Actual Values vs Party Values

[illinilaw08]

4 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

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.

We are saying "ok, he might have done it.  He shouldn't be one of 9 people on the Supreme Court."  That's a far cry from "let's fuck him for life."

[bmags]

I agree with you it's not on its face discrediting for the position if it is not proven.

But, I think all actions taken since the accusation could.

You factor in the actual events of the night, but Judge has gone beyond those claims to imply that Kavanaugh never got blackout drunk or unruly from alcohol in high school. Based on his writings and consensus on culture there, that seems unlikely. It is unnecessary to make claims like that, would he stand by those claims that Kavanaugh did not participate in that party culture?

On record, we may find out that they coordinated the story to imply a classmate had done it, which to me shows horrendous lack of judgment and character.

There's a lot that an investigation would accomplish on unanswered quetions here. If it does end up as he said, she said, then it is what it is. But it's why process is important.

We know democrats don't want him and republicans do, but there are plenty of judges (Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito) that are confirmed without this baggage. They exist now. No reason Kavanaugh, with his background in some pretty crappy partisan politics, needs to be the guy. His response to this all may reaffirm those behaviors.

[Y2HH]

Just now, illinilaw08 said:

We are saying "ok, he might have done it.  He shouldn't be one of 9 people on the Supreme Court."  That's a far cry from "let's fuck him for life."

And I'm saying I don't like that.  I think if it can't be proven, or other instances such as this one can't be found in his life (which would be enough IMO to corroborate this claim), that it's just not enough for me to disqualify him.

Look, like I said, this is clearly a partisan issue.

Odds are quite high if you lean left, you don't want him on the court, and if you lean right, you do. And based on that political position, you'll agree with Ford's account, or his.

[illinilaw08]

4 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

And I'm saying I don't like that.  I think if it can't be proven, or other instances such as this one can't be found in his life (which would be enough IMO to corroborate this claim), that it's just not enough for me to disqualify him.

Look, like I said, this is clearly a partisan issue.

Odds are quite high if you lean left, you don't want him on the court, and if you lean right, you do. And based on that political position, you'll agree with Ford's account, or his.

Sounds like you are calling for an investigation.

I do lean left, and I don't want Kavanaugh on the Court (among other things, the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama which altered the complexion of the Court for the next 40 years).

But I also was in favor of Al Franken resigning, even though I loved his politics, because the allegations against him disqualified him as a Senator in my opinion.  So I think I can set aside politics when it comes to these allegations.  

And this is the mind boggling thing to me.  Kavanaugh isn't unique in his qualifications, and he isn't unique in his conservatism.  Why are the Republicans hell bent on confirming Kavanaugh over these allegations?

 

[Y2HH]

2 minutes ago, bmags said:

I agree with you it's not on its face discrediting for the position if it is not proven.

But, I think all actions taken since the accusation could.

You factor in the actual events of the night, but Judge has gone beyond those claims to imply that Kavanaugh never got blackout drunk or unruly from alcohol in high school. Based on his writings and consensus on culture there, that seems unlikely. It is unnecessary to make claims like that, would he stand by those claims that Kavanaugh did not participate in that party culture?

On record, we may find out that they coordinated the story to imply a classmate had done it, which to me shows horrendous lack of judgment and character.

There's a lot that an investigation would accomplish on unanswered quetions here. If it does end up as he said, she said, then it is what it is. But it's why process is important.

We know democrats don't want him and republicans do, but there are plenty of judges (Gorsuch, Roberts, Alito) that are confirmed without this baggage. They exist now. No reason Kavanaugh, with his background in some pretty crappy partisan politics, needs to be the guy. His response to this all may reaffirm those behaviors.

I'll agree with most of this.

One thing I'll kind of step out of bounds on is where you say it shows horrendous lack of judgement and character. Of course it does. I did some hard partying in my youth -- in a very similar "party culture" and we all had a horrendous lack of judgement at the time, I'm quite sure. The girls that showed up with us also displayed a lot of those same traits -- again, at the time -- which is why we were all there in the first place.

None of us are those people anymore. It was part of growing up and learning. Now, I'd love to say with certainty I was never sexually aggressive to the extent of this story -- but I'm sure it's very possible I'm someone's "me too", depending on their recollection of things. I mean, I'd sincerely hope not, but it's damn possible.

[bmags]

6 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

I'll agree with most of this.

