Election Day 2016

[atlwsu]

I'll be done on this subject after this post. I get that you think my questions were as irrelevant as yours. Mine show if a person has actually considered the ramifications of their beliefs, though. It's a test of whether you believe what you say you do only because it worked out well for you this time or if you have actually considered the limits of your stance.

Your responses reveal which applies to you.

Sometimes the logic on this board absolutely baffles me. Is this the critical thinking taught at my alma mater. It permeates both extreem right and left.

I believe in an absolute moral standards, but circumstance matters, we aren't robots. Application of the standard to facts demonstrate the difference between the wise and the foolish. Your response is without any nuance. Liying is wrong. Liying to not hurt someone's feeling, or to avoid embarrassment, or to save on taxes is as wrong, telling the SS you weren't hidding Jews in WWII when there were Jews in the closest is not. Likewise,killing in anger, fear, even to protect property is wrong. But I would do whatever it took, even taking a life to ensure the safty of my wife. It would definitely cause anxiety and sleepless nights but I would not hesitate for a second. It is far better than living with the alternative.

[jdshock]

Sometimes the logic on this board absolutely baffles me. Is this the critical thinking taught at my alma mater. It permeates both extreem right and left.

I believe in an absolute moral standards, but circumstance matters, we aren't robots. Application of the standard to facts demonstrate the difference between the wise and the foolish. Your response is without any nuance. Liying is wrong. Liying to not hurt someone's feeling, or to avoid embarrassment, or to save on taxes is as wrong, telling the SS you weren't hidding Jews in WWII when there were Jews in the closest is not. Likewise,killing in anger, fear, even to protect property is wrong. But I would do whatever it took, even taking a life to ensure the safty of my wife. It would definitely cause anxiety and sleepless nights but I would not hesitate for a second. It is far better than living with the alternative.

That's the point. You've thought about where your limits are in advance in terms of lying. My questions were a test of that. If I posed a lying hypothetical to you, it sounds like you're well-prepared to answer. You aren't going to just respond "that would never happen, so it's pointless."

[ShockingButTrue]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commenta...election-2016/

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/1145137...can-liberalism

That psychology was in our government too. That's why Trump got elected. Well, that plus the ACA of course.

[RoyalShock]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commenta...election-2016/

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/1145137...can-liberalism

That Vox piece could have been done in a few paragraphs. But I guess elites comfort and delight themselves in using lots of words that most only learn in journalism school.

The author almost made a key revelation when he cited how Republicans are more open to persuasion. He should have gone on to say that a huge reason the "stupid rubes in Kansas" have such disdain for them is that they (the liberal elites) lack the ability - and humility - to even begin to entertain the notion their knowing could be wrong. That, I surmise, is the driving force behind their smugness.

Maybe that was the main idea, and I'm just too stupid to realize it since he didn't state it specifically. Because, you know, Kansas.

[ShockingButTrue]

" have such disdain for them is that they (the liberal elites) lack the ability - and humility - to even begin to entertain the notion their knowing could be wrong. That, I surmise, is the driving force behind their smugness.

Maybe that was the main idea, and I'm just too stupid to realize it since he didn't state it specifically.

In other words their powers of telepathy might not be so reliable after all?

[MoValley John]

You know they had actual debates about Robert Bork, right? And the Democrats gave reasons for why they didn't like him specifically?

The Republicans aren't saying Garland is uniquely bad. They're saying they don't feel comfortable confirming him in an election year, even though several of them let it slip that they would've confirmed him quickly had Clinton won.

Have it out on the floor and argue about his qualifications. Don't act like you're leaving it open for democracy's sake. That's just a lie.

They didn't debate, they had an assination of character. It was led by Joe Biden. Once again, no debate, just a lynch mob.

[Play Angry]

They didn't debate, they had an assination of character. It was led by Joe Biden. Once again, no debate, just a lynch mob.

Can we assume you were cool with it and simply wrote it off as politics doing politics when it happened to Bork too though?

If so, then power to your stance I suppose. A valid bitching point is that when it happens to democrats, they cry foul and respond that the Constitution contemplates that the President nominates and appoints justices, with the Senate's roll to provide advice and consent (a constructionist reading of which infers a far more deferential role than we see in modern times) while the republicans say nahhhhh let's leave it to the electorate. When the same happens to republicans (Bork), they cry foul with the same sword described in the prior sentence while democrats use the same shield. The fact that both sides do it does not justify the tactic.

If a person's response has always been that the hostage strategy is fine, then at least they are consistent. There is definitely a legitimate debate to be had regarding whether that strategy aligns with the Constitution (and necessarily implying both parties have been guilty of violating its intent).

[pinstripers]

You can't equate this to Bork.

[Play Angry]

You can't equate this to Bork.

We all know you have nothing but time, let's see a long response for once.

[Cdizzle]

It was easier to root for court appointments to remain apolitical when the court remained apolitical.

Sad times, all around.

[pinstripers]

You can't equate this to Bork, for heaven's sake.

[MoValley John]

Can we assume you were cool with it and simply wrote it off as politics doing politics when it happened to Bork too though?

If so, then power to your stance I suppose. A valid bitching point is that when it happens to democrats, they cry foul and respond that the Constitution contemplates that the President nominates and appoints justices, with the Senate's roll to provide advice and consent (a constructionist reading of which infers a far more deferential role than we see in modern times) while the republicans say nahhhhh let's leave it to the electorate. When the same happens to republicans (Bork), they cry foul with the same sword described in the prior sentence while democrats use the same shield. The fact that both sides do it does not justify the tactic.

If a person's response has always been that the hostage strategy is fine, then at least they are consistent. There is definitely a legitimate debate to be had regarding whether that strategy aligns with the Constitution (and necessarily implying both parties have been guilty of violating its intent).

No. It isn't an equivalent. An equivalent would have been a refusal to have hearings. I would be fine with that. They should have simply told Reagan that they would refuse to appoint any conservative to the court. It would have saved time, money and Bork's reputation. Instead, they created a circus. Reagan, wanting the court filled, then nominated Kennedy, a much more liberal repub. In my opinion, Kennedy has been a train wreck.

[Play Angry]

I'm sure you know Bork's nomination was defeated in Commitee 9 votes to 5, and he insisted on the full hearings proceeding in the Senate despite knowing his crucifixion was imminent.

[MoValley John]

I'm sure you know Bork's nomination was defeated in Commitee 9 votes to 5, and he insisted on the full hearings proceeding in the Senate despite knowing his crucifixion was imminent.

Yup. I'm 52, I watched it unfold. He wanted to bring the injustice to light, they simply butchered him.

[Play Angry]

The same base question and principle absolutely applies here: is the Senate's role deferential under a constructionist reading of the Constitution, or is it far more active than what the Constitution provides?

Republicans in 1987 went with the former, and in 2016 they opted for the latter. Democrats in 1987 opted for the latter, and in 2016 they naturally went with the former. Both sides were wrong when they went with curtain #2 IMO, and their actions are embarrassing and hypocritical in each case.