With Ford's testimony coming under greater scrutiny it is falling apart. Lies are being exposed. One can't blame the Democrats on the committee from attempting to take advantage,politically. But, looking at Ford brings deeper problems to light.
She began preparing for the attack before she sent the letter. She used the circus of the#metoo movement because it is evident a life can be ruined in this atmosphere with no proof. She will be the recipient of over half a million dollars, just for her effort to ruin a man's career. Hers will be ruined once the full lie is exposed, yet knowing that she did it anyway. I do not consider her fool enough to not realize that, yet this action was worth it. To her.
If a liberal mind is capable of such a heinous act, with no regard to the life it ruins, I'm scared.
Did I miss something? Which "lies" have been "exposed"? It's hard to keep track.
I heard about allegations from an ex-boyfriend about Ford helping a friend (Monica McLean) prepare for a lie detector test.
But McLean has reportedly written a letter to the Judiciary Committee saying: "I have never had Christine Blasey Ford, or anybody else, prepare me, or provide any other type of assistance whatsoever in connection with any polygraph exam I have taken at anytime"(1).
Has something else happened I'm not aware of?
(1) https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/kavana … 1538577632
Well, (waving hand dismissively) we all know that McLean is lying - we have testimony that it DID happen!
Isn't that how it works? You believe whichever one fits best with your desires and just wave away anything that doesn't? Should be especially easy as McLean was never implicated in the letter from the boyfriend, anyway!
Following the same logic, everyone can assume Kavanaugh is responsible for what he has been accused of then, no?
That is the logic of the left in this instance.
Well I'm on "the left". That's not my logic. So your claim about The Left is demonstrably wrong.
If you mean to say that's the logic of some people on The Left, then yes it is.
Just as it's the logic of some people on the right that we should simply assume Ford is lying because someone alleged she is.
Can we now claim that to be the logic of The Right?
Or shall we all admit that generlizations about The Left and The Right are not particularly helpful?
I do apologize if this does not refer to you. Reason, when it prevails, makes us left or right leaning. Fairness, when it prevails, does likewise.
There are goose stepping morons on both sides.
Please, where is the generalization on that post? I am speaking of Ford but anyone who supports such behavior would also be guilty of advancing lies and innuendo for political gain.
Thanks for asking. The title of the thread is a generalization.
"Why We Should Fear the Left"
Likewise, comments including:
"If a liberal mind is capable of such a heinous act, with no regard to the life it ruins, I'm scared."
I'm no fan of the left, but I don't believe everyone on the left belongs in one category. Nor do I think everyone on the right belongs in one category, such as true conservatives like myself.
Notice I said a liberal mind. That's singular. Had I said the liberal mind it might imply all.
But wouldn’t all liberals have a liberal mind?
Anyway, your defence still falls apart because the title itself says “why we should fear THE LEFT” which is not singular and most certainly a generalization.
The fact that you stand in defense of her behavior does indicate that another liberal mind is to be feared. That's ok though. You're Canadian. I don't fear you.
I don’t stand in defence of her behaviour if she’s lying. But good luck proving that she is. And innocent until proven guilty, right?
Yes. Innocent until proven guilty. But, she is the one who cried wolf. She needs to prove wolf. No one forced her to say it.
LtL is right; innocent until proven guilty does not apply to those that cause harm to others by making claims they cannot show to be true. Don't know about your country, but it is a crime here (slander and libel).
That she made the claims is not debatable, only that they can be proven true. And if they can't, and actual harm (usually financial, but other forms can apply) can be shown then it is a crime.
Don’t you think that’s fucked up?
Maybe not in this particular case, or a case that can be seen as politically charged, but say any average case of rape where a woman has in fact been raped but has no proof... that you’re going to sit here and call her slanderous for speaking up about it?
I realize that it’s important to protect people from false accusations but I’m tired of the precedent being to ignore the harm caused to women in order to do so.
The callousness in which people speak about sexual assault victims on this forum makes me so sad. I’ve been trying to steer clear of it but got sucked into this one and I’m regretting it.
Yes and no. It is absolutely imperative that people be protected from false accusations. And while it is truly unfortunate that claims without evidence are doomed to failure, that is a price that must be paid. I DO think that increasing education for women (and men) can and do result in reporting of rape when there IS still some evidence available, and that needs to go forward as far as we can push it.
Perhaps one day we'll have the technology to truly determine if a person is lying (though that still leaves open the matter of mistakes) and it can be changed. But for now it is what it is. The justice system is far from being perfect and rape is an area that is, at the least, near the top of that imperfection.
I find this difficult to believe considering the rest of your statement.
There is nothing more important than being considered innocent, and treated as such, unless it can be proven otherwise... whether it has to do with rape, theft, murder... any such accusation must be accompanied by verifiable proof, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sadly, we live in a country where in many cases, this is NOT followed, and indeed many men's lives have been destroyed by accusations in states where an accusation of rape or assault is considered fact.
A call to the police accusing someone of assault, rape, threatening suicide or violence, is indeed treated as fact and acted upon by police, it then requires the accused to be able to prove his innocence more than it requires the accuser to prove the charge.
I have seen this in marriages where the wife wanted to be rid of the husband, but wanted his support, house, and car. I have seen this done to a man who was 'baker acted' and placed in a mental ward because a jealous girlfriend wanted to ruin him.
And we see this clearly in this case with Kavanaugh. Not one shred of proof, no one to corroborate her statement, no history of this anywhere in his life after the fact with other women... nothing.
But what we do have with Prof. Ford, is a stout liberal/Democrat activist who has worked in campaigns for Democratic politicians, who has connections to those who work for the CIA, and those who worked in the law firm that created the 'dossier' … there is plenty of reason to suspect that this accusation has political bias and motive to it.
And we for certain know that this accusation was 'leaked' at the 11th hour for purely political reasons, someone will take the fall for it, by its more likely that it was well planned out... the support by other Senators who came out and said it was true, it was proven, when clearly it hadn't been, just hours after it was 'leaked' is enough to expose this as a tactical and planned out maneuver.
The weaponization of sexual misconduct charges for political gain.
I get what you're saying and do agree, in normal cases. But, this isn't normal. It isn't a he said she said scenario. It's a she said and everyone she attempts to involve says...say what? Don't have any idea what she's talking about.
She does not present a reasonable accusation. We, as fair people, cannot turn on another human being because of a story filled with holes. Sure, we all have political ideas. Yes, we want our ideas to take precedent. But, is the ruin of an individual worth bypassing fairness, for political gain? I don't believe so.
There are some who DO believe that, and we saw them in action recently. Certainly, there are those on the other side of the isle that would do the same thing under these circumstances; if they do, it up to us to call them out on it, and if necessary, replace them at the ballot box.
Ha! Let me play contrarian again promiem, but this time in a more ight-hearted vein.
You call yourself a "true conservative," but, thanks to a My Esoteric prompt, (you probably saw the thread), I read about 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' definitions that I hadn't considered before.
My perspective of those terms had always been as, (as I perceived them), they were commonly used in today's political discussions.
Oops! Was I wrong. I discovered that I am damn near a 'Classic Liberal' - not completely, the box had holes, so I will stick with being a 'Purple', but, I was made aware that the labels we freely use today aren't really accurate.
So, check it out. I bet you will find you aren't really a "true conservative" at all. I would bet that, like me, you might find yourself more comfortable with the "classic Liberal" label.
Come on bud, it could be fun, take a look. Find My Esoteric's thread or Google it.
