• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Prosecutor who questioned Ford Shreds her case

aocs3281 said:
I can’t speak on behalf of DeacsPop, but the Dems certainly have not given people like him a reasonable place to land. Step back and look at the protest that was led by Elizabeth Warren yesterday. That sort of stuff does more to normalize Trump than it does to hurt him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but judging from his posts that I've seen on this thread and a couple of others this past week, I don't think that DeacsPop is ever going to be interested in the Democrats, at all. He may have criticized Trump in the past, but he certainly seems to be all-in now. Other than becoming Republicans themselves, I'm not sure what Democrats could do that's going to win him over, based on his posts.
 
The last 5 - 7 pages of this thread have been wild. DeacPops and Creamy complain this is a liberal groupthink echo-chamber that shouts down conservative voices by name calling. Then, given ample opportunities to put forth any sort of conservative ideology or engage in basic political discourse, they name call, "own the libs", and play the victim. What a high level of projection.
 
Projection has become the native tongue of Pubs over the past decade.
 
Ok, since I've seem to have provoked some ire, I will give you my deal best I can, as short as I can.

I'm a simple guy. Not complicated in my beliefs. I believe in this Country, with all its problems/issues. Hate when individuals place broad generalizations on a populace who, for the most part believe in it as well. I hate politicians. Think they are interested in only their re election and would love to see everyone in all branches go to term limits. Four years, maybe six would be perfect. While I hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since '72 I voted for neither Trump of Clinton in '16. Never in my lifetime did I see two more vile candidates. While I support some issues of the present administration (pro business, trade, foreign policy) Trump's style is divisive and I still believe he act is a clown show not worthy of a chair in the Oval Office. While I am a fiscal conservative, I always thought of myself as a social liberal. Would much rather had a more moderate nominee than BK but knowing Trump, not surprised. I believe strongly that he has been wronged in the accusation of sexual harassment and now support his nomination. I am hoping that he will be balanced in his writings and opinions on the Court. Love discourse, believe in free speech but hate the self righteous who preach to others leading with their intellect (or lack of it). Seems there's a lot of this on this Board.

Like I said, pretty simple. Have a good day all; I am headed to the golf course.
 
aocs3281 said:
I can’t speak on behalf of DeacsPop, but the Dems certainly have not given people like him a reasonable place to land. Step back and look at the protest that was led by Elizabeth Warren yesterday. That sort of stuff does more to normalize Trump than it does to hurt him.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Although Donald Trump had sex with a pygmy goat on the front lawn of the WH, Elizabeth Warren's shrill tone in criticizing Trump is normalizing his behavior. Sorry Dims but I am going to have to remain a Pub.
 
DeacsPop said:
Ok, since I've seem to have provoked some ire, I will give you my deal best I can, as short as I can.

I'm a simple guy. Not complicated in my beliefs. I believe in this Country, with all its problems/issues. Hate when individuals place broad generalizations on a populace who, for the most part believe in it as well. I hate politicians. Think they are interested in only their re election and would love to see everyone in all branches go to term limits. Four years, maybe six would be perfect. While I hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since '72 I voted for neither Trump of Clinton in '16. Never in my lifetime did I see two more vile candidates. While I support some issues of the present administration (pro business, trade, foreign policy) Trump's style is divisive and I still believe he act is a clown show not worthy of a chair in the Oval Office. While I am a fiscal conservative, I always thought of myself as a social liberal. Would much rather had a more moderate nominee than BK but knowing Trump, not surprised. I believe strongly that he has been wronged in the accusation of sexual harassment and now support his nomination. I am hoping that he will be balanced in his writings and opinions on the Court. Love discourse, believe in free speech but hate the self righteous who preach to others leading with their intellect (or lack of it). Seems there's a lot of this on this Board.

Like I said, pretty simple. Have a good day all; I am headed to the golf course.
Click to expand...

Too much independence of thought to be acceptable to the goosestepping left. You should be criticized harshly and often for incorrect thinking. Have you ever considered re-education camp?
 
DeacsPop said:
Ok, since I've seem to have provoked some ire, I will give you my deal best I can, as short as I can.

I'm a simple guy. Not complicated in my beliefs. I believe in this Country, with all its problems/issues. Hate when individuals place broad generalizations on a populace who, for the most part believe in it as well. I hate politicians. Think they are interested in only their re election and would love to see everyone in all branches go to term limits. Four years, maybe six would be perfect. While I hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since '72 I voted for neither Trump of Clinton in '16. Never in my lifetime did I see two more vile candidates. While I support some issues of the present administration (pro business, trade, foreign policy) Trump's style is divisive and I still believe he act is a clown show not worthy of a chair in the Oval Office. While I am a fiscal conservative, I always thought of myself as a social liberal. Would much rather had a more moderate nominee than BK but knowing Trump, not surprised. I believe strongly that he has been wronged in the accusation of sexual harassment and now support his nomination. I am hoping that he will be balanced in his writings and opinions on the Court. Love discourse, believe in free speech but hate the self righteous who preach to others leading with their intellect (or lack of it). Seems there's a lot of this on this Board.

