Kamala Harris vs. Mike Pence in the VP Debate. Who won?
- Stevennix2001posted 4 years ago
0Before anyone makes a forum about this, who do you think won the vice presidential debate? Did Mike Pence put on a strong performance? Or did Kamala Harris own this debate? Please discuss.
Well, if a fly be the judge of character, we certainly know which one of them was full of it.
I didn't watch the whole thing, but what I did see showed two, civilized people discussing their positions with the American people. Pence is very polished and very sincere. I thought Harris did well. From what I watched, seemed like a draw.Well I watched the entire debate myself, and honestly I think Kamala Harris won this debate. I hate saying that because I don't like her at all, but I thought she carried herself rather well. Her body language displayed confidence and Pence didn't really attack her as much as he should've. I thought Tulsi did a way better job attacking Kamala Harris in the primaries than Pence did tonight, which is not a good sign if you're a Trump supporter.
Plus, I think the fact that not only was Pence trying to interrupt her during some parts of the debate, but also using his air time to rebuttal statements Harris made on topics previously covered in the debate instead of covering the current topics he was supposed to answer made him come off as weak and evasive instead of just answering the questions. Plus, I felt the moderator was more lenient with Harris than Pence, which isn't a good sign either.
Overall, even though I can't say I agree with everything Kamala said, but I think she won the debate in my opinion. All I can say is if Trump wants to be reelected, he needs to completely kick Biden's ass in the next two debates, or else he's not getting reelected.That "fly" was actually a micro-drone. I heard they caught the Democrat operative that flew it onto Pence's white hair, (they were hoping he would swat at it on camera), with the controller in his pocket as he tried to exit from the rear of the debate stage area.
GA :-)As funny is that is, you know the right-wing will probably come up with some such explanation.
I wouldn't bet money against that thought, ;-)
GA
I thought Pence scored pretty heavily in his question about stacking the court - while Harris refrained from any kind of direct answer, her words made it quite plain that they have every intention of doing so if they get the chance.
Plus, of course, her complaint that the voice of the people needs to be heard in the matter of the current nominee...while "forgetting" the voice of the people that four years ago gave that right to Trump. This, she would set aside as not pertinent as long as her "voice of the people" gets to redo that past decision of the people.Was there an agreement that she had to answer Mike Pence's questions while he evaded the questions from the moderator, which he agreed to answer?
Interesting article about court packing at the state level:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/vi … cholarshipSad, isn't it? I find it extremely reprehensible that our one "leg" of government, one that is set aside as separate from politics and political power, is considered just another pawn in the political games that have be come so virulent today.
In this instance of packing the SCOTUS, there are no bones made: Democratic leaders, and perhaps the next President of the United States, are declaring that they will, if at all possible, make the last bastion of "justice for the people" just another tool in their power struggle with Republicans. They are not looking for legal experts in their attempt: they are absolutely looking for "judges" that will render their judgement based on political ideology rather than law.
And that should never be allowed. That it is even mentioned, let alone attempted, says a lot about just how low the other two "legs" (executive and legislative) of our democratic system have fallen in their desire for power. The games Republicans played in the past were absolutely wrong, but this goes far beyond that; it is an outright attack on the country and on the base it was formed on.The only disagreement I have here is that the Republicans nominate their judicial nominees based on political ideology as well. They don't adhere to the law anymore than Democratic nominees. There are simply two, opposing views of how the law works and whether the Constitution is a living document and should shift with the times.
Yes, why can't I get more people to see that and admit to it? Their "so called" "original intent" and Judicial restraint" is what they use to justify voting conservatively on what is on the docket, rather than it being just that.
With a 6/3 rightwing majority on the SC and Biden as President with a Democrat controlled Congress, the GOP minority will "crybaby" to the court to overturn the will of the majority of legislators and Biden's agenda.
The new right wing tribunal will give new meaning to the idea of "legislating from the bench". Just watch....
That is why I want a change in the number of jurors as the Republicans have cheated and the balance needs to be reestablished. Not at numbers to overwhelm the court, but I will work with Eleven jurors establishing the balance that would have existed if the GOP had operated with any kind of ethics.
That may be too much for Biden and corporate Democrats to acknowledge, but I want it, all the same.That's no disagreement at all, for I think the Republicans do the same. Although I did see one man (don't know who) on the PBS news comment that the questions being asked reflect that the Democrats are interested in results while the Republicans are more interested in the process used to make a verdict.
My own opinion: yes, the Constitution is a living document and should shift with the times. If you don't like what it says, then change what it says; there is a very specific description of how to do that.
But don't just decide that the words there suddenly mean something else now. All that does is destroy the entire thing - when we simply claim that the words (regardless of what they are) mean whatever we want them to, the whole thing is meaningless and worth no more than the word of a politician.