GA, in fact I was reading about classical liberalism recently in "The Metaphysical Club". I bet it's your kind of book.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/282 … sical_Club
When I refer to myself as a true conservative, I mean it in a more modern sense:
1. Individual responsibility
2. Civic duty
3. Balanced budgets (other than war)
4. Government as a last resort solution
I'm not too keen on completely free markets because they can get out of control. They're like good wines (or good martinis). They taste great in the beginning and cause headaches after too many.
I classify myself as a Liberal Democrat but I believe in individual responsibility, civic duty, balanced budgets other than war, & as little government interference as possible. Conservatism doesn't have a monopoly on these four virtues. I staunchly believe in accountability & responsibility & doing for self & I am anything but conservative. I am vehemently against welfare except for those who are physically, mentally, emotionally, & psychologically disabled. I believe in the premise of work or starve. I believe in capitalism. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on these things. I am a Liberal in the classical sense. What LTL is talking about is EXTREME LIBERALISM= LEFT.
If what you say about yourself is true, you'd be at serious odds with fellow liberals and Democrats. They stand for things that are the complete opposite of what you've stated.
Ha1 That was an appropriate analogy promisem - with one small note. Even though I have over-indulged at times, my Stolis martinis have never given me a headache or hangover. Double ha!
But I get your point. I think I might just fool around with that Classic Liberal designation in a few select conversations - just to add some confusion.
I will checkout your link.
I have MORE to fear from the RIGHT than from the LEFT.
Yes, it is GOOD to know. The RIGHT wants to curtail, even eradicate human & civil rights for women, Blacks, Latinos, and the LGBT community. The RIGHT wants to return America to the 1950s when women, Blacks, Latinos, and the LGBT community have VERY LIMITED or NO human & civil rights. It appears that you want that...….hmmmm………………..
You have nothing but emotion running rampant to back up that opinion.
Curtailing human and civil rights? I'd say the left has no interest in due process, equality or fairness and truth. I'd consider those traits standing in the way of human and civil rights.
The right wants to take us back? The left is the one with a lynch mob mentality. That takes us back hundreds of years. If I believed you (which even a fool couldn't), then I'd say better ten years back than say, 50 where the left could easily emulate the tactics of Stalin or 100s, where the left would have public executions so their base could throw a tailgate party.
Using hyperbole now. The left doesn't have a lynch mob mentality. Stop drinking THAT koolaid, please...………...The so-called left wants to take America forward while the right wants to take America BACKWARDS...……….. Stalin? Get real, girl...………….stop with the fantastical hyperbole...…...
Yes. Hyperbole. Just following your lead. See how silly you sound?
Far from silly. If you applied inductive & deductive logic, it is the intention of the RIGHT to have America to go on a backward spiral. The intention of the RIGHT is to have a strictly hierarchal America akin to the 1950s when women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, other minorities, & the LGBT communities either had very limited or no rights. Please READ some sociological books- remember READING is fundamental.
I disagree. Obviously. And I don't need all caps to point that out.
Reading is fundamental. Critical thinking is mandatory.
Fine, LTL. Let's have a discourse one day. I am a Liberal in the classic sense of the word. As I have stated, both Liberalism & Conservatism have become more extreme in their sociopolitical stances. Extremes of any philosophy is NO GOOD, it is EVEN TOXIC!
I, like you, go off the deep end of one side occasionally, but I do try to find fairness. And, honestly, fair is usually taking from both sides and finding the middle ground.
There’s the LtL I know and feel some amount of fondness for!
Exactly, the middle ground is always best. Yes, I believe in abortion rights; however women have to be responsible regarding their sexuality. Use good birth control. Never have unprotected sex. If a woman isn't protected, don't have sex pure & simple. People have to act like responsible adults & be prepared. This doesn't only apply to women but to both genders. Be RESPONSIBLE.
Also, be responsible in all aspects of life. If people were more responsible, there wouldn't be such a plethora of welfare & social programs. People have to be taught to do for themselves & not expect others to rescue them. I believe in earning one's way in life. I also believe in being prepared before undertaking something.
I tend to think more liberal than you in some ways. Yes, take responsibility. I, personally, support the idea of law changes. Because many young girls use pregnancy in the attempt to bind a man to them. I think, if they were required to request support within the first trimester and the man had the right to say they didn't want the pregnancy, men could divest themselves. Wouldn't be long before these types of pregnancies ceased. I think, if the right started initiatives to help pregnant girls get an education, created a faith based support structure, without judgement, that would stop some abortions. And, I think if they truly cared, they'd ensure loving and stable homes for unwanted children, which could minimize abortion.
I believe in a woman's right to choose but, as it stands, young women have few viable options and abortion is one of those few.
I also think parents could stop many abortions by recognizing that the society we have allowed to evolve puts kids at risk. If I had a young daughter I'd have an implant put in for birth control. Not because I'd think she'd need it, but because I understand parents don't know everything their kids do, kids will experiment and they should not have to have their lives changed, irrevocably, because of a lapse in judgement.
But, I disagree with you on the last part. We are a nation in crisis. Housing costs skyrocket, wages stagnate, medical costs are rising. Look at San Francisco. High income, abject poverty, living side by side. We owe our citizens better. Don't complain about the work ethic if you can't also complain about the fact that, in many cases, a willingness to work will not cover the rising cost of living. Don't complain about the work ethic without attempting to understand the defeatism which drives many to the public dole.
I see your argument as conservative. As a firmly ensconced hard pressed skeptic I've learned the saying 'there, but by the grace of God, go I' is not far fetched in America today. I will not unilaterally judge people as victims of sloth for falling on hard times. And I do believe without compassion, we cannot fully embrace the American ideal.
I totally agree with your premise regarding birth control for teens. If I had a daughter, I would also have an implant put into her. I would first stress sexual responsibility. I believe in the mantra that each are responsible for themselves as far as socioeconomics go. I believe that people are poor in the United States(exceptions: the mentally/intellectually/emotionally disabled & the severely physically disabled) because of illogical, unintelligent life choices. If people made more logical/intellectual choices, they wouldn't be poor. Again, there are exceptions, let me add those who were recently laid off or fired.
For example, if a couple elects to have children & they are impoverished, they are acting irresponsibly. They can't afford to take care of themselves, let alone children. They are condemning their children to limited opportunities & choices. Also the couple is impoverished because they made poor life decisions.
Another example, a couple who has a large family. Studies have consistently show the correlation between large families & poverty. Children from large families(6 children or more per household w/married couples) don't have the bare necessities. They even do without the necessities. The average large family receives outside assistance either through charities, relatives, or the government. This couple obviously isn't thinking at all about the ramifications of their actions on the family & particularly the children. If the couple had a small family, there would be more money allotted per child & there would be more socioeconomic, cultural, & intellectual opportunities & choices. People are poor in the United States mostly due to their unintelligent choices. There is no excuse to be poor when America has opportunities.
I'll pray that you never suffer a life threatening and expensive medical condition. I'll hope that you never find yourself having to grapple with circumstances beyond your control. I realize, from your posts, that money means a lot to you and it is usually foremost in your mind; when commenting. I know, from your comments that family means little to you.
I've said it before and will again. People have different values and those affect outcomes, certainly. But, nothing can give more validity to your desires than those of another. I do find it interesting that money grubbers spend more time speaking negatively of those who apparently don't think about it, than the other way around. I find that telling of who lives a more serene existence than whom does not.