Like I said, pretty simple. Have a good day all; I am headed to the golf course.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed, moderate response. No "ire", but when someone calls something I post that's based on simple voting results and political demographics "a crock of shit", I'm going to respond and explain what I wrote. I think it is naive to believe that Kavanaugh is going to be "balanced in his writings and opinions", based on his long association and career with the GOP Right, and his opening statement last Friday. You said you had not voted for a Democrat for POTUS since 1972, so I am wondering what would get you to vote Democratic now. While I respect your view that Kavanaugh is innocent, I disagree, and believe that eventually it will be shown that he was guilty of something much worse than he has admitted to thus far. And, lastly, what you call self-righteous liberal preaching could also easily be seen as basic criticisms of your party and the people who lead it. You refer to Trump as a clown show, and much of that clownishness consists of him saying and tweeting things that are racist, misogynistic (such as his attack on Ford a couple of days ago), and bigoted. And, from a liberal's point of view, it certainly seems as if his supporters are in total agreement with him on what he says and tweets. Maybe what you're seeing is not self-righteousness or condescension, but just anger and frustration at people who certainly appear to be blindly and enthusiastically supporting what, in your words, is a clown show.
 
DeacsPop said:
Ok, since I've seem to have provoked some ire, I will give you my deal best I can, as short as I can.

I'm a simple guy. Not complicated in my beliefs. I believe in this Country, with all its problems/issues. Hate when individuals place broad generalizations on a populace who, for the most part believe in it as well. I hate politicians. Think they are interested in only their re election and would love to see everyone in all branches go to term limits. Four years, maybe six would be perfect. While I hadn't voted for a Democrat for President since '72 I voted for neither Trump of Clinton in '16. Never in my lifetime did I see two more vile candidates. While I support some issues of the present administration (pro business, trade, foreign policy) Trump's style is divisive and I still believe he act is a clown show not worthy of a chair in the Oval Office. While I am a fiscal conservative, I always thought of myself as a social liberal. Would much rather had a more moderate nominee than BK but knowing Trump, not surprised. I believe strongly that he has been wronged in the accusation of sexual harassment and now support his nomination. I am hoping that he will be balanced in his writings and opinions on the Court. Love discourse, believe in free speech but hate the self righteous who preach to others leading with their intellect (or lack of it). Seems there's a lot of this on this Board.

Like I said, pretty simple. Have a good day all; I am headed to the golf course.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone ever think Kavanaugh would be "balanced"?

His dissent on Heller is far more extreme than anyone on the Supreme Court wrote or spoke.

His opinion about Native Hawaiians is far out of the mainstream.

Could vote to overturn ban on school prayer: "he practice is “part of the fabric of our society” such that the invocation of God was “not, in these circumstances, an ‘establishment’ of religion … [but] simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.” […] Stripping government ceremonies of any references to God or religious expression would reflect unwarranted hostility to religion and would, in effect, ‘establish’ atheism.

— Judge Kavanaugh in Newdow v. Roberts"

He will likely vote to uphold bigoted religious freedom laws - "The Supreme Court has emphasized that judges in RFRA cases may question only the sincerity of a plaintiff’s religious belief, not the correctness or reasonableness of that religious belief. […] The Supreme Court has long stated, moreover, that religious beliefs need not be “acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others” in order to merit protection.

— Judge Kavanaugh in Priests for Life v. HHS"

I'm sorry I'm using his actual words and votes to show how truly not "balanced" he has been.

This isn't even mentioning the grudge he promised to continue. That alone should disqualify him.
 
Lectro said:
Maybe..but disagreeing with Democrats and their destructive policies IS politics.

You reaped what the feckless Obama opposed and that why you got the boot in 2016.
Click to expand...

I’ll bite. How is disagreement politics? Hannah Arendt just rolled over in her grave.
 
Highland Deac said:
Perhaps, but judging from his posts that I've seen on this thread and a couple of others this past week, I don't think that DeacsPop is ever going to be interested in the Democrats, at all. He may have criticized Trump in the past, but he certainly seems to be all-in now. Other than becoming Republicans themselves, I'm not sure what Democrats could do that's going to win him over, based on his posts.
Click to expand...

How could pop be anything but “all in”?

Look at your D party..bunch of God Damn Slimeballs. Period!