Suppressing my partisan preferences, I would say that it can be considered a draw with both candidates being equally evasive regarding touchy questions.
Pence had pleasantly surprised me with a unifying comment toward the end that is totally out of character with a representative from the GOP.Yeah, I liked that much better than "Biden is the best man!" It actually meant something.
After the debate, I bounced between CNN, Fox, and ABC pundit panels. The results were predictable; CNN says Harris won the debate hands-down, Fox says Pence won the debate by a landslide, and ABC said that Haris won just by a hair.
Noone thought the debate changed any minds.
Here is my depressing take-away: Everyone was pleased that it was a "normal" debate that was civil and mostly followed the rules. A debate like they were used to. The depressing part is that it was just like debates we are used to; both candidates evaded the questions asked and answered with whatever they wanted to talk about, and both candidates routinely ignored the moderator and spoke over their time limits.
On the first point—evading questions, I think Harris did it more than Pence, and on the second point—speaking too long and ignoring the moderator, I think Pence was worse than Harris.
My perception is that Pence scored more 'points'; (court-packing, her California record, the Green New Deal), than Harris did. (she got the Covid-19 "points").
The worst moment: I think Harris looked awful when you went on the military point about "losers and suckers, etc.."
And the fly . . . I think Pence gets sympathy points. (it was really a Democrat-controlled micro-drone)
GAWould you be supportive of expanding the Supreme Court to eleven judges if there wasn't the current question of a Conservative majority?
If the sides were reversed would you support the Republicans expanding the Court to 11 judges?
Or, as Wilderness claims, do you support the Supreme Court becoming just another political branch and tool?
I think your views would be; no, no, yes. It seems you are more prone to want Justices to rule on the Law by what you want it to be, (or think it should be), rather than what it actually is. That perspective should be an issue for your preferred politicians, not the Supreme Court.
Speaking of "ethics" relative to political parties seems a foregone issue. I can only hope it doesn't become the same for Supreme Court Justices.
GAThat comment was supposed to be linked to Credence2, but I missed a step
GA
If the democrats behaved the way the Republicans have, applying double standards, I would not fault them for doing what I now propose Democrats do when they are in control.
McConnell does not have to take this course, but if he does, they will be a price to pay.
I suggested on another threat that 11 jurors with Biden selecting the 2 additional would put the court at the balance it was in 2016 prior to Scalia's death.Don't you think it would be better to back up the "balance" to whatever it was the last time it was firmly conservative?
Or is GA right - you demand a SCOTUS that makes decisions based on what YOU think the law should be?Yours is a rightwing opinion...
What are you Rightwingers saying except the same thing you accuse me of but instead it is what YOU think the law should be? So, how is it any different?
5/4 was the balance with the conservative lead.
If Obama were allowed to make his selection and Trump made his at this last minute, we would still have that balance.??? I didn't give an opinion, just asked what yours was. And you declined to give it.
Personally I think that any "balance" should be firmly on the side of judges with an ironclad, unshakable understanding that they are NOT legislators; that they should, and will, make decisions based SOLELY on the law and not their, or anyone else's determination of what is "good" for the country. Or any political party or their dogma.
But that's just MY opinion; yours seems different."Personally I think that any "balance" should be firmly on the side of judges with an ironclad, unshakable understanding that they are NOT legislators; that they should, and will, make decisions based SOLELY on the law and not their, or anyone else's determination of what is "good" for the country. Or any political party or their dogma".
--------
High sounding words until there is ruling with which you disagree, then they all "legislate from the bench". Then they automatically will be suspect of not ruling under the auspices of the law. So, you can come down from Mt. Olympus now.
All rulings based solely on the law and not someones determination of what is good for the country are not necessarily always conservative in nature. That is the message that I pass on to you.Oh, I came off that mountain long ago, as shown in my earlier post where I said: "I think the Republicans do the same" (Republicans nominate their judicial nominees based on political ideology as well) just a few posts up. And if they didn't expect rulings based on conservative ideology they wouldn't be doing that.
But I DO think that liberal judges are much more guilty of that than conservative ones. If nothing else, conservative judges want the past to continue and liberals want to make something different - that single difference would explain most of the variance between the two. Conservatives are content with old law, and wish it to remain while liberals want a different law and make it so in their verdicts."He continued: "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." The majority's "invention of a brand-new 'constitutional right'", he wrote, showed it was "impatient of democratic change".[5
Antonin Scalia excerpt from a dissenting opinion on "Lawrence v. Texas" 2003 regarding striking down Texas laws prohibiting sodomy practices between consenting adults.
You are right about liberal jurors and their tendency to interpret the Constitution in ways that conservatives don't approve.