One thing I'll kind of step out of bounds on is where you say it shows horrendous lack of judgement and character. Of course it does. I did some hard partying in my youth -- in a very similar "party culture" and we all had a horrendous lack of judgement at the time, I'm quite sure. The girls that showed up with us also displayed a lot of those same traits -- again, at the time -- which is why we were all there in the first place.

None of us are those people anymore. It was part of growing up and learning. Now, I'd love to say with certainty I was never sexually aggressive to the extent of this story -- but I'm sure it's very possible I'm someone's "me too", depending on their recollection of things. I mean, I'd sincerely hope not, but it's damn possible.

I agree, and that's actually not what I was referring to there. Not the partying, the response since the allegations took place was what I meant by the lack of judgment. This is specifically referring to last night, where a person who has consulted with Kavanaughs confirmation team wrote a thread stating that another classmate was more likely to have committed assault. It was completely out of bounds, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that it may have been coordinated.

edit: I was quick to modify what I was referring to, I'm not sure I want to agree with the latter thoughts. While there may have been different norms at the time, she feared for her life and it scarred her, and he's never apologized. I can't speak to norms at the time, and I have deep regrets about some actions of when I was younger, but if you get to the point you would be covering a persons mouth to prevent screams for help, I mean there is not much nuance there.

[illinilaw08]

16 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

And I'm saying I don't like that.  I think if it can't be proven, or other instances such as this one can't be found in his life (which would be enough IMO to corroborate this claim), that it's just not enough for me to disqualify him.

Look, like I said, this is clearly a partisan issue.

Odds are quite high if you lean left, you don't want him on the court, and if you lean right, you do. And based on that political position, you'll agree with Ford's account, or his.

Again, one side is calling for an investigation and the other side is saying this:

“Here’s what I want to tell you,” McConnell said Friday morning, according to The Washington Post. “In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, my friends, keep the faith. Don’t get rattled by all this. We’re going to plow right through it and do our job.”

http://fortune.com/2018/09/21/mcconnell-kavanaugh-confirmation/

[Y2HH]

8 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Sounds like you are calling for an investigation.

I do lean left, and I don't want Kavanaugh on the Court (among other things, the Republicans stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama which altered the complexion of the Court for the next 40 years).

But I also was in favor of Al Franken resigning, even though I loved his politics, because the allegations against him disqualified him as a Senator in my opinion.  So I think I can set aside politics when it comes to these allegations.  

And this is the mind boggling thing to me.  Kavanaugh isn't unique in his qualifications, and he isn't unique in his conservatism.  Why are the Republicans hell bent on confirming Kavanaugh over these allegations?

 

I'm simply thinking if they haven't uncovered such things to this point, the FBI isn't going to suddenly wise up and find something after the other 50 background checks they've done on him over the years. This is going to take others coming forward right now. If they have a story to tell, NOW is the time. And if that's the case, fine...he's unfit to serve. But if that doesn't happen, I can't take that stance based on one woman's unprovable claim. I just can't.

And we both know what's really going on at this point -- this is an obvious delay attempt to get to the midterms where the democrats can possibly take over the houses and turn Trump into a lame duck and leave the court at 8 until the next election where hopefully a democrat wins (and I honestly cannot see how they can fuck this one up). That much is pretty obvious to me. This is becoming an annoying tit-for-tat dogfight in our government.

I'm also not a fan of lifetime terms for the supreme court.

[Y2HH]

Sorry, off topic but I was actually dreading making a return to the Buster, but I'm glad I did. It's nice to have an actual conversation with you guys again. Even if you can't see how right I am and how wrong you are.

[illinilaw08]

8 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

I'm simply thinking if they haven't uncovered such things to this point, the FBI isn't going to suddenly wise up and find something after the other 50 background checks they've done on him over the years. This is going to take others coming forward right now. If they have a story to tell, NOW is the time. And if that's the case, fine...he's unfit to serve. But if that doesn't happen, I can't take that stance based on one woman's unprovable claim. I just can't.

And we both know what's really going on at this point -- this is an obvious delay attempt to get to the midterms where the democrats can possibly take over the houses and turn Trump into a lame duck and leave the court at 8 until the next election where hopefully a democrat wins (and I honestly cannot see how they can fuck this one up). That much is pretty obvious to me. This is becoming an annoying tit-for-tat dogfight in our government.

I'm also not a fan of lifetime terms for the supreme court.

