Actual Values vs Party Values

[Y2HH]

7 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

I do think when you are talking about Trump, it is an "us vs. them" situation. I usually vote democrat, but have voted for republicans in the past. Right now, I would never vote for a republican. That is a vote to leave Trump unchecked, because they are afraid.  The guy isn't even republican and he hijacked the republican party. 

Anywhere but the US, I would find it fascinating. Here, it's just scary. 

There is nothing wrong with this line of thinking -- it's quite reasonable based on everything we are seeing. My issue is moreso people getting "generalized" these days. It turns me off from wanting to have a discussion, and I find it ugly when either side does it. Calling all Trump supporters racists is simple minded and bothers me to no end. Maybe, just maybe, there are specific things that person finds important that Trump seems to represent to them, and other things he does they don't care for at all.

I simply cannot grasp how a person can be all or nothing for a candidate.

For example, I wasn't a big fan of Obama's foreign policy whatsoever. The usage of drones, the neverending wars that were promised to be ending, etc. Whereas I quite agreed with "some" of his domestic environmental initiatives, and I especially agreed with him on net neutrality, both areas I very much oppose Trump on.

[bmags]

16 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

There is nothing wrong with this line of thinking -- it's quite reasonable based on everything we are seeing. My issue is moreso people getting "generalized" these days. It turns me off from wanting to have a discussion, and I find it ugly when either side does it. Calling all Trump supporters racists is simple minded and bothers me to no end. Maybe, just maybe, there are specific things that person finds important that Trump seems to represent to them, and other things he does they don't care for at all.

I simply cannot grasp how a person can be all or nothing for a candidate.

For example, I wasn't a big fan of Obama's foreign policy whatsoever. The usage of drones, the neverending wars that were promised to be ending, etc. Whereas I quite agreed with "some" of his domestic environmental initiatives, and I especially agreed with him on net neutrality, both areas I very much oppose Trump on.

Who are we talking about though?

[Y2HH]

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

Who are we talking about though?

The specific who isn't important here, it's just that it happens, and it happens quite often in political discussions. There are probably even people on this forum guilty of calling Trump supporters racists in a very blanket way.

[ptatc]

31 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

There is nothing wrong with this line of thinking -- it's quite reasonable based on everything we are seeing. My issue is moreso people getting "generalized" these days. It turns me off from wanting to have a discussion, and I find it ugly when either side does it. Calling all Trump supporters racists is simple minded and bothers me to no end. Maybe, just maybe, there are specific things that person finds important that Trump seems to represent to them, and other things he does they don't care for at all.

I simply cannot grasp how a person can be all or nothing for a candidate.

For example, I wasn't a big fan of Obama's foreign policy whatsoever. The usage of drones, the neverending wars that were promised to be ending, etc. Whereas I quite agreed with "some" of his domestic environmental initiatives, and I especially agreed with him on net neutrality, both areas I very much oppose Trump on.

These are my issues with politics today. I've never agreed with everything any single politician views. All have some I agree with and some I don't. Identifying with the person and not the issues just seems wrong as even the best ones, from a person's view, can't agree on everything. It really makes it difficult to get issues discussed when all discussion lower to name generalizations. 

Even in my discussion about the kavanugh case, people were calling me awful because I was questioning the timing of her release and said I was defending Kavanaugh. When in fact every post stated that in my view he should have been prosecuted years ago and never been a judge at any level.

Discussion today jumps to quickly to who your "person" is not individual issues. I think on a sports discussion board it's even more so. Today people are conditioned to identify with stars. They are promoted shamelessly in all sports. In fact baseball has been criticized for not promoting stars like Mike trout enough. I'm old but I like the rooting for the name on the front instead of the back philosophy and discuss issues not straight party or politician sides.

[ptatc]

19 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

The specific who isn't important here, it's just that it happens, and it happens quite often in political discussions. There are probably even people on this forum guilty of calling Trump supporters racists in a very blanket way.

Agreed it's not the who that matters but WHAT the issue is that matters.

It's the substance that matters not the style. Unfortunately fortunately we just currently have a President who is sorely lacking in both.