But when you think about it what does it mean to wait for "democratic change"?
I have heard the tired arguments in defense of miscegenation laws or discriminatory statues that have remained on the books. Who is asking those that are unfairly afflicted to wait? Wait on what? For bigoted legislation and legislators to see the light?
You conservatives are always so fearful of rule by the majority, we on the left see the same problem, entrenched, intractable interests that are not going away because certain people all of the sudden become enlightened. That is where the court comes in to move things along faster.
I don't care what state legislators say, consenting adults have the right to intimate relations and can associate with whom ever they wish. That is not legislating from the bench but looking at the intent of the Constitution and making certain that the state laws do not violate its underlying principles that are not always explicitly stated. If everything and every aspect of our lives had an explicit guiding direction found in the Constitution, there would be no need for interpretation.
That is at least as important as your concern about liberals overreach on the bench. For me, anyway."I don't care what state legislators say. . . "
I think you certainly should care. it is those legislators that make our laws. It is our laws that guide our nation.
You seem to want our nation to be guided by what you think is right. Well, if you are right, then it should be no problem electing legislators that will write laws that suit your perspective. But instead, you seem to advocate having a judiciary determination that laws mean what you want, instead of what they actually say.
It appears that you only have problems with our Constitution when the juduciary rules that it doesn't say what you say it says.
You speak of "underlying principles," and I say the most important of those underlying principles is that we are a nation of laws. If you want a different outcome, then advocate for different laws. Elect representatives that will legislate the laws you want. If you can't do that, then maybe your views aren't the views of the nation—as a whole.
Waiting for "Democratic change" means waiting for the nation to agree with you. Otherwise, your thought reeks of I know better than you . . ." And we, (speaking for us Conservatives), have had a belly-full of that Democrat perspective. Here are your 8 ozs. of soda and 2 grains of salt.
GA"I don't care what state legislators say. . . "
I misspoke, of course I care what they say.
The point that I am trying to make is that the courts needed to overrule legislatures and their laws in pursuit of goals during the Civil Rights Era. Surely you did not think that the bigots of that place and time and their respective legislatures were going to vote against white supremacy and racist control of all aspects of Southern society, without being strongly prodded? For example...
I listened to the Right wing heralding of States Rights ad nauseum, but does that give the state rights to subjugate selected groups, just because the legislatures wanted to keep the tools of subjugation in place? Those are the challenges of over a half century ago. Regardless, of your saying that true conservatives want measured change, it could be said that indefinite waiting for change can be seen as no change at all.
Conservatives like to think that they have outgrown all of this, but a leopard never really changes its spots.
Waiting for democratic change means waiting for dyed in the wool bigots to have a change of heart? That is waiting for too long.
You conservatives want the nation to operate on what You all think is right and you distinguish your preference by saying your preferences adheres to the appropriate interpretation of the Constitution. Well, I say, "NUTS".
In spite of what you say, both ideological wings of the SC when in proper balance are essential for its proper operation.Regarding the beginning of your comment about the Court's responsibility to over-rule the legislative bigots. I heartily agree. Their legislative efforts were unconstitutional.
But, regarding this quote:
"In spite of what you say, both ideological wings of the SC when in proper balance are essential for its proper operation."
I heartily disagree. I don't want a Supreme Court with any ideological leanings.* I want a Court that will rule on the Law—regardless of ideologies or societal changes. If you want "ideologies or societal changes" to be the determinants, then vote in the legislatures that will achieve them. To do so is not the Court's job, and when the Court does take on that job it is outside the bounds of its Constitutional responsibilities. In my humble opinion, of course.
To offer an illustration similar to your Star Trek analogies; in one of Heinlein's books there was a cadre of citizens known as 'First Witnesses'. These were folks with integrity and credentials beyond reproach. Their mere word was unequivocally accepted as true. If a "First Witness" was asked what color was a house they would answer that at 2:15 pm on Oct. 1st, (the day they actually looked at the house), the house was white, but they cannot say what color the house is now, (because the color may have changed since they actually viewed it). That is what I want from my Supreme Court. A judgment on facts and concrete statements. Ideologies have no place on our Supreme bench.
*Caveat; My use of "ideologies" refers to Left or Right, Liberal, Conservative, or Progressive leanings, not the ideology of Constitutional interpretation. (although it should be obvious my preference is the "Scalia" approach.
GAGA, I don't know if it is an ideological bent or just a difference of opinion between 9 people who are presented the same facts in a case. They are all learned legal experts that are not going to see the facts of the case or the solutions in lockstep.
Those differing opinions are later identified in ideological terms based on the side of the case the juror comes down on.
Interpretation is by its nature, subjective.