Poor people aren't happy. No one is happy who is constantly struggling & worrying about if they can pay the bills or where they will live. People who have money are happiest because they can pay their bills, put food on the table, & have a place to live. By my observations, the happiest people are those who have money while the unhappiest were those in poverty.
Both money & family mean plenty to me. I believe in small families of 1-2 children so that children can have myriad socioeconomic, educational, & cultural opportunities. Children from large families(6-more kids) are impoverished & have no socioeconomic, educational, nor cultural opportunities. They barely have the necessities. They are oftentimes assisted by outside sources because their parents can't barely support them which is irresponsible & selfish on the part of the parents.
I grew up around poor kids. They weren't happy. They were constantly asking people for money, even the necessities. They hated their parents for bringing them into the world. They disrespected their parents, calling them everything but the child of God. Poor children oftentimes end up in prison or in low end jobs. They are the least educated as education is beyond the purview of poor children Poor children end up...….POOR & another cycle of poverty continues for yet another generation.
"the intention of the RIGHT to have America to go on a backward spiral. The intention of the RIGHT is to have a strictly hierarchal America akin to the 1950s when women, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, other minorities, & the LGBT communities either had very limited or no rights."
Can't people on the left come up with any new lies to tell about the Republican party? Seriously? This is the same clap trap that has been coming from the left since the 1980s when Reagan crushed Mondale in the election. Wasn't true then, isn't true now. It's time to stop recycling your propaganda and come up with something new.
"She will be the recipient of over half a million dollars, just for her effort to ruin a man's career.
Hers will be ruined once the full lie is exposed, yet knowing that she did it anyway.
I do not consider her fool enough to not realize that, yet this action was worth it. To her.
If a liberal mind is capable of such a heinous act, with no regard to the life it ruins, I'm scared." LTL
Who is paying her?
Why is she risking her career?
Why are they trying to destroy a perfectly fine judge who has done a perfectly fine job serving his country, being a faithful husband and doting father.
It IS scary!!!!
She has collected over half a million, already, from her Gofundme page. This sets the stage for anyone, anywhere, to claim anything. If it tickles the earof the left they'll pay them to do it. I'd say political ideology pushed this attack.
Brett Kavanaugh's Family
$580,276 of $600,000 goal
Just to get the facts out there.
She did not set up the several Gofundme pages that are raising money for her.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/us/p … augh-.html
There is also at least one gofundme page for Brett K, which has raised over $500,000. Are you similarly outraged at that?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 510256002/
Let's think about that. He was blindsided by an allegation that, as of now, has not found anyone who can support it, has offered no corroborating evidence and a story full of holes. He is under attack for what only looks like political reasons.
So, yes. I can understand a fund to help him with legal fees ( I haven't seen any lawyer publicly say they would work for him, pro bono). Nor did he attack her. With unfounded accusations.
Definitely not surprised that would be your response. It appears the left thinks slinging mud in every direction, knowing none can stick, is good. Probably, because many on the left just want the mud. Truth, facts, fairness. Doesn't matter to many on the left. And people wonder how the gulags started.
I seem to recall a conversation where you vowed to stop lumping "the left" all together into a big, giant negative basket. You must've forgotten.
You all are so damned dramatic. "And people wonder how the gulag started." LOL. Seriously.
Speaking of truth and facts, you never did admit that Brett lied under oath about when he first heard about the Ramirez allegations.
Oh never mind. There really is no point.
I don't know that he did. The sad thing is we have to tip toe through everything, waiting for confirmation from multiple sources before we can say anything is news. Well, some of us. Some just jump on a bandwagon, as long as it is party approved.
We should stop prosecuting rapes altogether and should stop believing hysterical women who come forward with these baseless claims that amount to nothing more than he said/she said. Men are generally good-natured and this whole charge that sexual assaults are not reported is just overblown sensationalism by the MeToo movement and the left-wing media.
There is an element on the left, a rather loud one, that does USE the MeToo movement strictly for political purposes. That's what we have to shut down.
Yeah man. If a woman gets assaulted without any witnesses and doesn’t manage to catch it on videotape for hard evidence then that’s her own problem, right? Gotta give all those men the benefit of the doubt and not those manipulative gossiping ladies.
No lady. You investigate the claim. However, where there's no evidence (witness statements, physical evidence, etc.) the accused MUST be treated as innocent, unlike the way Kavanaugh was treated. Our system in the States is set up to give the accused the benefit of the doubt, regardless of the seriousness of the accusation. My reference to the "element on the left" is for those who insist that an accusation is enough - it's not.
In a court of law, yes, they must be treated as innocent until proven guilty. In a Senate hearing, each is entitled to judge the credibility of the accuser, the credibility of the judge, the evasiveness or openness with which each answers the questions, and the general demeanor, temperament and professionalism of both, especially the nominee who is under consideration for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
In a court of law they must be treated as innocent. I understand this. It’s not perfect in these cases but is what it is and changing it would also be imperfect.
However, each individual is responsible for determining whether their opinion on whether or not something happened is held to the same standard as a court of law. For me, it’s not. Because I’ve seen way too many times a friend or a loved one be assaulted with no proof that it happened but knowing them I believe that it did. I don’t believe that a majority of women are lying when they say they’ve been assaulted, I don’t believe accusations are used as weapons most of the time, yet most cases fail to result in charges in a court of law because of no evidence.
Agreed, PP, they're free to do that. However, they're not free to warp the process, to seek to humiliate that individual as they did here, all on the basis of an accusation.
Anywhere that's done (outside of the courtroom) the aim is to ruin a person - otherwise, the view would be "well, let's listen to what the accuser has to say, and if there's enough evidence to warrant a closer look, we'll do that". The Democratic Senators didn't adopt that attitude. There's still a right and wrong way to approach an accuser/accused scenario outside the courtroom.
I hope and pray I never find myself in a situation like Kavanaugh, because too many want to crucify, for political purposes, as we saw here.
"I don’t believe that a majority of women are lying when they say they’ve been assaulted, I don’t believe accusations are used as weapons most of the time,"
I'm with you. It's frustrating to see how many accused sexual assault walk because of lack of evidence. I know of no remedy except good police work and hope/pray for the truth to be known. My view of the Ford accusation was exactly that - I wanted the truth.
I hold to my statement, however, that the MeToo movement is, at times, being used (yes, even where the claims may be legitimate) for political purposes. I think Ford was used by them - though I'm not suggesting that she wasn't assaulted, only that her accusation was used (in this case by Democratic Senators) as a tool to humiliate someone. That's wrong.
What's wrong is someone being elevated to the Supreme Court, with an allegation of sexual assault against them, and without a thorough investigation. That's wrong.
What's wrong with the idea, Don, is that before that "thorough" investigation is complete we'll have a dozen or a hundred more complaints. We'll have to make sure that BK never spoke to or saw a Russian that exposed themselves and that he never knew anyone that was ever accused of malfeasance or knew someone that knew someone that was. The politics of the situation is that there are going to be an unending stream of "reasons" to investigate...until those political reasons are satisfied.
It isn't about the truth of allegations; it's about delaying the confirmation vote. And under those conditions there isn't a reason to continue to "investigate" until the delay is sufficient to satisfy what is actually being sought after.
It is truly unfortunate that Ford took her allegations into the political arena rather than the legal, along with the other claims, and it is unfortunate that congress plays such political games with people's lives, but it is a fact of life in our country. That does not mean that we all have to pander to it.
If you are on the left, in this situation, you are required to pander to it. I would think, when the shoe hits the other foot, we'll see similar. Everything escalates in Washington. Always.