Ford has been subject to death threats and forced to moved.  If this is a false claim that was made in an attempt to delay confirmation until the midterms, then Ford was willing to pay one hell of a price to save that seat...

On the Dems and Congress, the Senate map is actually a pretty tough road to the Dems taking control of the Senate just because of the seats that are up.

[bmags]

8 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Sorry, off topic but I was actually dreading making a return to the Buster, but I'm glad I did. It's nice to have an actual conversation with you guys again. Even if you can't see how right I am and how wrong you are.

Ha, dude this is the most I've posted in here in months. It's always interesting to talk politics with people with a sincere belief in what they are talking about and not just trying to get a rise out of people.

[Y2HH]

6 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Ford has been subject to death threats and forced to moved.  If this is a false claim that was made in an attempt to delay confirmation until the midterms, then Ford was willing to pay one hell of a price to save that seat...

On the Dems and Congress, the Senate map is actually a pretty tough road to the Dems taking control of the Senate just because of the seats that are up.

Yeah, that's incredibly terrible of people -- actually, the word I want to use is shitty, so I'll use it. It's shitty. And i feel the same way about the people telling Kavanaugh's wife she deserves to be raped for marrying a rapist, and other vile things such as that. I mean, what the fuck is that?! Where is the decency?

Ford, nor Kavanaugh's wife deserve to be treated like this, and anyone doing it is truly a terrible person.

On the bright side for Ford, at least when all is said and done she'll be receiving million dollar book deals and doing the talk show circuit and being famous for a while.

Also, just because I feel it needs to be said -- what's happening to Ford is Feinstein's fault, and all out of politics. I'll break this down quite litearlly to, "Oh well, fuck Ford and what she has to deal with so long as this derails Kavanaugh." That's what they said, and that's what they did. The woman literally told them all, "keep this anonymous, I do NOT want to come forward", and was eventually forced to do so because of politics. Such a wonderful lot of people we have running this place.

It's all so very ugly.

[Y2HH]

8 minutes ago, bmags said:

Ha, dude this is the most I've posted in here in months. It's always interesting to talk politics with people with a sincere belief in what they are talking about and not just trying to get a rise out of people.

I try to be as honest about my political leanings as I can be, even when people don't really care for it. A lot of what is posted here, people need to keep in mind, is just snippets of thoughts. Things are so easily lost in translation on the Internet. I could easily write a hundred pages on my original post to elaborate and discuss, but that wasn't really the point.

[Y2HH]

41 minutes ago, bmags said:

I agree, and that's actually not what I was referring to there. Not the partying, the response since the allegations took place was what I meant by the lack of judgment. This is specifically referring to last night, where a person who has consulted with Kavanaughs confirmation team wrote a thread stating that another classmate was more likely to have committed assault. It was completely out of bounds, and there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that it may have been coordinated.

edit: I was quick to modify what I was referring to, I'm not sure I want to agree with the latter thoughts. While there may have been different norms at the time, she feared for her life and it scarred her, and he's never apologized. I can't speak to norms at the time, and I have deep regrets about some actions of when I was younger, but if you get to the point you would be covering a persons mouth to prevent screams for help, I mean there is not much nuance there.

Won't disagree with you there.

I can say without exception, regardless of how drunk I may have been and the poor decisions I've made, I've never done that.

[Jack Parkman]

I think it is time to make a change to the constitution and make high-level judges elected officials. They can still have longer terms, but they should still have to answer to the American people. Maybe make a SCJ an elected official that has one 16 year term. 

[Y2HH]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

I think it is time to make a change to the constitution and make high-level judges elected officials. They can still have longer terms, but they should still have to answer to the American people. Maybe make a SCJ an elected official that has one 16 year term. 

Wouldn't be opposed to this. I'm not a very big fan of our process of appointing SCJ's or the circus of a confirmation process.

Now shimmy yer ass outta my thread, Parkman!  lol

[Jack Parkman]

3 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Wouldn't be opposed to this. I'm not a very big fan of our process of appointing SCJ's or the circus of a confirmation process.

Now shimmy yer ass outta my thread, Parkman!  lol

I'm not a fan of the President getting to select SCJs. If Trump only has a 4 year term and we lose 3-4 SCJs during that span(we've already had 2 in less than two years) that is pretty horrible to have such a radical and unpopular president pick 1/3  or more of the Supreme Court. Going back to it, I like a maximum of 2 12 year terms, with 1/3 of the Supreme court up for election every four years, in Presidential Election years. A special election would be held during the next mid-term, if a justice were to die in office or otherwise become incapacitated. It would work similarly to how the Senate election process works. 

