kavanaugh

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Ian

It is tough to imagine someone in the 20s not being at least the same if not more sexist/racist/misogynistic... but it should be noted that using US history as a moral barometer might not be the best tool for the job...

That is a more thoughtful approach for making comparisons. Certainly so in our time when relativity is preferred over absolutes.


I do wonder how Spence’s comment would hold up if he referred to the temperament of the person in office compared to popular culture of that time (think of what everyone is saying about Kavanaugh and the 80s right now.) I’m sure Trump, as a fairly obvious outlier in today’s public society, might win a “most” award there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My answer, though, was to Spence's comment as he phrased it. He did frame it as "Never in my life or from what I know of history," and he did say "I was going back a few hundred years." And it seemed that he was passionate about it and that it was a really important thing to consider and comment on.

Your approach is more astute and interesting. And worth a discussion rather than a snide or sarcastic retort.

As for Trump's temperament compared to the popular culture of our time, I'd say that Trump fits the temperament of our popular culture very well. That may be one of the major reasons he got elected. We live in a brash, in your face time. Check out our current popular music compared to that of the 18th and 19th century or even that of the first 60 years of the 20th century.

How about sports. There used to be something called sportsmanship and modesty of one's talent. Athletes up to the mid to latter twentieth century would be astonished to see the self congratulatory hijinks on the field of today's athletes. And how many are guilty of drug abuse and abuse of women.

Our movies and videos are filled with gratuitous violence and casual sex and semi to full nudity, among other things, that pre-1960 movies mostly shunned. Our reality entertainment scene is full of Jerry Springer types. Actually, Trump's reality TV show, The Apprentice (I admit that I found it boring), was a relief from the unstructured and biased hit job shows such as The View.

Our politics is one constant attack on opponents, filled with smears, lies; the mainstream media has gone beyond old-fashioned slanting and become outright advocates and arms of a political party; our divorce rates, unwed births, abortions, destruction of history and its relics, student violence and suppression of speech and diversity on college campuses, etc., etc., etc., etc.

And all that stuff is acceptable to half of the public, or so we are told, by the mainstream media that supports much of it.


If Trump is an outlier of todays contemporary scene, its because he is a reaction against it. "Conservatives" were tired of weak, mealy mouthed Republicans who caved, conceded, and were afraid of negative press. They saw who was winning. They decided to throw a pit bull into the arena. And most are now happy they did.

Trump is certainly no old-fashioned "conservative" model. But I find that most of the claims of him being misogynous, racist, anti-Semitic, stupid, mean, lacking direction, in short--a mess, are either exaggerated or untrue. The left which once loved him as one of their own have turned loose every means at their command to bring him down. Because, in my opinion, he is an existential threat, if he succeeds, to who they are, what they have politically built, and what they are/were on the verge of establishing as their version of, to use one of their favorite phrases, "who we are."

Comparing, say, LBJ relative to his time to Trump relative to our time, I would say that LBJ was far more the outlier of the culture of his time than Trump is. And LBJ was a far more crass, sexist, racist, depraved war monger than Trump ever was, even before Trump became President.

And we could probably go throughout U.S. history using your method of comparison and find many Presidents to be far more outliers of the popular culture of their time regarding corruption, morality or depravity, or coarseness and vulgarity than Trump is. But our current Press is far more interested in exposing every nook and cranny of Trump's life that has a taint of some sort of corruption. Probably because it has far more to lose than the media's hey day of the mid to late twentieth century when it was far more influential and was in bed with the Progressive movement, protecting the privacy of their like minded Presidents, that was again sweeping across this country.

That mainstream, Progressive media, is on the verge of becoming an outlier if Trump and his supporters succeed.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My answer, though, was to Spence's comment as he phrased it. He did frame it as "Never in my life or from what I know of history," and he did say "I was going back a few hundred years." And it seemed that he was passionate about it and that it was a really important thing to consider and comment on.

Your approach is more astute and interesting. And worth a discussion rather than a snide or sarcastic retort.

As for Trump's temperament compared to the popular culture of our time, I'd say that Trump fits the temperament of our popular culture very well. That may be one of the major reasons he got elected. We live in a brash, in your face time. Check out our current popular music compared to that of the 18th and 19th century or even that of the first 60 years of the 20th century.

How about sports. There used to be something called sportsmanship and modesty of one's talent. Athletes up to the mid to latter twentieth century would be astonished to see the self congratulatory hijinks on the field of today's athletes. And how many are guilty of drug abuse and abuse of women.

Our movies and videos are filled with gratuitous violence and casual sex and semi to full nudity, among other things, that pre-1960 movies mostly shunned. Our reality entertainment scene is full of Jerry Springer types. Actually, Trump's reality TV show, The Apprentice (I admit that I found it boring), was a relief from the unstructured and biased hit job shows such as The View.

Our politics is one constant attack on opponents, filled with smears, lies; the mainstream media has gone beyond old-fashioned slanting and become outright advocates and arms of a political party; our divorce rates, unwed births, abortions, destruction of history and its relics, student violence and suppression of speech and diversity on college campuses, etc., etc., etc., etc.