Edited September 21, 2018 by ptatc

[illinilaw08]

5 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

The specific who isn't important here, it's just that it happens, and it happens quite often in political discussions. There are probably even people on this forum guilty of calling Trump supporters racists in a very blanket way.

The who is very important - otherwise you are just trading in anecdotes.

It's a verifiable fact, for example, that white supremacists have obtained a larger platform since Donald Trump's election.  Donald Trump has used his platform as President to push issues that are pretty clearly racial issues (the flag vs. the NFL, tweeting white supremacist talking points about South Africa, "both sides" at Charlottesville, having Bannon and Miller - among others - influencing policy coming out of the White House).  I agree that not every Trump supporter is a racist.  But it is also true that votes FOR Donald Trump are votes for a guy who seems pretty racist.  Maybe you didn't vote for him because of those issues, but you are either willfully blind to his racist statements (IMO a lot of Trump's voters don't think those statements are racially tinged at all) or you don't care enough about those issues to influence your vote.

Also, it bugs me when we have these discussions about "generalizations" in politics, and it comes in the same thread where you literally generalized all of Hollywood AND generalized how people on the left talk about Trump supporters...

 

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

The who is very important - otherwise you are just trading in anecdotes.

It's a verifiable fact, for example, that white supremacists have obtained a larger platform since Donald Trump's election.  Donald Trump has used his platform as President to push issues that are pretty clearly racial issues (the flag vs. the NFL, tweeting white supremacist talking points about South Africa, "both sides" at Charlottesville, having Bannon and Miller - among others - influencing policy coming out of the White House).  I agree that not every Trump supporter is a racist.  But it is also true that votes FOR Donald Trump are votes for a guy who seems pretty racist.  Maybe you didn't vote for him because of those issues, but you are either willfully blind to his racist statements (IMO a lot of Trump's voters don't think those statements are racially tinged at all) or you don't care enough about those issues to influence your vote.

Also, it bugs me when we have these discussions about "generalizations" in politics, and it comes in the same thread where you literally generalized all of Hollywood AND generalized how people on the left talk about Trump supporters...

 

It's not generalizations if you pick a topic and stick to it instead of bringing something else into it. Can you agree with an economic policy but not the foreign policy. Discuss the specific policy to see if there is a benefit to one or another without breaking down into the immigration policy. Policies can be discussed to determine if you think they are beneficial then put them together to see if you like that person's total agenda.

[Y2HH]

3 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

The who is very important - otherwise you are just trading in anecdotes.

It's a verifiable fact, for example, that white supremacists have obtained a larger platform since Donald Trump's election.  Donald Trump has used his platform as President to push issues that are pretty clearly racial issues (the flag vs. the NFL, tweeting white supremacist talking points about South Africa, "both sides" at Charlottesville, having Bannon and Miller - among others - influencing policy coming out of the White House).  I agree that not every Trump supporter is a racist.  But it is also true that votes FOR Donald Trump are votes for a guy who seems pretty racist.  Maybe you didn't vote for him because of those issues, but you are either willfully blind to his racist statements (IMO a lot of Trump's voters don't think those statements are racially tinged at all) or you don't care enough about those issues to influence your vote.

Also, it bugs me when we have these discussions about "generalizations" in politics, and it comes in the same thread where you literally generalized all of Hollywood AND generalized how people on the left talk about Trump supporters...

 

Maybe at the beginning, but I think the white supremacist voices fell off a cliff when a lot of people that may have been distraught realized how fucking stupid and violent these people are. Like I said, the more you let ignorant idiots speak, the less people will want to listen to them when they see the consequences of acting like a moron. Didn't that racist rally go from thousands of people last year to like 10 people showing up this year?

Trump is an idiot, especially on Twitter. I don't disagree.

And Hollywood wants to be generalized like that -- that's why 99.9% of them are anti-Trump openly, and the ones that aren't better tread carefully.

...and if what I say bugs you so much, feel free to not engage in conversation with me, I'm obviously too stupid for you to simply ask me to clarify what was in and of itself, a purposefully generalized post.