[illinilaw08]

30 minutes ago, Y2HH said:

Yeah, that's incredibly terrible of people -- actually, the word I want to use is shitty, so I'll use it. It's shitty. And i feel the same way about the people telling Kavanaugh's wife she deserves to be raped for marrying a rapist, and other vile things such as that. I mean, what the fuck is that?! Where is the decency?

Ford, nor Kavanaugh's wife deserve to be treated like this, and anyone doing it is truly a terrible person.

On the bright side for Ford, at least when all is said and done she'll be receiving million dollar book deals and doing the talk show circuit and being famous for a while.

Also, just because I feel it needs to be said -- what's happening to Ford is Feinstein's fault, and all out of politics. I'll break this down quite litearlly to, "Oh well, fuck Ford and what she has to deal with so long as this derails Kavanaugh." That's what they said, and that's what they did. The woman literally told them all, "keep this anonymous, I do NOT want to come forward", and was eventually forced to do so because of politics. Such a wonderful lot of people we have running this place.

It's all so very ugly.

What's happening to Ford is the fault of shitty people doing this to Ford.  And if her allegations are true, it's the fault of Kavanaugh. 

Feinstein appeared to do everything in her power to NOT release the letter from Ford.  It leaked, but Feinstein - to my knowledge - merely referred the letter to the FBI (happy to be proven wrong here).

[Y2HH]

23 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

What's happening to Ford is the fault of shitty people doing this to Ford.  And if her allegations are true, it's the fault of Kavanaugh. 

Feinstein appeared to do everything in her power to NOT release the letter from Ford.  It leaked, but Feinstein - to my knowledge - merely referred the letter to the FBI (happy to be proven wrong here).

Fair. It started with Feinstein, but she was not the end all of the issue. And the people threatinging her are pieces of garbage, and there is no defense for them or anyone that does things like this.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Y2HH

[ptatc]

On 9/21/2018 at 3:59 PM, illinilaw08 said:

Ford has been subject to death threats and forced to moved.  If this is a false claim that was made in an attempt to delay confirmation until the midterms, then Ford was willing to pay one hell of a price to save that seat...

On the Dems and Congress, the Senate map is actually a pretty tough road to the Dems taking control of the Senate just because of the seats that are up.

Thus is where things get derailed in politics today. Instead of discussing the issue of the sexual assault,  a serious crime, it's digressed to what each side did and which side is controlling the Senate. More political "my side" instead of working through issues.

Edited September 23, 2018 by ptatc

[caulfield12]

But why can’t they find another version of Kavanaugh, maybe a conservative female...do we really want to tarnish the Supreme Court further with Clarence Thomas already there?  Do we really want the first justice confirmed on a 100% partisan vote?   

It would be sort of like Joe Moore serving in the Senate today.  Not illegal, per se, but not morally the best thing for the country.

Imagine the SC overturns Roe vs. Wade on the back of votes from Thomas and Kavanaugh...how embittered women across the country would feel?  We keep saying let’s have objective conversations, so let’s get real here.  Fewer and fewer Americans attend church once a week anymore, it might be down to 25-30%.  At least 2/3rd’s or maybe even 75% of the country doesn’t want abortion to be made illegal.  Why do we want to divide the country even more by going in this direction?

 

In fact, a new candidate would give Collins and Murkowski a lot more protection on their flanks, politically.

Or maybe women losing all their rights to a “minority” government will finally balance out female representation in Congress...as women get increasingly tired of 10-11 committee members (old rich white men) deciding and controlling their private lives and run for office?

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure if I'd like judges to be elected, but there are major reform that should be enacted.

Appointment to a single term, 12-20 years. Every President gets two appointments per term that must be voted on by the Senate in a timely manner. Cases can be held the same way as appellate courts, with a panel of judges with the possibility of appeal to an en banc review. 

Could also split up the court the way many countries do, where you have a separate constitutional court.

There was never really good agreement on how the Scotus should be structured when they were drafting the Constitution, so it's not the most well thought out part.