No arguments there! It began when SCOTUS nominations began to be highly politicized and grew with extreme partisanship. Of course, those judges legislating from the bench don't help the problem any.
Certainly it is not unique to either party - one is as guilty as the other. We're seeing just how far into the mud it can go this time around.
I may be in error here... however I do not recall the Republicans ever dragging a nominee through such slanderous accusations during the Clinton or Obama administrations.
We have seen Thomas humiliated and Kavanaugh eviscerated in the last 20 years, both nominated by Republican Presidents.
You forgot the " and grew with extreme partisanship". It's getting worse and worse all the time.
You also forgot that Republicans refused to even allow a vote for a Democratic nominee, for purely political reasons; this crap is NOT limited to one party.
You keep bringing that up (their not voting on the nominee), you miss the point I am making.
The Republicans did not destroy the reputation and life of any SCOTUS nominee, ever, during my lifetime.
I have watched the Democrats destroy three different individuals, their reputations and lives, Kavanaugh is by far the worst of it, as this accusation has 0% credibility. No facts and no corroboration. Used for purely political damage at the 11th hour.
The Republicans decently allowed nominees when they were in the minority to be appointed without much fanfare, and when they had the majority they decently decided they just would not vote... AS WAS THEIR RIGHT AS THE MAJORITY.
There is nothing dirty or underhanded about it, Scalia died (under somewhat dubious circumstances) suddenly, and instead of filling position held formerly by the most Conservative/Pro-Constitutional Justice with an exact opposite, they let the fate of that seat rest on the election in 2016.
As any Republican would expect of them to do, with their majority.
It was all rational, civil, understandable politics.
What we have seen from the Democrats these past few weeks with Kavanaugh is the opposite, it was uncivil, irrational, and made a mockery of the political and judicial system.
We disagree on whether the Republican refusal to fill an empty seat on the court was "rational, civil, understandable politics". Whenever a legislator refuses to do their job because they can't get their way it is none of those, and it doesn't matter which party they belong to.
Actually they did do their job. Americans didn't put hundreds of new faces (mostly Republican) into Congress over the course of the last decade so they could confirm a Judge that holds none of their values or beliefs.
I don't believe those voters who elected those Republicans wanted them to allow a progressive judge who believed in adapting and interpreting the Constitution and precedence to have a seat on the Supreme Court.
They were doing what they were elected to do. If Americans didn't see it that way, they would have voted them out of office, and the Democrats would control Congress today.
You do realize that an argument such as yours kind of validates the behavior of the Democrats?
The Republicans 'did their job' by tactics to ensure a democrat nominee was not appointed?
The voters who elected them (the voters who would participate in re-electing them) didn't want it?
With that philosophy, we could never expect fairness and civility for the process. Because, you are arguing that the senators should do what the people want, as they see it. If so, then whatever it takes is going to be the bar for what is allowed, no matter the majority.
I don't think most votes hinge on whether a seat on the Supreme Court will come up or if one has been filled. But, by your reasoning, the loud voices of Antifa and the unhinged social media have legitimacy. They can embolden elected officials to act in uncivil manners justified by a simple statement that they are doing what their constituency wants.
I like the idea that a Supreme Court justice be filled, possibly by an ideology that does not reflect current trend or the view of the current minority. It allows us to give way to thoughtful minds taking a closer look at where we have attempted to tread. Why it may, or may not, be unconstitutional. Which drives public discourse on why, or why not, it should be constitutional. It causes the masses to think about what the constitution means to us.
We will evolve. The meaning of that document will evolve with us. It already has. We've added amendments to clarify it's will. We've repealed when public furor has pushed it in the wrong direction.
I think partisan politics should end where an empty seat on that bench is concerned. A left or right leaning judge will always cause consternation for one side or the other. But, if a selected nominee passes vetting checks and has always upheld the law, send them on by those credentials, not personal opinions of what their personal opinions might be. The constitution is strong enough to protect itself and the people.
You, like Wilderness, also seem to miss the point, there is a difference between using your majority to an advantage, as always is done in politics, and wantonly slandering one 'opponent' after another in an attempt to destroy that individual's reputatiion and paint the 'opposition' as rapists, racists, evil, etc.
Lets consider recent events of the past couple decades. The Democrats gained total control (Executive and Congress), and they decided to do what they wanted to do, not what the people wanted.
The people did not want the ACA (the overwhelming majority, about 75% did not want it when it passed), the people did not want banks to get bailed out so that the fat cats on Wall St. could give themselves multi-million dollar bonuses at the expense of tax-payers while millions of Americans lost their homes and jobs, etc.
They didn't want the economy to collapse, but they realize who got the shaft, and who got rewarded for that fiasco.
This unhappiness with how our government has been serving its people has been building for a while, NAFTA has been a debacle for American jobs since its inception, back in the mid-90s, but no politician would touch it until Trump. China has been killing us in trade, especially since the Clinton Administration re-confirmed their 'special status', but no politician would tackle that monster until Trump.
People have been getting the shaft from their elected officials for the last quarter century, and the past few years has been an awakening, thanks in large part to how available information via internet and communication to one another has become.
It makes the falsehoods produced by our media, and the lies peddled by our politicians much more transparent.
So when the people vote in Republicans by the droves, to save their country from the efforts of globalization, subordinating the Nation to the U.N., WTO, IMF, etc. supplanting the Supreme Court with like minded individuals that want to restructure our justice system and ignore the Constitution, the document that has protected what freedoms Americans still enjoy and makes this system balanced, etc.....
Then yes, it is the job of those Republicans to do their will, civilly and decently, but to meet out those expectations and obligations none-the-less... and if they refuse, then comes the larger problem of what do we do with a government that does not represent the people's will.
The majority of people in California, New York, and other pockets of Democratic dominance may not like this turn of events... there may be many that are upset that the march to the Socialization of America has been stalled, or that Anarchy is not anywhere on the horizon...
But for the common American, the majority of Americans, I believe the leadership we have been seeing for the past two years from the Republicans and Trump, is what they want... and you wont have long to wait to see if this is actually true, the mid-terms are right around the corner.
I didn't miss your point. I agree, on many levels. But, I still say your argument emboldens bad tactics. Fair is fair. Right is right. We either agree that all tactics used to delay are off the table or risk hypocrisy when claiming justification for some, when they advance our agenda.
"Fair is fair. Right is right. We either agree that all tactics used to delay are off the table or risk hypocrisy when claiming justification for some, when they advance our agenda.
Although I feel that it might be legitimate to consider some instances to be a matter of degrees - essential I think you nailed it.
a matter of degrees
That's the slippery slope that started the landslide.
I know it is, but you know me ... always wanting eat my cake and have it too.
To explain; your point, which I agree with, is the black and white of truth. My "degrees" is the gray of reality.
A weak example of my "degrees" point: Military base closures. Two bases in two different states - all conditions equal; economic impact on state's citizens, validity of closure qualifications, etc.
But ... national economic and military considerations only need one base to be closed.
Considering that a politician is a constituent representative too, would either politician be wrong, (by your expressed sentiment), in using
political measures, (non-Kavanaugh/Garland-type measures), to make sure it was the other state's base that got closed?
All things are never equal. A closure in one place may cause more economic hardship than another. The closure of one base might be slightly less strategic than another.
I get your point. But, a state elects someone to represent them, however that person becomes part of a body which represents all of us. They spend all of our money. Their decisions affect all of our lives. What's right is right. Sometimes, maybe the right thing isn't readily clear but if you put the needs of all Americans on equal footing, determining the right course, in that situation, would involve little more than looking at all factors to determine what course helps the most and hurts the least; for the nation as a whole. Just my opinion.