[illinilaw08]

5 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Maybe at the beginning, but I think the white supremacist voices fell off a cliff when a lot of people that may have been distraught realized how fucking stupid and violent these people are. Like I said, the more you let ignorant idiots speak, the less people will want to listen to them when they see the consequences of acting like a moron. Didn't that racist rally go from thousands of people last year to like 10 people showing up this year?

Trump is an idiot, especially on Twitter. I don't disagree.

And Hollywood wants to be generalized like that -- that's why 99.9% of them are anti-Trump openly, and the ones that aren't better tread carefully.

...and if what I say bugs you so much, feel free to not engage in conversation with me, I'm obviously too stupid for you to simply ask me to clarify what was in and of itself, a purposefully generalized post.

Trump's South Africa tweet was on August 22.  

[Y2HH]

16 minutes ago, ptatc said:

These are my issues with politics today. I've never agreed with everything any single politician views. All have some I agree with and some I don't. Identifying with the person and not the issues just seems wrong as even the best ones, from a person's view, can't agree on everything. It really makes it difficult to get issues discussed when all discussion lower to name generalizations. 

Even in my discussion about the kavanugh case, people were calling me awful because I was questioning the timing of her release and said I was defending Kavanaugh. When in fact every post stated that in my view he should have been prosecuted years ago and never been a judge at any level.

Discussion today jumps to quickly to who your "person" is not individual issues. I think on a sports discussion board it's even more so. Today people are conditioned to identify with stars. They are promoted shamelessly in all sports. In fact baseball has been criticized for not promoting stars like Mike trout enough. I'm old but I like the rooting for the name on the front instead of the back philosophy and discuss issues not straight party or politician sides.

The Kavanaugh case bothers me quite a bit. I don't even want get into it here because I'll likely become a villain. Unless these claims can actually be proven, why would anyone take EITHER persons side? This much is obvious to me -- people on there right will want to agree with Kavanaugh's account, and people on the left will want to agree with the Ford's. I, on the other hand, want to agree with the person that's *RIGHT*, if that can even be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot be, it's a non-starter with me. This doesn't make me insensitive to Ford, either -- which I'm sure a lot of you not think anyway.

I'd just hope that if some unfortunate day comes where someone accuses me of something, they have some actual evidence I did it before the really really bad court of public opinion ruins my life over it.

[Y2HH]

2 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Trump's South Africa tweet was on August 22.  

I'm sorry, I can't speak on this -- I know nothing about it and I'll simply come out and admit that.

[illinilaw08]

8 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

The Kavanaugh case bothers me quite a bit. I don't even want get into it here because I'll likely become a villain. Unless these claims can actually be proven, why would anyone take EITHER persons side? This much is obvious to me -- people on there right will want to agree with Kavanaugh's account, and people on the left will want to agree with the Ford's. I, on the other hand, want to agree with the person that's *RIGHT*, if that can even be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot be, it's a non-starter with me. This doesn't make me insensitive to Ford, either -- which I'm sure a lot of you not think anyway.

I'd just hope that if some unfortunate day comes where someone accuses me of something, they have some actual evidence I did it before the really really bad court of public opinion ruins my life over it.

Sure, but here again - one side has asked for an FBI investigation into the claims (which is what happened with Anita Hill in 1991) and the other side is saying, essentially, it doesn't matter - we're going to confirm him anyway.  This is a lifetime appointment - one of 9 votes that influences the application of laws on every topic in your original post.  These allegations - IMO - necessarily mean that they have to slow the process down to ensure that they get this RIGHT.  If the allegations are true, Kavanaugh should simply not be a Supreme Court Justice.

ETA: And the evidence from Ford actually has some strong indicators of reliability.  She raised the sexual assault in therapy in the early 2010s (2012 IIRC), well before Kavanaugh was up for a spot on SCOTUS.  That factor alone merits an actual, thorough, investigation into the claims.

Edited September 21, 2018 by illinilaw08

[illinilaw08]

4 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

I'm sorry, I can't speak on this -- I know nothing about it and I'll simply come out and admit that.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/23/641181345/heres-the-story-behind-that-trump-tweet-on-south-africa-and-why-it-sparked-outra

Explanation of the tweet.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Just now, illinilaw08 said:

Sure, but here again - one side has asked for an FBI investigation into the claims (which is what happened with Anita Hill in 1991) and the other side is saying, essentially, it doesn't matter - we're going to confirm him anyway.  This is a lifetime appointment - one of 9 votes that influences the application of laws on every topic in your original post.  These allegations - IMO - necessarily mean that they have to slow the process down to ensure that they get this RIGHT.  If the allegations are true, Kavanaugh should simply not be a Supreme Court Justice.