I am reminded of the optical illusion that was the rage 4 years ago, on identying the color of a dress, whether blue or yellow. In spite of the fact that we all looked at the same object, people still were not able to agree on the color of the dress. Such is the nature of the court and its decision making and considering that all jurors are all equally well versed in the law, yet can still come to different conclusions regarding opinions on any particular case is the heart of my point.
There are times when state legislatures and state executives are wrong, and can be accused of legislation that is found unconstitutional. It is part of of the court's function is to provide a check and balance for that.Suggest you read Ginsberg's opinion on the matter of the "fees" vs "taxes" of the ACA case that SCOTUS decided.
The first 3/4 of it was an ideological statement that the program was good for the country and should be done. The final few words was a twisted justification (that the majority did not agree with) that the commerce section of the Constitution said it was OK.
And then repeat that an ideological bias did not produce the verdict. Sometimes you are right - that ideology simply means a different interpretation - but all too often it results in a ruling completely out of line with law, made in favor of ideology just as Ginsberg did.. On both sides, before you condemn me as a "right winger", always wanting a "right wing" interpretation of law.Ha! Be forewarned Cred, it will take more than "a look." Wilderness's comment prompted me to "take a look" too.
Geez . . .60 pages of opinion. Since I obviously lack the legal insights required to evaluate her opinion, I can only offer my layman's takeaway from reading her opinion. In particular, regarding the individual mandate and Congress' authority to mandate it under the Commerce clause; my perception of her opinion, (she says the Commerce clause did give them the authority), is that using current, future, and 'prophosized', (her word choice), activities, Congress has practically unlimited regulation power under the Commerce Clause. A point I strongly disagree with.
Wilderness was only partially right. he said 2/3(3/4?) of her opinion was social, rather than legal, rationalizations for her dissenting opinion. By my reading, almost the entirety of her opinion was based on societal rationales that supported the legal rationales for her dissention.
Nope, I am with Chief Justice Roberts, I want Court decisions based on the Law, not societal needs or preferences.
If you are interested in long court opinion reads, then have at it. If not, I can save you 60+ pages of legal rationalizations—wilderness was right, her dissent clearly seemed based more on societal aspirations than legal interpretations. Although, if one could accept that rationale as a proper duty of a Justice, then her argument was extremely persuasive.
But if you must, here is the link. Her opinion starts on page 66:
Supreme Court Opinions: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
GAGA, Wilderness
Man, are these briefs anything but.
Regarding Obamacare
There is a difference in the interpretation of the "Commerce Clause", Ginsberg takes a broad interpretation while the conservatives take a narrower view.
A broad interpretation of a provision does not necessarily mean that it is an incorrect one.
It was mentioned by conservatives that the Commerce clause allows the federal government to regulate commerce between the states, it was not designed to compel individual participation against their will. This ACA is associated with the only sort of penalty or tax that one has no chioce but to submit to.
I see your point, even though Ginsberg had a compelling explanation for why such a program (ACA) is needed, we still need to focus upon it from a Constitutional standpoint. I still say that interpretations of the Constitution must be, in their very nature, subjective to a certain point.
But, I can see the perspectives of conservatives although I may disagree with them more often than not.
I have to ask the question, just how many conservative jurors are able to take their ideological perspectives and separate from solely interpreting the law? You really think that their background and ideological leanings do not color how they interpret the law?
Conservatives are so anxious to get conservative jurors ( there is that ideological term again) confirmed into the Court. Is it because they believe that the jurors would adhere more closely to the law or is it that they want to address their rightwing laundry list and have a better chance of doing that with jurors that already subscribe to their point of view, long before a case is even presented before them, whether their interpretation was closer to the "original intent" or not.
I see just such a person in this Barrett lady that the GOP is so anxious to get confirmed, at least from the portions of the interview that I had time to watch.You are right. Justice Ginsburg's opinion was persuasively stated and possibly acceptable as valid, except for one problem, (as I, and Justice Roberts see it), her opinion only has weight if it is accepted that the Commerce Clause allows regulation of current non-actions, (the non-use of medical services), and prophesized future actions, (the belief that it is inevitable that everyone will ultimately make use of medical services).
That is a condition I cannot accept as a Constitutional reading, just as it was for the majority of Justices. As Justice Roberts noted, such an interpretation would make Congress' Commerce Clause powers virtually unlimited. And that seems sure to not be the Constitution's intent. Why delineate a power if it is to be unlimited?
Per the point of discussion, that was an ideology attempting to legislate from the bench.
GAGinsberg made her feelings known on the desirability of the ACA. And then, as you put it, she "broadened" the meaning of the commerce clause until it gave the result she wanted to see.
