter for judges.

 

That was Lawnmower Boy who pointed out this was a hiring committee, not a trial. I just repeated his insight.

 

A few further thoughts:

 

First, Kavanaugh made himself easy to attack by presenting himself (or letting Trump and others present him) as such a perfect plaster saint. Plaster saints invite hammers to smash them. If he'd begun by saying that he'd had a wild youth but he'd repented of it and tried to be a better man, he'd be... Well, maybe not untouchable, but he'd be harder to attack. For instance, while insisting that he doesn't remember any such attack on Ford, if it did happen he apologizes and wants to help her and urges all women to report such attacks right away. Just from the most cynical, tactical standpoint, that would limit the damage. Lots of people love a repentant sinner, and it would avoid the question of his current honesty.

 

Second, I wonder if the blocking of Merrick Garland has something to do with current Republican intransigence on Kavanaugh. They escalated from trench warfare to scorched earth, total warfare; that no rules would constrain their attempt to win a total victory. They may feel they can't afford to back down, ever, to any degree. If they showed any weakness, they would invite worse attack and lose the support of their base. Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature has a good discussion of this prickly need to never back down in cultures that lack the restraining -- but also the protecting -- hand of law.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Hermit]

Just now, DShomshak said:

That was Lawnmower Boy who pointed out this was a hiring committee, not a trial. I just repeated his insight.

 

 

Oops! Apologies, Lawnmower Boy!

 

 

[Lord Liaden]

10 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Second, I wonder if the blocking of Merrick Garland has something to do with current Republican intransigence on Kavanaugh. They escalated from trench warfare to scorched earth, total warfare; that no rules would constrain their attempt to win a total victory. They may feel they can't afford to back down, ever, to any degree. If they showed any weakness, they would invite worse attack and lose the support of their base. Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature has a good discussion of this prickly need to never back down in cultures that lack the restraining -- but also the protecting -- hand of law.

 

Everything in American government today, whether appointments, budgets, legislative agenda, seems to be driven by an obsession for "winning" for "our side," whatever the cost. Individual issues aren't judged on their merits, but on what the "other side" wants or opposes, mainly because it's the other side. Victory has become its own goal, more than victory serving a purpose.

[Greywind]

49 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

 

I haven't seen their FBI background checks either....

 

Quote

Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.

Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy. Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly.

 

Not seeing where it is an obligation.

[Starlord]

14 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

 

Not seeing where it is an obligation.

 

Not seeing where I implied it was.  You seemed to be desiring a greater level of transparency in our government, I highlighted an area where we should start.

[Greywind]

I have a greater desire to remove politicians from politics.

[death tribble]

Provided we use a big catapult to do it

[Old Man]

On 9/24/2018 at 11:30 PM, 薔薇語 said:

Given the information we have now on the alleged event, what kind of progression could any investigation take? There are 4 relevant witness plus Prof Ford. All four say the claim is incorrect.

 

Wait--Kavanaugh's co-rapists all denied being present?  No!  It can't be!

[Starlord]

2 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

 

Not seeing where it is an obligation.

 

Not seeing where I implied that.  You seemed to desire more investigation and deeper transparency from our public officials and I suggested a means to do that.  It's impossible when they won't even provide a traditional good faith gesture (tax returns) to the American people (and then lie about why they can't provide them).

[Greywind]

Traditional, since Nixon...

 

Oh, wait, Ford didn't pony up either.

[薔薇語]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Wait--Kavanaugh's co-rapists all denied being present?  No!  It can't be!

 

The Judge and Mr. Judge have both denied the allegations. Beyond that  Prof. Ford named two others at the party but not engaged in the acts. One of which was her friend and that person said they can't recall ever being at a party with both the Prof and Judge. Check the CNN clip above. 

 

So I don't think your summation is accurate. 

 

La Rose. 

 

 

 

 

[Lucius]

4 hours ago, Greywind said:

I have a greater desire to remove politicians from politics.

 

That's how we get Trump

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Easier to remove palindromedaries from taglines than to remove politicians from politics

[薔薇語]

8 hours ago, DShomshak said:

That was Lawnmower Boy who pointed out this was a hiring committee, not a trial. I just repeated his insight.

 

A few further thoughts:

 

First, Kavanaugh made himself easy to attack by presenting himself (or letting Trump and others present him) as such a perfect plaster saint. Plaster saints invite hammers to smash them. If he'd begun by saying that he'd had a wild youth but he'd repented of it and tried to be a better man, he'd be... Well, maybe not untouchable, but he'd be harder to attack. For instance, while insisting that he doesn't remember any such attack on Ford, if it did happen he apologizes and wants to help her and urges all women to report such attacks right away. Just from the most cynical, tactical standpoint, that would limit the damage. Lots of people love a repentant sinner, and it would avoid the question of his current honesty.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

I am not sure that is a fair characterization of what the Judge has expressed. I am not sure why some think he was presenting himself as a saint. Saying one has never engaged in illegal sexual acts isn't quite the same as sainthood. 

 

Next, claims about his good character are not claims of sainthood by others. Nor does the judge have control over how others portray him. I think perhaps we are expecting far too much control over media narratives by the judge here. 