Then, Ken, the same must apply when Democrats fill those seats instead. Those Democratic congressmen have the same obligation "to do what they were elected to do". That, perhaps, is what is going to happen in November.
You come off as partisan, all the same. And I say for a principle to be a principle it has to be applied impartially. WiIl you feel as comfortable in your position if the Dems take over a chamber in Congress? Would you really accept your narrative if the situation were reverse?
You say that you have non aligned, non-political objectives, but cling to Republicans? So, despite the impression of Trump being above the fray and neutral, you are quite conservative and that can be clearly seen as being on my opposite pole.
Within the constraints of civility and human decency, yes I agree, like they did with the ACA, despite not having popular support, despite not one Republican supporting it.
And then, the American people showed Congress what it thought about the ACA, and how much they appreciated the complete sell-out to medical and insurance industry corporations... had the Democrats been doing the will of the people, they would still be in power. The lesson there was, ignore the mass majority at your own peril. They are elected to represent the people, not to dictate to them or ignore them.
So, if the Republicans are upholding the law and the will of the people, or at the very least the people who voted them into office, then everything should work out for them come November. And if the people feel they are not, then we will see a 'blue wave'.
Go back to what Obama ran on, he ran on Hope and Change. Change... not the kind of change that made the insurance companies even wealthier, or the Wall St, CEOs even richer, or for war to spread even wider throughout the Middle East... those are the last things people were looking for when they voted for Obama.
There is a reason why Republicans are in control today, more than just Clinton be a corrupt establishment crony and a bad campaigner... it had to do with what transpired the 8 years prior... this in spite of the media trying to spin it all away.
It just amazes me that 'liberals' as I think of them, still have a positive view of Obama, on nearly every level you can think of, he sold out America's interests and the American people more than Bush and Cheney could have dreamed of, he was a continuation of their efforts, but worse.
No. There was a time when I was non-aligned, and considered the value of the candidate and what they said they represented. I voted for Clinton over Dole, Obama over McCain (despite all the misgivings and red flags in Obama's past) because I conceived of us all as Americans, wanting what was best for our country.
I no longer see things as I did, I see a Democratic party whose components are a mixture of people who want to tear down everything this Nation has ever stood for, and some who want to demolish the 'patriarchy', and some who want to rewrite or do away with the Constitution, and some who want to abolish Capitalism.
What the Democratic Party used to stand for decades ago no longer holds, just as what Feminism stood for decades ago no longer applies.
What we witnessed Kavanaugh (and the country) go through, is an example of the new Democratic party, and their new 'normal'.
Ken, your comment really had me puzzled. The first quote sounded like something I might say, and addressing you, (or anyone), by name fit my style, but I didn't remember making that comment.
But I read on. And your second quote puzzled me even more. Not only didn't I remember saying it, but it didn't sound like something I would say.
I thought I recalled reading similar comments somewhere in the thread, so the hunt was on.
And I found relief. It is not that I don't agree with most of what you said - seemingly in response to a comment of mine, it was just that the quotes just didn't feel right.
And they weren't. You mixed me up with Credence2. Those are his quotes, and here is his comment: https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/341 … eft?page=6
However, regardless of the mistaken quotes, I certainly agree with your closing line.
As I said, we disagree here. Their "job" was to fill a seat on the court, not put it off for several months while they gathered the political power to make a different choice.
I don't see the "job" of congress to simply enforce the will of a majority without regard to good and bad, right or wrong, for our country. It is to run our country in the best way possible for the country, not just for the people that elected specific legislators.
This does not seem a popular concept; most people I speak with, online or friends and family in person, seem to think a legislators primary job is to satisfy the people that voted them into office - their constituents, in other words. People that will continue to vote for them again and again if they just "bring home the bacon" to that small portion of America.
I think that this idea is part of why our system is failing so badly; it is certainly a part of why the federal budget (and taxes) are so high. When the "job" of a legislator is to force people from other states to pay for what their constituents want but don't want to pay for the inevitable result is soaring taxes. An example is the placement of military bases, when the determining factor is the political strength of a legislator rather than the needs of the country.
But it doesn't seem to be a popular viewpoint.
I don't know how much more there was to investigate Don. The witnesses Dr. Ford mentioned were interviewed. For more to be investigated, there needed to be something to work with, and there wasn't.
Many Democratic Senators (Who participated in perverting this process) claim that the FBI didn't interview enough people in the supplementary probe - I'd have to see exactly what they're referring to, including who the other witnesses are and what they claim to buy the idea that the FBI didn't interview enough people; I can't otherwise buy what's coming from individuals who sought to destroy someone with an uncorroborated accusation.
The claim by Ford, as I understand it, WAS investigated fully.
That's what the Democratic party did recently with one of their own.
But this isn't as simple as that. Ford claims witnesses. Her witnesses say they witnessed nothing.
She had a right to be heard. Not my fault she shot herself in the foot, arm and mouth. Had one person she named corroborated anything, I'd be prone to believe her. As it stands, it's too suspicious to believe.
Edit. Had she kept it at a he said she said, something that happened which no one saw I might have sympathized, could have given more credence to her account. Too many lies have crossed her lips.
The point is the left is behind this crap.
... and it is crap. I think I'll stop listening to the news.
Democratic mid -term believability , If , in the midterms we see a failing democratic wave , Democrats should take notice that the majority of American swing voters have lost faith in the media war against the right [eous ] ,Trump Obstructionism , adoptive socialism , #Metoo phoniness and a myriad of phony outrages , Just saying ..............
There will be no room left for whining !
Are you ready ?
This may be politics as usual, in Canada. Not in America.
My response doesn’t have much to do with politics. It’s referring to the fact that once upon a time you struck me as a reasonable person but at some point your posts became more or less interchangeable with ahorseback’s.
Ok. Thanks for the input. I take great offense to lies. That's just me.
Argh. Name a trump lie. If I agree then I'll take great offense. Deal?
Edit. One that is designed to ruin another person. We'll keep this in context.
LTL , Have you forgotten the 4,000 or so Trump lies ................;-]
His bizarre and very public insistence of the guilt of the Central Park Five.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-e … na-n661941
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-central … eaf664f20/
His bizarre, years-long effort to promote the lie that Barack Obama was not born in the U.S.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … ertificate
I remember the Central Park Five. Yes, I was highly offended. I wouldn't say I was highly offended about the birther thing. Man, that went on for years. It was ignorant and, in my opinion, unwarranted. But, highly offended? I didn't reach that level.
YOU: I take great offense to lies. That's just me.
ME: Unless they're Trump lies, of course.
Sounds about right, then.
LOL. Nothing will satisfy you. That's a fact. I said I was highly offended at one, he started. Not at one, he took up the banner on.
You really are amusing.
So offended that you thought, and still think after many more lies, that he is fit to be president. Too funny.
Yes, you are offended by certain very specific lies (as determined by you), but not thousands of other lies. That is a more accurate way to put it, not "I take great offense to lies."
I have seen many times, the media push a perspective, creating the aura of lies. I have also seen that put to test with the light of facts.
I've never, personally, liked Trump. I wouldn't have put him up for the nomination. But, he is our president. You can't get past your hatred. I get that. I watched the right act incredibly foolish by their hatred of Obama. You guys, left and right, are all the same.