While I agree the process should be slowed to make sure everything is done properly, I have to ask, an investigation into what exactly? This is a he said/she said argument to this point, and the only witness is Kavanaugh's friend, who already took his side (predictably) and there is nothing for the FBI to find. The FBI isn't some magical organization that can uncover someone's "claims" from the past that cannot be corroborated by anyone else. That isn't how investigations even work.

[bmags]

Just now, Y2HH said:

While I agree the process should be slowed to make sure everything is done properly, I have to ask, an investigation into what exactly? This is a he said/she said argument to this point, and the only witness is Kavanaugh's friend, who already took his side (predictably) and there is nothing for the FBI to find. The FBI isn't some magical organization that can uncover someone's "claims" from the past that cannot be corroborated by anyone else. That isn't how investigations even work.

But he hasn't taken his side under oath or under penalty of law for lying.

[Y2HH]

3 minutes ago, bmags said:

But he hasn't taken his side under oath or under penalty of law for lying.

But there is no possible penalty here -- he can simply preface it with "this was 35 years ago, but the way I remember it nothing like that happened". And that's exactly what he's going to do, and everyone knows it.

I just see no way this can be proven one way or another, and unfortunately for Ford, the law doesn't side with her here. People might, but the law doesn't.

13 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Sure, but here again - one side has asked for an FBI investigation into the claims (which is what happened with Anita Hill in 1991) and the other side is saying, essentially, it doesn't matter - we're going to confirm him anyway.  This is a lifetime appointment - one of 9 votes that influences the application of laws on every topic in your original post.  These allegations - IMO - necessarily mean that they have to slow the process down to ensure that they get this RIGHT.  If the allegations are true, Kavanaugh should simply not be a Supreme Court Justice.

ETA: And the evidence from Ford actually has some strong indicators of reliability.  She raised the sexual assault in therapy in the early 2010s (2012 IIRC), well before Kavanaugh was up for a spot on SCOTUS.  That factor alone merits an actual, thorough, investigation into the claims.

Again, how do you "investigate" claims?

[Dick Allen]

10 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

While I agree the process should be slowed to make sure everything is done properly, I have to ask, an investigation into what exactly? This is a he said/she said argument to this point, and the only witness is Kavanaugh's friend, who already took his side (predictably) and there is nothing for the FBI to find. The FBI isn't some magical organization that can uncover someone's "claims" from the past that cannot be corroborated by anyone else. That isn't how investigations even work.

You can also speak to people she allegedly told previously. There are people who she told about this long before Kavanaugh became a household name and a candidate for the Supreme Court. 

[illinilaw08]

9 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

While I agree the process should be slowed to make sure everything is done properly, I have to ask, an investigation into what exactly? This is a he said/she said argument to this point, and the only witness is Kavanaugh's friend, who already took his side (predictably) and there is nothing for the FBI to find. The FBI isn't some magical organization that can uncover someone's "claims" from the past that cannot be corroborated by anyone else. That isn't how investigations even work.

Actually, it is how investigations work.  They would take statements under oath from Kavanaugh, the friend, and Ford.  They would probably also interview the therapist, other people who might have a recollection of the party, and put together a report.  

 

Just now, Y2HH said:

But there is no possible penalty here -- he can simply preface it with "this was 35 years ago, but the way I remember it nothing like that happened". And that's exactly what he's going to do, and everyone knows it.

I just see no way this can be proven one way or another, and unfortunately for Ford, the law doesn't side with her here. People might, but the law doesn't.

Again, how do you "investigate" claims?

That's literally what police do every day.

[StrangeSox]

28 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Trump's South Africa tweet was on August 22.  