This is not, under any definition, what the task of a justice is. There is simply no excuse - what Ginsberg did was nothing more than "re-writing" the meaning of the Constitution until it would produce what she felt was "good" for the nation. And that is the job of the legislature - to produce laws that are good for the country - not SCOTUS.
Well hell Cred, you just know I have to jump in on this one.
"So, you can come down from Mt. Olympus now."
What you are really saying, and what your previous comments have said, (they did it first so we'll do it now), is not come down from the mountain, it is "'get in the mud with me."
I think the Conservative expectations from Justices is really as simple as ruling on a law as textually constructed; if the law says "red" then an interpretation that wants to include "Burgandy" should be ruled against.
As a conservative view, I see a Justice ruling that Burgandy is red too, (as I view a Liberal interpretation because they want Burgandy covered by the law), as legislating from the bench. It is not an ideological position of what we want, or think is right, but simply a ruling on a Law as written.
So I can agree that both sides nominate judges with ideological considerations in mind, but, and of course, this is only my opinion, I don't think wanting a Justice to rule on a Law's actual textual construction is a political ambition or ploy.
Contrarily, I do think a Justice ruling on what the law may be interpreted to mean—based on ideology and societal preferences, is wrong, and doing so is legislating from the bench. Burgandy is not red. If you want burgundy, write the law to include it.
So even if both sides do "it," that is why the view from Mt. Olympus is that the Liberal perspective is the one in the mud.
GA"What you are really saying, and what your previous comments have said, (they did it first so we'll do it now), is not come down from the mountain, it is "'get in the mud with me."
---------
I am going to simplify for you, GA.
"If you don't want it done to you don't do it to anyone else......
In these politically contentious times that should be something we had better remember if we want to avoid more partisan angst.
-----
"So even if both sides do "it," that is why the view from Mt. Olympus is that the Liberal perspective is the one in the mud."
--------
I don't recall conferring any status of "deity" to Rightwinged oriented ideas and thinking, quite the contrary. You have a conservative viewpoint and I don't on these matters. It is a matter preference and opinion, as opinions cannot objectified.
I have seen plenty of excellent jurors on both sides of the political divide and without the liberal ones much of the progress made within many areas of this society would not be possible if every answer to pressing questions of the day were interpreted from the view point of knee breeches and powdered wigs. Isn't that what conservatives call "original intent"?
Watch now, with a 6/3 rightwing court and a Biden presidency and a Democrat controlled legislature, all your conservative jurors will show you what legislating from the bench really means when the Republican minority does not get its way and whines to them for relief. I can then show you all the "mud" that you want.
I invite you to have a look at what I wrote to Wilderness on this topic.I have read what you wrote to Wildeness, and from start to finish, your position seems to be that integrity and rightness be damned, all is fair in love and war.
You say that perspective is the necessity of the situation, I say it is the reason for the situation. I would ask what happened to the concepts of integrity and rightness, and I would anticipate your answer to be, Well, they did it first.
[sarcasm alert] Yep, that is the ticket. Let's guide our nation by the lowest common denominator. [end sarcasm alert] Geesh Cred, doesn't "what is right" mean anything to you anymore?
If the Republicans do shitty things I think your choice should be to get them out of the position to do those things—instead of getting in the mud with them and trying to outdo their shittiness. And if you can't vote them out, then maybe that might be a signal that your view isn't the majorities' view—shitty or not.
GAGA, from the elevated and lofty perch atop Mt. Olympus, have you ever been to grade school?
There are bullies that are part of the landscape. When a bully assaults you, they don't care about the fact that you take the high road, as Mums used to tell me to avoid a fight and walk away. But, the reality is different. When a bully finds that you won't fight back that invites him to assault you all the more. Why? Because you are an easy mark, for the bully there are no consequences for th assualt. If you continue to let him do it, then you deserve it. That is the "world accordance to Credence"
The principle is true with adults and the Republican Party. I don't want to denigrate the system any more than you do, but if we are prevented from a win when we fight fair and the other side consistently cheats, what are our options except to capitulate and that is a non-starter. If they cheat they make it difficult to remove them, that is part of HOW they cheat.. . . but if we are prevented from a win when we fight fair and the other side consistently cheats. . . "
So in your mind, the ends justify the means.
To your original question, yes, I have confronted bullies. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost. In situations like this, my father used to tell me to go out and beat on the trees in the front yard. Who won, the trees, or my bleeding fists?
For me, since this situation won't result in a permanent loss of life or liberty, this is a simple question of right and wrong. Two wrongs do not, and never will, make a right. You seem to have a different perspective.
I understand, of course, that that perspective would probably make me a terrible battle leader, but I am reconciled that it would make a compatriot of Aristotle's perspective; it is better to drink the poison than to compromise my values.