Pretty soon, we'll have no one fit for office, possibly. The litmus test of the mob can't be passed. My biggest problem is what you are so offended by Kavanaugh does not appear to be offensive, if the person agrees with you politically.
The left is stripping away any veneer of their ability to embrace civility. It's a lynch mob that I hope, for all of our sakes, gets reigned in. Otherwise, there will come a time where reasonable people on the left will regret their participation because the mob will have eaten everything else and it will come for them.
"Pretty soon, we'll have no one fit for office, possibly."
Do we have it now? Is there anyone that truly believes Kavanaugh is unfit to sit on the court because he lies, that also thinks those people forming the laws we live under don't lie even more? Is there a single person in the country that believes everything our congress says?
One had only to hear Feinstein glance at an aide and then guarantee that neither she nor anyone in her office leaked Fords letter to see it in action.
If we look for a negative, it can always be found. We are human and imperfect. The problem is, at the moment, the left has no problem turning a blind eye when convenient.
Sure you do. I'll let you in on a secret. I'm an underdog defender. It is who I am. My support of Kavanaugh has increased in direct proportion to the unfair tactics used against him. I don't believe in tar and feathering a person from gossip. You play dirty and my acceptance of a person's behavior, in defense of themselves against dirty tactics, allows for some things which would not be allowed otherwise.
We've all been there, done that. An untrue, nasty rumor, pushed against us. Or, if you've never been mistreated by the gossip whores, maybe you can't understand.
"My biggest problem is what you are so offended by Kavanaugh does not appear to be offensive, if the person agrees with you politically."
Excuse me, but please show me one time where I have defended an accused sexual predator of any political persuasion. I'll wait as long as it takes.
Or, are you going to tell me you can't be bothered backing up your claim about me. Again.
You have no problem with the lies being told by Ford? Any accusation, with no proof, is just that. An accusation where no one you claim can corroborate does and they say they have no idea what she is talking about looks like a lie, on her part.
If I call you a child molester....are you one? I said it. Shouldn't you be guilty then? If not, why?
You have, for the most part, commented on Kavanaugh lying. Why did you have no problem with Ford lying?
Kavanaugh has been proven to have lied under oath. Why lie about anything, especially under oath, if you are innocent? A person who will lie about one thing, will lie about others.
Ford has not been proven to have lied. Not having a corroborating witness to an assault is not the same as having been proven a liar. If Ford is proven to have lied, I will definitely have a problem with it.
I don't know for certain that BK assaulted Professor Ford, but I do know for certain he lied under oath and that should disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court.
I'm done repeating myself, though.
One last thing. You said: "My biggest problem is what you are so offended by Kavanaugh does not appear to be offensive, if the person agrees with you politically."
it can be easily proven if I have defended any politician or person who agrees with me politically and who has committed sexual assault or who has been accused of committing sexual assault. Since you accused me of something that can be easily proven by written record on these forums, I expect you will provide the evidence or withdraw your accusation. If you do neither, well, people will draw their own conclusions about you, won't they?
Par for the course for Ed. It isn't unusual for Ed to be an embarrassment. Embarrassing himself is second nature to Ed. Ed loves to put his foot in his mouth. He is the emperor of pure conjecture, Aime F. Inductive & deductive logic are foreign concepts to Ed. It is pointless to even argue w/him. I wasted hours presenting facts to Ed but it was FUTILE...…...Ed isn't logical. Never was-never will be. Let Ed continue to commit faux pas- he is so good at it!
Aime , as much as It must be scary for you and yet educational at the same time , by now you should be coming to the realization that your party is in a substantial failure pattern . Your Trump Obstruction has failed at exactly how many issues , he's going to be reelected on the economy alone , Kavanaugh's confirmation is close at hand , Hillary followers watch as she dies a slow agonizing death , your party's ties to socialism is becoming THE thing that is driving your party's popularity into the dirt , even young people are staring at the DNC in embarrassment , midterms are here and it's not looking well , ...............
But yea ......I'm the ridiculous one.
I care about all of that much, much less than you think. I’ve reached the point in all of this where both sides strike me as being consistently unreasonable. The fighting back and forth about which side is worse is like trying to decide whether it hurts more to have your index finger or your ring finger chewed off. It freaking sucks either way.
I don’t care about Trump or Kavanaugh or Hillary nearly as much as I care about everyone sucking.
Remember Aime , This is ALL caused by the party that you favor , You can turn away from all of it or you can chose reason and righteousness . It IS that simple. I understand your frustrations , we on the right ---and center too dealt with that for eight years through Obama's war against America . Politics in itself is NOT a child's game , it is a very serious responsibility , chose apathy or chose action , the choice is yours .
Phew, I was worried that with the name change you might not continue to be a shining example of the “consistently unreasonable” I was referring to... but that hasn’t changed. What a relief.
You know I’d probably be more tempted to lean right if you weren’t such a vocal representation.
So , You don't have any respect for those who're fixed in conservatism and so unreasonable , what a surprise . .......Not.
Same here Aime.
As a Canadian, you can bask in the cool with your Prime Minister Trudeau. We at the other side of your Southern border have differing problems as we have to live with the clowns that you can just speak about, as Americans cannot afford the luxury of being detached or indifferent.
Funny. I'd have said the opposite. Sounds like a bit of a zoo up north.
But, unlike some, I understand their politics is their business. I wouldn't butt my nose into it.
I hate to comment in length on politics in other nations. But, I was disheartened by a video I saw of a middle aged woman requesting answers. Trudeau refused any response other than claiming she was a racist and, with no provocation, his goons attempted to remove her. Didn't look like democracy or freedom. Also, the demonization of Jordan Peterson seemed a little zooish. Disagreeing makes sense but the name calling is ignorant. And, Trudeau does appear to be a virtue signaler with no clear moral compass.
Just from a casual outside observer. I don't really follow news in your country. Which is why I refrain, normally, from comment. I don't live there so I should not attempt to influence opinion.
It’s okay to become interested in another country’s politics you know. Especially when their politics affect yours - we are neighbours and allies and partners, afterall. I realize this is your passive aggressive way of telling foreigners (or maybe just me specifically) to not care about what goes on in your country but I think that’s pretty silly.
Kinda of like living in Florida, I can comment about the blizzards around the country during Winter season that I can watch on HD, but that is quite different from being in it and having to dig out....
Having visited 6 or 7 provinces within the last 40 years, yes I like Canada.
I welcome comments from anywhere and everywhere, and I am free to make them in inquiry about what goes on in other countries, but those in the thick of the fray are naturally going to have more credibility because "their skin" is in the game
I have no problem with anyone being against Kavanaugh for political reasons. I do take exception to lies, subterfuge, innuendo, etc being used to turn an attempt to vet a judge into a three ring circus.
And that's exactly what it became. The Democratic Senators were, in lockstep, predictably opposed to Kavanaugh's nomination - no big deal there. What WAS a big deal was using Ford's accusation as a hammer to try and derail the Kavanaugh's nomination. In the process they betrayed Ford's trust, putting her life on national display, doing her no favors. In the same process they put Kavanaugh's on display as well, digging up everything they could from Kavanaugh's youth to try and humiliate him.
The Democratic Senators warped this process, making it strictly a political show, demonstrating NO desire to vet the man, to get to the truth.
I've known leftist mass media was a social cancer my entire life. If this all causes more persons to see it that way, then I'm glad it happened. Brett K. is absolutely going to be confirmed. I can't wait for Trump to replace Ginsberg.