[Two-Gun Pete]

On 9/21/2018 at 10:08 AM, Y2HH said:

* Healthcare –

* Gun rights -

* Military -

* Fiscal Responsibility -

* Hollywood -

The only things for which I have any commentary are:

1.   On Healthcare, continuing to do what we’ve been doing is moronic. Each client I sit with needs to know that [as currently comprised], the average Boomer retiree couple will need to set aside ~$280k JUST for healthcare for items NOT covered by Medicare. http://time.com/money/5246882/heres-how-much-the-average-couple-will-spend-on-health-care-costs-in-retirement/

For those of us in Gen X or later, it will likely be closer to $500K or more. It is for THIS REASON [primarily] that I prefer a system that is Medicare For All, with options to purchase additional “First Class/Front-of-line” supplemental coverage.

a.   Moreover, how many folks would innovate and start small businesses, IF they didn’t have to fear the lack of/loss of medical coverage from a job they hate?

b.   How many extant small businesses won’t hire additional people, due to the added expense of health care?

c.    How many folks won’t move jobs because of the fear of losing coverage?

d.   Thus, to me, the BEST option is to embrace a “social system” of health care, as we already have for streets, bridges, highways, airports, seaports, national parks, the police, fire department, public grammar/high schools and universities, and all branches of the military.

 

2.   On Gun Rights, hardcore 2nd Amendment types fail to recognize that, as currently written, a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment means that an individual has a right to a machine gun, grenades, a nuke, or the like. There has to be SOME limitation of absolute rights to all weaponry, and we as a society have to choose WHERE to draw the line. [Both for TYPE of weaponry, as well as WHO can be trusted to carry said weaponry.] As an aside, the NRA isn’t about “gun rights,” so much as they are about sucking up cash from arms manufacturers, and then puking it back out to politicians they control by their balls.

3.   On the Military, I disagree with cutting spending, TO THE POINT that we NEED a draft. I believe that we need a draft to put EVERYONE’S kids on the line, and therefore, restrain our application of force worldwide. I think loads off freedom freeloaders who never served, armchair generals, and paper tigers are War Hawks, in part because poor kids do the fighting and killing and dying while Jenna and Barbara Bush and the Trump kids never had to do jack shit to do the fighting/killing/dying.

4.   Fiscal responsibility is simple: Make a “Balanced Budget Amendment,” with carve out exceptions in cases of natural disasters, financial crises, or war.

5.   Lastly, your comment about Hollywood is a strawman argument, in all honesty. Hollywood types only have more influence because they’re in front of cameras more than the rest of us. Who gives a shit what they say/think?

Edited September 22, 2018 by Two-Gun Pete

[illinilaw08]

On 9/21/2018 at 5:31 PM, ptatc said:

Thus is where things get derailed in politics today. Instead of discussing the issue of the sexual assault,  a serious crime, it's digressed to what each side did and which side is controlling the Senate. More political "my side" instead of working through issues.

Except here one side does seem to want to work through the issues in a sexual assault allegation, and the other side, to quote Mitch McConnell:

“Here’s what I want to tell you,” McConnell said Friday morning, according to The Washington Post. “In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, my friends, keep the faith. Don’t get rattled by all this. We’re going to plow right through it and do our job.”

http://fortune.com/2018/09/21/mcconnell-kavanaugh-confirmation/

When Al Franken was accused of sexual assault, the Democrats pressured one of their own to resign.  When Kavanaugh was accused, the Republicans want to just get their guy on the Supreme Court.  That's not "politics" - that's pointing out the reality of how each side has been handling this issue.

[Balta1701]

7 hours ago, illinilaw08 said:

Except here one side does seem to want to work through the issues in a sexual assault allegation, and the other side, to quote Mitch McConnell:

“Here’s what I want to tell you,” McConnell said Friday morning, according to The Washington Post. “In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the U.S. Supreme Court. So, my friends, keep the faith. Don’t get rattled by all this. We’re going to plow right through it and do our job.”

http://fortune.com/2018/09/21/mcconnell-kavanaugh-confirmation/

When Al Franken was accused of sexual assault, the Democrats pressured one of their own to resign.  When Kavanaugh was accused, the Republicans want to just get their guy on the Supreme Court.  That's not "politics" - that's pointing out the reality of how each side has been handling this issue.

I would say that at first, we looked for a reasonable investigation procedure, until the number of allegations and detail became so overwhelming that he couldn't be allowed to stay in that position even pending an investigation. He wasn't removed immediately, especially since the first person just wanted an apology (that was the one with the photo of him and the sleeping soldier). Once additional allegations surfaced, then the Republicans started calling for him to resign, and when the Democratic women joined in he was gone.