And all that stuff is acceptable to half of the public, or so we are told, by the mainstream media that supports much of it.


If Trump is an outlier of todays contemporary scene, its because he is a reaction against it. "Conservatives" were tired of weak, mealy mouthed Republicans who caved, conceded, and were afraid of negative press. They saw who was winning. They decided to throw a pit bull into the arena. And most are now happy they did.

Trump is certainly no old-fashioned "conservative" model. But I find that most of the claims of him being misogynous, racist, anti-Semitic, stupid, mean, lacking direction, in short--a mess, are either exaggerated or untrue. The left which once loved him as one of their own have turned loose every means at their command to bring him down. Because, in my opinion, he is an existential threat, if he succeeds, to who they are, what they have politically built, and what they are/were on the verge of establishing as their version of, to use one of their favorite phrases, "who we are."

Comparing, say, LBJ relative to his time to Trump relative to our time, I would say that LBJ was far more the outlier of the culture of his time than Trump is. And LBJ was a far more crass, sexist, racist, depraved war monger than Trump ever was, even before Trump became President.

And we could probably go throughout U.S. history using your method of comparison and find many Presidents to be far more outliers of the popular culture of their time regarding corruption, morality or depravity, or coarseness and vulgarity than Trump is. But our current Press is far more interested in exposing every nook and cranny of Trump's life that has a taint of some sort of corruption. Probably because it has far more to lose than the media's hey day of the mid to twentieth century when it was far more influential and was in bed with the Progressive movement, protecting the privacy of their like minded Presidents, that was again sweeping across this country.

That mainstream, Progressive media, is on the verge of becoming an outlier if Trump and his supporters succeed.

Keep believing, many people thought Bernie Madoff was telling the truth also, for twenty years he kept it going.
A small loan of a million dollars in Brooklyn yadayadayada
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Keep believing, many people thought Bernie Madoff was telling the truth also, for twenty years he kept it going.
A small loan of a million dollars in Brooklyn yadayadayada
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Believing in what? That Trump hasn't done some corrupt things in his past BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT unlike so many others who continued their depraved ways after becoming President, even escalating them? Never said that Trump didn't do some despicable things in his life. How does that make him the most depraved President in Spence's lifetime or in the past couple of hundred years. And most of your yadayadayada has not been proven to be true. And he has not been a depraved President, but a hard working one who has accomplished a lot, been keeping his promises, and says stupid stuff.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Believing in what? That Trump hasn't done some corrupt things in his past BEFORE HE BECAME PRESIDENT unlike so many others who continued their depraved ways after becoming President, even escalating them? Never said that Trump didn't due some despicable things in his life. How does that make him the most depraved President in Spence's lifetime or in the past couple of hundred years. And most of your yadayadayada has not been proven to be true. And he has not been a depraved President, but a hard working one who has accomplished a lot, been keeping his promises, and says stupid stuff.

Succession of the north, mid eastern and western states may change your attitude.
If you only care about your “base”
You might lose your funding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Succession of the north, mid eastern and western states may change your attitude.
If you only care about your “base”
You might lose your funding
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are we talking about the same thing here?

[Sea Dangles]

Pete hinges his hopes on conspiracies and any possible divide.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

this seems to have fallen on deaf ears

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,”

I said i never thought what may have happened in highschool should define him and his life's work

But his opening statement clearly exposed what was hidden behind the facade

yet those who complain about “Legislating from the Bench” Judicial activism' have or will seat a justice who will forever be tainted will a partistan Halo he himself revealed to the country and placed proudly on his own head.. go figure

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

this seems to have fallen on deaf ears

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,”

I said i never thought what may have happened in highschool should define him and his life's work

But his opening statement clearly exposed what was hidden behind the facade

yet those who complain about “Legislating from the Bench” Judicial activism' have or will seat a justice who will forever be tainted will a partistan Halo he himself revealed to the country and placed proudly on his own head.. go figure

It's funny no one reported when Stevens supported Kavanaugh, it only became a story when he opposed Kavanaugh. That tells you everything, and I mean everything, you need to know about the media.

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive, since Ike put Earl Warren on there. That ends today.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's funny no one reported when Stevens supported Kavanaugh, it only became a story when he opposed Kavanaugh. That tells you everything, and I mean everything, you need to know about the media.

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive, since Ike put Earl Warren on there. That ends today.

why would it be reported there was a long list of prominent people who supported him.. then he opened his mouth

Cause and effect

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive,



you eat the rights propaganda like ice cream .. not surprising

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you eat the rights propaganda like ice cream .. not surprising

You pronounce something propaganda, and the only argument or evidence you ever produce that's supposed to show it is propaganda is to post various leftist propaganda.

If you could coherently, in your own words, backed by facts not leftist opinion, show us that Jim has eaten the right's propaganda, it would be appreciated.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

why would it be reported there was a long list of prominent people who supported him.. then he opened his mouth

Cause and effect

The SCOTUS has been a liberal activist court for longer than I've been alive,



you eat the rights propaganda like ice cream .. not surprising

WDMSO, for decades the democrats have used the supreme court to ram their social agenda down our throats, when they haven't been able to get such things passed legislatively as they're supposed to do (abortion, gay marriage, etc).