This article sums up what have always been my concerns with this episode.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 488329002/
Why him? Why push a nomination that's clearly tainted? There were over 300 candidates in the president's list, why the one that just purged himself on national TV and had a hissy fit over questioning? It's embarrassing.
Lying only matters sometimes, you see. Lying under oath by a SC nominee that your President put forth is to be rationalized and excused, just as your President's lies are rationalized and excused. Get it?
This is a very good question. I'm sure they can find someone with pretty much the exact same conservative views who has not been accused of sexual assault. Also, his partisan rant, evasiveness, and outright lying should be automatically disqualifying.
It wouldn't matter who President Donald Trump put forward. The Democrat sleaze and dirt machine would create false accusations on them just as they did Supreme Court Justice Bret Kavanaugh. This was a message to the right saying no matter how good a person you put forward, we will create something in an effort to control the process. These Democrat senators are the lowest of the low.
The left many fear is the group thought left , It's a cult actually , a Zombie like mentality that devours reason , common sense and thrives on the destruction of traditional government .
The left is going to whine no matter the reason or no reason , If it took another six months for the FBI to investigate they'd STILL whine .
Sexual McCarthyism ,
Pretty simple .
For the left ,Thank you for giving Trump a break , time to shift that focus to Trump again .
LTL , Ken , you are both correct and Ken that was a pretty good description of where America voters stood and now stand with the Trump presidency .
This thread is giving me the impression that modern liberals are VERY uncomfortable when Alinskyism is used by the conservative party against the leftist originators , Trump for one seems to have simply reversed the chain of events against the left , it's working extremely well for him .
Hi Live to Learn. Essentially I agree with your opinion. I even agree with the black and white truth of your original point, and, your 'slippery slope' point. But real life decisions almost always involve some aspect of "slippery slopes."
I don't know how to search for old forum threads, but we had one on this topic that covered it well. In a nutshell, I believe there are "slippery slope" instances where above-board political maneuvering, even when it is on that slippery slope, is legitimate.
A politician is elected first, to represent the voice of those that elected him/her. And I think they, (ha, there's one of those plural singulars), have a duty to carry that voice to all the decisions they make. But, when their decisions affect more than just their constituents, then that constituent voice must take a back seat to the national voice.
I'm sticking with the reality of 'degrees,' even while agreeing with the 'rightness' of your point.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. A Senator's SOLE obligation is to represent his constituents. They elected the senator to represent their interests. The senator is THEIR voice in the government. If a senator doesn't represent their interests, the senator will lose their job. This is how it works in a representative republic.
Representing the interests of some constituents, to the detriment of other Americans, is not their task; nor is it part of their oath of office.
This makes no sense to me. Everybody has a congressman and senator. The majority votes for them and it is their job to represent the majority. That's how a representative republic works. If you are not in the majority, work hard and elect your person. If you lose, you lose, the winners get the spoils. That how it has always worked.
An argument I myself tried to make, in a different format.
Those Senators/Representatives have an obligation to their voters. If they do something that is in opposition to what those voters want, they will get voted out of office... we saw this direct result after they rammed through the ACA. Their constituents didn't like it, they voted them out.
In contrast the Republicans, when they held off on voting for a Supreme Court nominee as they did prior to the 2016 election, were voted back in, apparently this is what the majority of American people (outside of NY and CA for the most part) wanted... if this wasn't the case, then there would have been a 'blue wave' in 2016.
And what we see with various forms of unsubstantiated reporting in the media (and biased non-reporting of good news), and un-corroborated accusations that do not stand up to scrutiny against a SCOTUS nominee now, are the dirty tactics of people who don't care about civility, truth, or common decency... they want control, and will use whatever means they have at their disposal to try and usurp it.
One thing that has occurred in the last decade, or two, that many still don't recognize. The Democrats went from being the party of the Middle Class, the Union workers, the Blue Collar types... to outright selling out the American worker, American ideals, and American interests.
They did this when they supported NAFTA, they do this when they support open borders (illegal workers lower wages and job opportunities), they do this when they support the ACA which enriches the Big Pharma and Insurance corporations at the expense of the hard working Americans and what coverage they can get for their families.
The Democrats have become the anti-American party as sure as Iran's Supreme Leader is anti-American. They do not have the best interests of American workers, or the American people at large, at the center of their agendas and actions.
Republicans, a couple decades back, was the party of the college educated and well off, because of and with Trump, it has now become the party of working Americans, pro-Americans, and Conservatism all rolled into one.
Hi Readmikenow, It is fortunate, for my perspective, that you mentioned the Senate.
This issue can only be a matter of opinion, but here is why I think mine is right, and that a Senator's "sole" obligation is not to represent the voice, (their interests and desires as they, (the constituents), see them), but to represent the best interests of the citizens as the body of the state.
The Framer's thoughts behind, and the construction of the legislative branch - through the Constitution, designates the House of Representatives as the 'popular' voice of the people, and the Senate to be the 'sage' voice of the state.
Narrowly speaking, the House represents the state's citizens, (hence the larger number of representatives, and the Senate represents the state - as a whole. From the beginning it was recognized that the "popular" voice of the people could sometimes be a bit rash or imprudent - the larger number of members in the House was intended to allow for more diverse views of a diverse citizenry. (think of the House factions, like the Tea Party, or the extreme factions of either party represented in the House - they all represent a voice of the people)
Whereas the Senate, with only two members, was, also from the beginning, intended to represent that state as a whole. Their views were intended to be more wise and nationally oriented than the popular voice representation of the House.
To further support that reasoning, look at their contrary terms of office. House Representatives have two year terms - which allows for a more accurate and updated representation of the "popular" voice of the citizens, which we know can quickly change. Whereas the Senators have six year terms and the body only turns over one third, (figuratively speaking), of its members every two years - to allow for continuity of achieved wisdom and experience to best represent the state in national issues.
I didn't mean that as a lecture, (you probably already understood that Constitutional reasoning), it was just intended to show the foundation of my reasoning.
So, consider, from your perspective, that the popular voice of a state's citizens, through their House Representatives, demand something that is demonstrably bad for them - but they want it anyway. Further, that same "demand" is demonstrably bad for the nation.
Would you still expect that Senator to vote based on the voice of the people, or to vote based on what can be known to be best for the state and the nation?
The Senator is an employee of his voters. They have a job only because of the voters permit them to have it. If a Senator's employers tells them to vote a certain way, it is their job to vote that way. It is the responsibility of the citizens to determine what is best for the state and the nation. Otherwise, you don't have a representative republic, you have what they had with the politburo.
We do have different views on this one Readmikenow. However, I have the impression that you are picking your validations based on your perspective.
In your exchange with Live to Learn, you argue against her black and white standards of political principles with facts of reality. Yet on this Representative issue you seem to be adopting Live to Learn's black and white position - just on another issue.
An important note is that here, I am only speaking to the Federal level, Senators, not House of Representatives.
If you picked up that reality mantel again, which includes party politics, could you say that you believed;
On complicated issues the voters always understood the issue and what was at stake - at least enough to know if they really wanted what their votes said they wanted?
That on a vote such as Kavanaugh's a Senator should abandon supporting his party's position when his voters were against it? (just because a Senator is of a party does not mean his state is of the same party)
There could be other illustrations, but arguing for validation via reality, as you did on that "slippery slope" exchange, would seem to be contrary to your "black and white" validation here.
I am treading lightly here Readmikenow, and trying to walk a line, because I feel similarly to you, (particularly for the House), that a political representative must carry the voice of their constituents to their decisions, but in the case of Senators, I feel just as strongly that if a Senator does that, yet at the time of decision must vote contrary to that voice - for national reasons, then I think that is his duty. And in no way do I see that as comparable to the "Politburo."