How can you ever expect better if you are willing to countenance the norm? Congress has an almost negative approval rating, most folks are unwilling to have political discussions because of the extreme negativity, and yet, your view is 'what ever it takes.'
You are not helping the situation Cred, you are perpetuating the problem.
Join me bud. Don't vote against candidates—vote for candidates. Don't accept the current BS as the norm, vote to make it the exception. Don't rationalize a political effort—condemn it. Don't repeat a wrong, call it out.
Regardless of party, if enough of us did this our politicians would get the message. As things stand, all they are getting are affirmations of acceptance.
As a Progressive, (you), why not demand progress instead of promoting a political status quo?
To be clear, the Republicans are not my heroes. I abhor their actions as much as I do the Democrat's, but I will condone neither, while you seem fine condoning the ones that agree with your philosophies.
ps. I do like my view from the "Mount."
GA"To your original question, yes, I have confronted bullies. Sometimes I won, sometimes I lost. In situations like this, my father used to tell me to go out and beat on the trees in the front yard. Who won, the trees, or my bleeding fists?"
----
I don't know about you, but running home from school or being in unprovoked fights every other day was not working and taking my frustration on a tree did not solve the problem.
Yes, I do have a different perspective, that reflects on the attitude of the underdog in this society as a whole. You tell YOUR SIDE to stop doing wrong and then maybe I might take a "stand down" attitude more seriously.
------
"I understand, of course, that that perspective would probably make me a terrible battle leader, but I am reconciled that it would make a compatriot of Aristotle's perspective; it is better to drink the poison than to compromise my values."
---------
I recall a Star Trek episode with Kirk and McCoy visiting a planet trying to stave off a menancing arms race among what were once peaceful village communities. The serpent was introduced into Eden, the introduction of firearms which followed with aggressive tactics taken by this one side against the other. When the leader of the peaceful tribe was speaking of waiting out the violent tribe, thinking that they would eventually realize that killing was counterproductive and return to its ways of peace, he was rebuffed by his wife who told him that there was no reason for the violent tribe to change its MO, as it was to their advantage.
So, she put it to him, YOU MUST EITHER FIGHT OR DIE, IS DYING BETTER?
So, I am not keen on drinking hemlock to solve a problem.
-----------
No, GA, I am being realistic about the problem.
In my world, peace is a by product of equal rights and fair play accepted by BOTH SIDES. So, both sides need to put their weapons on the table and work out such a truce. There can be no peace that is based solely on the subjugation of the other side.
What message, who is getting it? I have never seen so much partisanship and lockstep behavior among the political parties as I have seen within the last 20 years. Am I really going to expect that those who build an advantage for themselves would just relinquish it out of respect for the "process"?
Kirk, in that same episode also spoke of a "balance of power", the trickiest and dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides. I subscribe to a lot of that. As far as I am concerned our national politics are polarized to just such an extent.
I want my side preserved within the machinery of our political system. I won't do hari-kari in protest while the other side continues its abuses with impunity."So, both sides need to put their weapons on the table and work out such a truce. "
I agree with that, but our votes and your perspective are what is handing them their weapons. As long as either side continues to get their weapons from us, (our affirmation of their actions), they will never be motivated to address a truce.
GAWhen McConnell used his weapons against a fair non-partisan confirmation process for selecting SC justices, did you even raise an eyebrow?
Besides our "moral indignation" what is to keep this from happening again?
As long as we acquiesce in such things, progress will always be doubtfulHey, I am feeling particularly serene today about the future. Maybe I am in la-la land, but I think Trump and his cult represent the paroxysms of a dying breed. One last gasp before we move forward to a more inclusive, more just, more compassionate society. Their paroxysms will go on for quite some time but will eventually die out. Believe me, I was worried and am still not 100% certain they won't cheat "the good" out of winning thus battle, but we will move forward in the end.
I'm not in the mood to argue the details any longer. There is, in my opinion, no way any rational person can think that Trump's or McConnell's way of thinking and manner of governing and representation is good for the people of this country.
They will be repudiated. Only by cheating will they remain in power."I'm not in the mood to argue the details any longer. There is, in my opinion, no way any rational person can think that Trump's or McConnell's way of thinking and manner of governing and representation is good for the people of this country".
When I look how confident we were that Hillary would win and the extent that the GOP would go to cheat regarding the outcome of the vote, I suspect that the GOP have a secret cabal of loyal rightwing Trump voters waiting in the wings that have stayed off the radar and then suddenly emerge like lemmings on stage.
Another unexpected and unpleasant surprise?Deleted
Do you mean a "cabal" of legitimate American citizen voters? Oh the shame . . .