That tool has been taken away from them. It's a huge deal, which is why they fought this so passionately, and why after not getting their way, their temper tantrum has been so bratty.

I disagree with the GOP agenda on big issues like gay marriage and the death penalty and the right to good healthcare (Detbuch and I have had heated disagreements on this, and the difference when disagreeing with him, is that he doesn't lob baseless insults, he supports his positions and he listens to what I'm saying, rather than listening to what MSNBC claims I'm saying), so no I don't thoughtlessly regurgitate right wing talking points. On what major issues, do you disagree with the democrats? Let's see who is more blindly partisan, and who is more of an independent thinker? Shall we?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That binky has been taken away from them.

fixed it....this explains the collective reaction

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

WDMSO, social agenda down our throats, (abortion, gay marriage, etc).

That tool has been taken away from them. It's a huge deal,

abortion, gay marriage, Has zero affect on you unless you want an abortion or are gay or gay and wish to get married...


life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” for all you can't have it both ways

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

this seems to have fallen on deaf ears

No it hasn't. It was very well publicized. Anyone paying attention to mainstream news or other sources is aware of what Stevens said. Which already had been, and was being, said by others before Stevens. The fact he served on the Court does not give him the authority or credentials to say who is fit to serve. That is left up to Congress to decide. He can have his say, but it is just an opinion which repeats that of others. And there are many others who disagree with him.

Justice Stevens said he came to the conclusion reluctantly, changing his mind about Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination after the second round of the judge’s confirmation hearings last week. Judge Kavanaugh’s statements at those hearings, Justice Stevens said, revealed prejudices that would make it impossible for him to do the court’s work, a point he said had been made by prominent commentators.

“They suggest that he has demonstrated a potential bias involving enough potential litigants before the court that he would not be able to perform his full responsibilities,”

I said i never thought what may have happened in highschool should define him and his life's work

But his opening statement clearly exposed what was hidden behind the facade

So he agrees that the BS which the hearing was about should not define K and his life's work. And he had thought that K's life work up till the hearing qualified him to serve.

But he "interpreted" K's opening statement as contradicting his previous life's work, and as the real clue that would define him as a judge. Why K's 12 years of decisions as a Judge on the D.C. Circuit Court does not reveal his "biases," but an accurate statement about what the Dems were doing to him, reveals a bias that never showed itself in his decisions, nor how truth is a bias, is strange.

Now you may quibble as to the veracity of K's opening remarks. But then you may be going against your notion of personal interpretations being a legitimate means of making judicial decisions.

Somehow, you assume that once becoming a judge, it's perfectly fine to interpret what is truth. But for the rest of us, we must depend on an ex judge to tell us what we must think about the veracity of K's remarks. Many of us, including prominent members of the Senate committee, believe that what K said is true. There certainly are no corroborating facts to disprove our belief. The facts mostly favor our opinion. So forgive us for not being persuaded by Stevens' opinion.

yet those who complain about “Legislating from the Bench” Judicial activism' have or will seat a justice who will forever be tainted will a partistan Halo he himself revealed to the country and placed proudly on his own head.. go figure

Negative comments about legislating from the bench by a judge who did his fair share of judicial activism and who has recently called for the repeal of the Second Amendment are not to be taken seriously. Kavanaugh's judicial record and his statements about what a judge is do not foreshadow the kind of Progressive jurisprudence that has existed on the Court for years and is exemplified by the three women and Breyer who are now serving, and who all show a strong bias toward judicial activism. Has Stevens spoken about their fitness for being a SCOTUS Justice? I suspect K will be less partisan than them. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion--regardless of your opinion that Stevens' remarks seem to have fallen on deaf ears.

[Cool Beans]

Trump, Rush, Foxnews and the NRA tell me Kavanaugh is awesome, so to hell with the rest of you

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Trump, Rush, Foxnews and the NRA tell me Kavanaugh is awesome, so to hell with the rest of you

don't forget Sen. Susan Collins....

a fair-minded spence would say he has a " very impressive resume'"

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

don't forget Sen. Susan Collins....

a fair-minded spence would say he has a " very impressive resume'"

You better not forget her. Because after November she will be out on the street.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You better not forget her. Because after November he will be out on the street.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

?....I guess that's too progressively intellectual for me to grasp

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

?....I guess that too progressively intellectual for me to grasp

Probably.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

You better not forget her. Because after November she will be out on the street.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She getting evicted? Because her term isn't up until 2020.

Must be some of that "Progressive Intellect" that is all the rage these days

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

She getting evicted? Because her term isn't up until 2020.

Must be some of that "Progressive Intellect" that is all the rage these days

The list of senate seats up in November, could not have been more fortunate for the Republicans. If they let me pick which 33 seats would be up in 2018, I could not have picked a better list for the GOP, it's amazing how lucky they got. If the whole senate was up every 2 years, the GOP would be in serious trouble.