 

Moving on, it seems your solution for political blowback is rather unproductive. Take a moment and consider the idea that you, a decent man who has raped no one, were accused of a violet attempted rape. Would you feel the right way to proceed would be to say to the world "Dang! Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. Who the heck knows. I was such a terrible drunk back then! Let me go ahead and apologize regardless cause maybe..." There is no world in which that is the better option.

 

La Rose. 

 

Edited September 27, 2018 by 薔薇語
Hermit missed one and I editted both out.

[TheDarkness]

7 hours ago, DShomshak said:

That was Lawnmower Boy who pointed out this was a hiring committee, not a trial. I just repeated his insight.

 

A few further thoughts:

 

First, Kavanaugh made himself easy to attack by presenting himself (or letting Trump and others present him) as such a perfect plaster saint. Plaster saints invite hammers to smash them. If he'd begun by saying that he'd had a wild youth but he'd repented of it and tried to be a better man, he'd be... Well, maybe not untouchable, but he'd be harder to attack. For instance, while insisting that he doesn't remember any such attack on Ford, if it did happen he apologizes and wants to help her and urges all women to report such attacks right away. Just from the most cynical, tactical standpoint, that would limit the damage. Lots of people love a repentant sinner, and it would avoid the question of his current honesty.

 

Second, I wonder if the blocking of Merrick Garland has something to do with current Republican intransigence on Kavanaugh. They escalated from trench warfare to scorched earth, total warfare; that no rules would constrain their attempt to win a total victory. They may feel they can't afford to back down, ever, to any degree. If they showed any weakness, they would invite worse attack and lose the support of their base. Pinker's Better Angels of our Nature has a good discussion of this prickly need to never back down in cultures that lack the restraining -- but also the protecting -- hand of law.

 

Dean Shomshak

And he did paint himself this way, specifically stating that his life at that time was church, studies, and family as the central narrative. He has totally done this, saying , "I spent most of my time in high school focused on academics, sports, church, and service." and repainting his drinking then as an occasional thing, when even his friends from then paint an entirely different picture. A few beers. He's caught in a clear lie there, the fact that he's fighting to continue that lie does not make a reasonable listener want to go to the line believing him on other issues.

 

And, again, his chief supporters were supporters of Roy Moore, people who have entirely different reasons for supporting him than their belief in him.

 

The fact that the GOP is so quick to jump this same shark again so soon after Moore is a another blunder on their part.

[TheDarkness]

His words, "The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women."

 

Also, his words during part of that time he says he was doing the above, was the yearbook quote about hitting women.

 

There's more compelling cases to take to the innocence project.

[Ternaugh]

3 hours ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

I am not sure that is a fair characterization of what the Judge has expressed. I am not sure why some think he was presenting himself as a saint. Saying one has never engaged in illegal sexual acts isn't quite the same as sainthood. 

 

Next, claims about his good character are not claims of sainthood by others. Nor does the judge have control over how others portray him. I think perhaps we are expecting far too much control over media narratives by the judge here. 

 

Moving on, it seems your solution for political blowback is rather unproductive. Take a moment and consider the idea that you, a decent man who has raped no one, were accused of a violet attempted rape. Would you feel the right way to proceed would be to say to the world "F**k! Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. Who the f**k knows. I was such a terrible drunk back then! Let me go ahead and apologize regardless cause maybe..." There is no world in which that is the better option.

 

La Rose. 

 

 

"You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."

Edited September 27, 2018 by Ternaugh
And then you make the job harder by quoting it so i gotta edit twice/But you missed one

[薔薇語]

1 hour ago, TheDarkness said:

His words, "The allegation of misconduct is completely inconsistent with the rest of my life. The record of my life, from my days in grade school through the present day, shows that I have always promoted the equality and dignity of women."

 

 

Again, he didn't characterize himself as a saint. Even people of good character are allowed to get drunk. I can almost guarantee that everyone here drinks far more than I, but I would never use that as an excuse to impune one's character. Nor is being supportive of women exclusive with flirting. 

 

It seems as though lots of folks are establishing caricatures of what the person has actually said. The pursuit of justice requires us to try our eternal best to set aside such exaggerations. 

 

La Rose. 

[薔薇語]

33 minutes ago, Ternaugh said:

 

"You are fined one credit for a violation of the Verbal Morality Statute."

 

Huh? I know this is perhaps my first time ever using 'naughty' words on this forum, but I don't recall that being an issue in the past. Have the forum rules changed in the last few years? 

 

La Rose. 

[Hermit]

1 minute ago, 薔薇語 said:

 

Huh? I know this os perhaps my first time ever using 'naughty' words on this forum, but I don't recall that being an issue in the past. Have the forum rules changed in the last few years? 

 

La Rose. 

 

NOPE. The F word is supposed to be forbidden, and have been for a long time. I've asked folks in the past to please cut down on it as the folks of Hero Games hope to have folks of all ages visit.  It's not new, it's not rare, and honestly, I've caught a lot of s*it from folks for daring to make note of it to the point where I'm about ready to just delete whole posts when people  don't 'take their medicine' for moderation actions. I get it, folks disagree with the policy. they resent edits or corrections. But I didn't make that rule, and as far as I know, neither Jason nor Simon have removed it.

 

I've been trying to avoid giving infractions for it because I understand that 9 times out of 10 it's just a slip and seeing you were honestly clueless about this,  I am glad I just stuck to the edit.

 

I can to into more details on this if you want by PM but I'm distracting from the lovely world of politics as it is.