As a side note; I heard an election-watchers blurb that says the current polls, (concerning Biden's leads), are exactly where they were at this time in 2016 regarding Hillary's numbers. Did you just shudder? ;-)
GAI'm guessing you meant this for credence, but I have to say, if you take a deep dive into the polling from 2016, 2018 and now, is is Trump fans who should shudder.
That said, cheating could make a significant difference in the results and creating is a way of life for Trump.Yes, that was supposed to be linked to Cred.
I haven't looked into that claim—I will wait until election-day Monday to start thinking about those things. The blurb I mentioned was just something I heard, and, that I thought would give Cred a whole-body shudder.;-)
GAWhy wait until election day? You and I (and everyone else) already knows that there will be hundreds of claims of cheating - why not get a jump on it and begin making up some of your own?
Apparently, I have been here, (these forums), too long. I have become semi-burnt-out. I just don't have the energy for the games anymore.
Cred is my bud, but his position relative to recent events is one that has devoured our nation, and I have lost the energy to participate.
As much as I don't like the Republican's nomination move, (even though I think it is fully legitimate), the polarization of such an apparently qualified nominee has been the straw that broke my back.
It is obvious that I have conservative leanings, but that does not mean they are Republican leanings. As long as we citizens continue to play 'the game' things are only going to get worse. So, if I have to take a position, it is going to be one from the high road. At least I will feel better about it, even if in reality there is no benefit to it. *shrug*
GAWe are still buds, GA, and as you realize as we get to know one another better through our correspondence, my darker side is likely to emerge.
My experiences does not allow me to be optimist that you are and the Trump administration and its extrem ism in so many areas has the Left. needing an equal and opposite reaction in response.
This man, Trump, inculcates desperation in us all all, and I can't honestly say that some of that has not rubbed off on yours truly.
And as we spoke of earlier, there isn't much daylight between today's GOP and the definition of conservatism. After all, who are the true conservatives supporting in droves?
I am afraid that if one side is allow to pummel the other with impunity, my side may be cheated out of its very existence even though it may well have the votes and support. Therefore, any hope of a more progressive and evolved USA that lies with the Democrats goes down with it, in my opinion.
I want to do better, feeling better does not help.
i am talking about survival of my tribe, those that see things as I do.
The underdog must fight for everything to insure its survival.
Don't go running off, if you like, someone has to play the devils advocate against so many on the Right that have become so smug and insistent on the absolute correctness of their course. Who is out there that is going to challenge them?
This forum has become a family in many ways, and with greater familiarity comes greater candor on my part. I am sorry if it offends, but I like to think that my authentic thoughts are of more value, then the go along and play along.From your comment, I sense a couple of unnecessary worries. I am not "running off" anywhere. I will remain here to be a pain-in-the-ass to those that present unsupportable contentions, and, those that are less than precise in their thoughts. I ain't going nowhere.
Next, it is my opinion that regardless of whether one supports the policies of Pres. Trump, his character negatives have damaged our nation at least as much as his policies may have helped it. I support many of this president's policy actions. What I don't support is this 'new' image of my nation as portrayed by the acceptance of the president's character.
As much as I appreciate some of his policies as being what our nation has needed for decades, I wouldn't let him within a mile of my kids. And it is that image that I think has damaged our nation.
In his necessary actions to address our best interests, he has brought out our worst nature in too many factions that beforehand had been hidden in the fringes.
And that is the summation of my opinion of our current president. Is he the cure that is worst than the disease?
Although I can understand your recent perspective as "being the worst brought out of you," I know from our years of interaction that there is a 'better you' in less extreme situations. So, yes, we are still buds.
No worries about your "candor,' it just gives me more opportunities to 'beat on you' when you are so wrong. ;-0
I do have one last disagreement with your comment. I do not think the GOP is becoming more aligned with Conservative values. To steal your phrase, I think the GOP is becoming too aligned with the values of "Right-wingers" under this president's direction.
A true conservative would never shy from criticizing a presidential nod to extremist groups to 'stand back and stand by.' What have you heard from Republicans about that thought?
And you certainly should know that I am very hard to offend, and I leave no doubt in saying when I am. So there are no worries there.
GA
Yes, I will shudder as this incompetent could get another term, because Trump voters with the exception of the Trump flag waving pickup truck crowd are ashamed to admit that they support him. Thus the Cabal that emerges who evades all the polling estimates.
Things are different now then in 2016, I think that he is going to find a more difficult course to victory, this time. That assumes of course that he does not cheat.....Well, if it offers any balm for your anxiety bud, I think Pres. Trump is going to lose this election. My opinion is that regardless of the right buttons that he has pushed with many voters, his character failings have pushed more negative buttons with other voters.