As for House Representatives, we are much more closely aligned. There I see decisions as much more an aggregate than a majority/minority, (semantics?), end result, and would also expect, (with possible exceptions), a Representative to vote their constituents voice.
Here is a real world example.
During the Kavanaugh vote, Democrat Senator Joe Manchin voted for Kavanaugh.
Why did he do this? He didn't do it on his own. Manchin is in a very tight race for his Senate seat. He is from West Virginia, which is a state President Donald Trump won by over 40 points. It is also a coal state. President Donald Trump has revived the coal industry. He is much loved in West Virginia. If Manchin voted against the Kavanaugh confirmation, he would definitely lose his Senate seat. By voting for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, he let himself have a chance with the voters of West Virginia. He did it to save his Senate seat by being influenced by his voters. He did what he did because he had to represent what the voters in West Virginia wanted to keep his job. This is how it works in the real world.
Definitely, politics is a game. A politician must please his constituents. He also must know what his constituents & how they think. If a politician isn't aligned with the wishes & desires of his constituents, h/she won't be a politician for long.
I completely agree. That is the reality of our system. They must also balance in the desires of their political donors as well. Now, I could write several paragraphs on lobbyists who come in all colors, shapes, and sizes, but why? As has been said before, money is the mother's milk of politics. It is quite a balancing game.
Of course, money rules politics. To believe otherwise is being unrealistically fantastical into the inanely asinine. Politicians respect those w/money. Wealthy people are treated because they can use their money to have politicians help their respective agenda.
I get where you are coming from. However, the benchmark should always be fairness. Those who deviate should always be called to task in a bipartisan manner. Failure, at any juncture, to do so will always create an escalating scenario which, the longer left unchecked, becomes harder and harder to correct course.
I still don't understand. A Congressman or Senator has to answer to their voters and their party and that's it. It's their voters and party who will decide what is and is not fair. The Congressmen and Senators work for their voters and nobody else.
A government for the people. So, no, they are not there to represent, solely, the majority. By your definition, some will always be disenfranchised. Not an American ideal.
So, yes, each is elected. To 'represent' the interests of their constituents. Not to advance those interests, to the detriment of other American citizens.
By your standards everything will always be partisan.
Yeah, a government is elected by the people, by the majority of people based on our system. Disenfranchised? You lose, you're not in the majority, you work hard to elect people to be in the majority. This is the way it's always been. "By your standards everything will always be partisan." Yep, everything always has been partisan. That's how it works. The minority party has to negotiate with the majority party to get what they want. Have you ever been involved in politics? The majority party determines what bills are voted on, what is in the bills that become laws. The majority party has the power on committees and more. It goes both ways. The Republicans had to take it on the chin during the Obama years. During his first two years in office Obama had Democrat control in the Senate and Congress.
Yeah, it was partisan. But, Republicans accepted it because that's how it has always worked. The majority party sets the agenda. The Republican party wasn't disenfranchised during the first two years of the Obama administration, they lost. Democrats were the majority party and controlled the House and Senate, they set the agenda. They got everything winners get. Now, the Republicans are the majority party and they set the agenda. Why is this new to anyone?
Always been partisan? No, it hasn't. In times of crisis, when we have been uniquely reminded that we are one nation with common heritage and belief, we have pulled together in a bipartisan manner.
Voices such as yours and those clamoring on the far left are not the majority. The majority realizes this government does not serve the people. Neither side currently serves us.
The left and right are umbrellas too small to represent the wishes of Americans completely. We align with one or the other, primarily because we agree with some of the policies which we might put above our agreement with other policies on the other side.
Do not confuse a vote for one side over another as blanket agreement or that all policies pushed represent the majority.
Either way. Our country was not founded on the premise of disenfranchising one group or another. As we have identified groups left out, we have taken steps to remedy the mistake. We were not founded on the belief that might makes right. We fought that belief.
Sounds good. Excellent. Now a voice from reality. The majority party sets the agenda no matter what you say. That's reality. The majority party provides the chairmen for the committees, the committees push for the bills to go before the house and senate to see what becomes law, That's reality. Congressmen and Senators try to keep their donors and voters happy so they can keep their job. That is also reality. Nothing you say can change this. You know how to write your opinion, but trust me, you are not dealing with the reality of our system. Spend some time working for an elected official and you'll see things you didn't believe possible.
I am not fool enough to not be aware that is the reality of the system. But, if a broken system is the best you hope for...that's what you get.
I am advocating what was hoped for when the system was created.
Now, back to the topic of this thread. We should fear the left because of their lack of basic understanding of the United States government and how it operates is frightening. To make things worse, the left has no idea how ignorant they are of the history and function of the government in the United States. Many times when liberals discuss things with me I'm reminded of the phrase "Anything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about."
Indeed, all true.
Republican politicians, better get on the Trump train, or get ready to be thrown out of Congress. I believe that reality has dawned on most of them, and its a good thing for the Party, and the country.
Despite the best efforts of the media, I see him coming out of the last two years more popular and more trusted than when he went in.
Damn Live to Learn, this is feeling like one of those conversations with my wife where I get argued with for agreeing with her. ;-)
Maybe your wife is like me. Trying to leave yourself wiggle room, while attempting to hem in others (as you are arguing would make sense) is little more than an excuse to repeatedly ignore the basic principle, for reasons of convenience.
You do it, then they do it, then you will no doubt do it again with a little added in because, how dare they do that?
A person has to hold steady to principle, at all times, or they can't really argue that they have more than anyone else. And if you can't honestly stand by a principle, how can you expect the opposition to?
It is not for reasons of convenience Live to Learn. Or because of a lack of principles. It is because I think there are times when political maneuvering is acceptable, and because of the reality that politics are a human endeavor, and they will never meet your black and white standard.
The old Mr. Smith Goes to Washington movie comes to mind. Surely Mr. Smith could be called a politician with principles. Perhaps even to the point of intending to meet your standard. But what was his filibuster, if not a political maneuver? The important question would be whether it could be considered a legitimate one. I think it could.
I've never seen the movie. And, you are correct. There will be times when the gray area appears to be the only course available to ensure what is right is done. I just think if we all hold to the best we can then those moments will be few, understandable and acceptable.
by Don W 15 months ago
"A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani tells CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden...'Mr. Parnas...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
This past week Maxine Waters asked her flock to harass our presidents Cabinet and those that support Trump. Some of the media has followed up on her discriminatory words and pushed the concept of harassing American citizens for their political views. It's amazing that this form of pure...
by JOC 19 months ago
If you think this is normal or helps promote the safety and efficient function of our government, please tell us how exactly? This is just another one of the many reasons to get someone with some government experience back into the role of commander-in-chief.
by Readmikenow 4 weeks ago
Is this about getting K Harris in the White House?"About three dozen House Democrats have signed a letter asking President Biden to renounce his sole authority to launch nuclear weapons, according to reports.A promise from the president to give up his nuclear capabilities as commander in chief...
by Stacie L 5 years ago
Why Donald Trump trumps Donald DrumpfTrump’s German wine-growing ancestors were named Drumpf, according to journalist Gwenda Blair’s book “The Trumps: Three Generations That Built An Empire.” The family changed the name at some point during the Thirty Years’ War. America was first introduced to the...
by Ian D Hetri 7 years ago
If you have 1 million dollars and 1 week left to spend before you die, how would you spend it?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|