Stephen Miller and John Kelly are both still central members of this administration

[Y2HH]

1 minute ago, illinilaw08 said:

Actually, it is how investigations work.  They would take statements under oath from Kavanaugh, the friend, and Ford.  They would probably also interview the therapist, other people who might have a recollection of the party, and put together a report.  

 

That's literally what police do every day.

No, it's really not how they work in hindsight. You're talking about something that happened 35 years ago, with no other witnesses present. Yes, they can take statements from the three -- and that's all they can take. You can't take statements from "people she may have told", that's called hearsay. And one of the people she told already repeated incorrect claims -- therapist wrote an incorrect number of people at the party -- and that's why such claims aren't "evidence".

[Dick Allen]

Just now, Y2HH said:

No, it's really not how they work in hindsight. You're talking about something that happened 35 years ago, with no other witnesses present. Yes, they can take statements from the three -- and that's all they can take. You can't take statements from "people she may have told", that's called hearsay. And one of the people she told already repeated incorrect claims -- therapist wrote an incorrect number of people at the party -- and that's why such claims aren't "evidence".

You aren't sending this guy to jail. You are trying to determine if he is fit for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. All these things factor in. If there is a really good likelihood this occurred, he is unqualified. Chances are, when and if they investigate, your conclusion is correct, and they won't be able to verify everything. But with something like this, making the effort to find out is important.

[illinilaw08]

4 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

No, it's really not how they work in hindsight. You're talking about something that happened 35 years ago, with no other witnesses present. Yes, they can take statements from the three -- and that's all they can take. You can't take statements from "people she may have told", that's called hearsay. And one of the people she told already repeated incorrect claims -- therapist wrote an incorrect number of people at the party -- and that's why such claims aren't "evidence".

Thank goodness this wasn't a problem for the Sandusky investigators, or the investigators into the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals...

And yes - it is evidence.  The credibility of the evidence goes to the weight...

ETA: Dude - I'm a lawyer who does investigations like this all the time.  I'd never take a deposition if I worried that every statement at the depo would be admissible in court.  The Rules of Civil Procedure make anything relevant to the claim discoverable (subject to privilege, etc.), regardless of whether it's ultimately admissible.

Edited September 21, 2018 by illinilaw08

[Y2HH]

8 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

You aren't sending this guy to jail. You are trying to determine if he is fit for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. All these things factor in. If there is a really good likelihood this occurred, he is unqualified. Chances are, when and if they investigate, your conclusion is correct, and they won't be able to verify everything. But with something like this, making the effort to find out is important.

Well, I agree every effort should be made, but I don't really agree with "if there is a likelihood this occurred" he's unfit. Why? Because of course there is a likelihood it occurred. Almost any claim a person makes (such as this one) there is a likelihood it occurred. But there is also a likelihood it didn't, and therefore it shouldn't be held against him unless it can actually be proven. Can't we just make these claims about any appointee from now until the sun burns out? "Yeah uhh, 47 years ago she/he did X to me, I have no witnesses, and I'm pretty believable, so you should just trust me."

I just don't like the precedent that sets, and that's not saying I even like Kavanaugh.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

4 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Thank goodness this wasn't a problem for the Sandusky investigators, or the investigators into the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals...

And yes - it is evidence.  The credibility of the evidence goes to the weight...

ETA: Dude - I'm a lawyer who does investigations like this all the time.  I'd never take a deposition if I worried that every statement at the depo would be admissible in court.  The Rules of Civil Procedure make anything relevant to the claim discoverable (subject to privilege, etc.), regardless of whether it's ultimately admissible.

I know what you are. And come on, with Sandusky we had living witnesses, testimony, etc. With this case we have one person saying he did, and two saying he didn't, with no video, no other witnesses, etc. I just don't see how this can be proven unless the only witness in the room flips. If that happens, hell with it, fine ... he's guilty. I'd be FINE with that. What I'm not fine with is "okay, he may have done it, let's fuck him for life just in case".

Again, I just feel it's a terrible way to do things. I'm not even saying I'm right -- I'm simply giving my opinion.

[StrangeSox]

He wouldn't be "fucked for life."

He would not be 1 of 9 people in a country of over 350,000,000 to hold the highest court seat in the country. He would still hold one of the most important federal court seats on the DC appellate court for the rest of his life.