That is not a prediction, but just a gut feeling. ;-)
GAYeah, well, for some of us, watching our friends and neighbors embrace a racist, pussy-grabbing, lying, cheating bully for the high office of president was the straw that broke the camel's back. Not supporting a SC nominee for ideological reasons seems downright tame compared to that eye-opening revelation. In my opinion, of course.
LOL. You would have to understand my current moment to understand how welcome a break it was to read your no-holds-barred "embrace a racist, pussy-grabbing, lying, cheating bully " comment.
Contrary to the appearance created by my history of forum comments—and I would venture that you have never seen me defend such criticisms, your blunt characterization is what I see as the most damaging aspect to our nation. Not just in the eyes of the world—that pales in the view of the danger I feel it has done to our citizenry, but that I think it has emboldened old negatives that we have spent a generation trying to eradicate.
Geez, I better make it a martini night. I haven't felt this negative, or spoken this negatively, in a long time. I gotta shake off this mood. ;-)
[EDIT ADDED] I am similarly dismayed by that same "neighbors and friends" thought. I have experienced the same thing.
GASo glad to entertain you. ;-)
Yes, I have seen you make similar points in the past, that my blunt assessment is more damaging to our country than the vile subject of that assessment. Can't agree with that.
My mood is quite the opposite of yours, though, as I see massive voter turnout almost certainly saving us from the malevolent bully. It seems more people have figured out that elections matter. This is a very positive development.
Young people, women, and people of color are stepping up. Trump is simply the manifestation of the angry old guy who fears the new world that always, always comes despite their red-faced bellowing. People are telling that angry old guy that his bullying days are coming to an end.
Kevin on YouTube will be apoplectic but many more of us will breathe a sigh of relief.". . . that my blunt assessment is more damaging to our country than the vile subject of that assessment. "
My thought was poorly structured. It was the acceptance of such character traits that I think are damaging, not your method of describing them.
Here, I will try again:
"Contrary to the appearance created by my history of forum comments—and I would venture that you have never seen me defend such criticisms, [as in saying they weren't true] your blunt characterization is what I see as the most damaging aspect to our nation. [not that the characterizations are made, or how they are described, but that too many citizens have accepted those character flaws—no matter how they are stated] Not just in the eyes of the world—that pales in the view of the danger I feel it has done to our citizenry, [that damage is that such character flaws have become tolerable] but that I think it has emboldened old negatives that we have spent a generation trying to eradicate."
GA
Yes, I think that he has dismayed more people and made more enemies than friends and that will be evident in the results next election. That is what is going to cost him this time.
With the Reign of Terror coming to an end maybe we can once again sit across the table from "gentlemen and gentlewomen", without being forced to gouge the eyes of our adversaries in the pursuit of survival.
On your perspective, I agree. 'This too shall pass . . .'
GA
I think I would have "raised an eyebrow," but I don't remember for sure. I wouldn't support their rationale now, so I doubt I did then. Relative to more recent times, you should recall that I don't support the Republicans doing what they are doing now because they railed against such action back then.
GA
Related Discussions
- 656
The 2024 Presidential Election
by Scott Belford 6 months ago
I am sure many are going to disagree, but I predict Vice President Kamala Harris will win - by a lot!That is a feeling, not backed up by polling. The polling leans toward he winning - by a little as well as flipping the House and a slim chance of keeping the Senate.
- 44
Harris/Walz first interview. Did it hurt or help their campaign?
by Readmikenow 10 months ago
Did anyone see the CNN interview of harris/walz?What was walz doing there in the first place? She is the one running for president and this is her FIRST interview since designated as the democrat nominee for president. He has been referred to as her emotional-support white guy.I thought...
- 55
Republicans jump ship
by IslandBites 8 years ago
Arnold Schwarzenegger
- 18
Does Kamala Harris guarantee a landslide victory for President Trump?
by Stevennix2001 11 months ago
After talking to some of my family members that happen to be conservative, they believe that Biden's pick of Kamala Harris, as his running mate for this year's election, virtually guarantees that not only will Trump win again this year, but he'll do it in a record breaking landslide victory. ...
- 46
Why does Kamala Harris avoid the press?
by Readmikenow 11 months ago
Both Donald Trump and JD Vance have held press conferences and spent time answering questions from reporters. Kamala Harris has done none of it. Why is she hiding from the press? Why is she and Walz afraid of holding a press conference. They seem great giving speeches off...
- 92
Kamala Harris will win 2024 Election
by Ken Burgess 8 months ago
Prior to the Debate... and then Assassination attempt... and then Biden stepping down...My evaluation of how things were trending weeks ago led me to believe that (fair election or not) the Democrats were going to win the election... as I have often noted on here before:Women make up 52% or more of...