Your Party Sucks Ass. Go find another place to ‘live’ you sorry Socialist fatherfuckers
 
Anyone proclaiming Kavanaugh is or is not going to be "balanced" is really not paying attention to how judges tend to work. The guy is very much in line with Rehnquist. You want a right - it better be enumerated in the Constitution or firmly rooted in precedent. That is how he is going to rule from the bench. And that, by definition, means in his book Roe v. Wade should probably be struck down. I'd be hard pressed to call his judicial philosophy "unbalanced" on it's face. How he applies it may be another matter, but in theory he should be less inclined to deviation of decision than many other justices on the court.

We all know what this nomination (were it him or someone else) was really about - Roe vs. Wade. Part of the reason you hear so many abortion rights proponents screaming Roe is settled law on TV these days is because they expect it to come under challenge now AND they want to set up the argument that the principles of the case are firmly rooted in precedent. And they are right to be worried. I've never understood how anyone can defend the ruling of that decision on logical grounds these days. Science has advanced a lot in the last 50 years and rendered the basis of that decision more or less logically bankrupt. Essentially the case was grounded in a right of privacy but said as the pregnancy advanced the state's interest in regulating the abortion grew stronger. And it then based that state's interest on the viability of the fetus outside the womb. Well, that viability outside the womb has been rolled back significantly from a science standpoint since 1973. Yet Roe became a national litmus for the timing of when abortion can be performed legally and that timing has not really moved (and some abortion advocates are pushing for it to move even closer to the date of birth). That's where the decision falls apart in my thinking. If you argue a fetus can't be aborted when it is viable outside the womb, the next logical step you have to draw is that if you perform an abortion when a fetus is viable outside the womb you have committed a murder.
Obviously this is why abortion has always been such a lightening rod issue. And it is a dicey place for the court as well. Keep in mind there are a host of very liberal minded countries that do not permit abortion along nearly the same timelines they are allowed in the U.S. And you can expect to hear that line of attack be used much more openly politically than it has been historically. Today the debate is framed in very black/white type terms. You are either for or against abortion rights. Going forward you will hear all about how abortion cannot be performed legally past X weeks of pregnancy in France or how it is otherwise restricted in various countries in Europe, Japan, etc. Where the decision gets even more dicey for abortion rights advocates is that Kavanaugh may or may not be the type of guy who finds a right of privacy in the Constitution. I can tell you that right is no where enumerated in the Constitution. It should be, but it isn't. It seems firmly rooted in precedent though, at least to me.

Also, to the extent abortion rights get turned into a seminal issue in the election I think that is a loser for those who want to push those rights. Public opinion no doubt favors the right to choose. But most people who favor that right are not going to pull the lever solely on that issue. By contrast a very large part of the evangelical vote will pull the lever solely on that issue and will be extremely motivated to vote based upon that issue.
 
In my lifetime, no potential judicial nomination has ever threatened the opposition party with a lifelong vendetta like Kavanaugh did.

In my lifetime, no appointee had lied as often as he has over his history of testimony to the Senate.

In my lifetime, no nominee ever showed less judicial temperament than Kavanaugh.

In my lifetime, no WH has ever blocked the sharing of work product by a Supreme Court nominee like this one did. What's more egregious about this is nothing in those 100,000 pages happened less than a dozen ago and the POTUS involved with the appointee approved the dissemination of the materials. Obviously they are hiding many things that would have been negative.

People are looking at Kavanaugh's stances on abortion. They also look at his extreme stances on religious freedom acts.

He will be the most extreme gun rights Justice in my lifetime.
 
RJKarl said:
In my lifetime, no potential judicial nomination has ever threatened the opposition party with a lifelong vendetta like Kavanaugh did.

In my lifetime, no appointee had lied as often as he has over his history of testimony to the Senate.

In my lifetime, no nominee ever showed less judicial temperament than Kavanaugh.

In my lifetime, no WH has ever blocked the sharing of work product by a Supreme Court nominee like this one did. What's more egregious about this is nothing in those 100,000 pages happened less than a dozen ago and the POTUS involved with the appointee approved the dissemination of the materials. Obviously they are hiding many things that would have been negative.

People are looking at Kavanaugh's stances on abortion. They also look at his extreme stances on religious freedom acts.

He will be the most extreme gun rights Justice in my lifetime.
Click to expand...


Goody!

I hope his time on the bench causes enduring grief for you.
 
DeacMan said:
Anyone proclaiming Kavanaugh is or is not going to be "balanced" is really not paying attention to how judges tend to work. The guy is very much in line with Rehnquist. You want a right - it better be enumerated in the Constitution or firmly rooted in precedent. That is how he is going to rule from the bench. And that, by definition, means in his book Roe v. Wade should probably be struck down. I'd be hard pressed to call his judicial philosophy "unbalanced" on it's face. How he applies it may be another matter, but in theory he should be less inclined to deviation of decision than many other justices on the court.

We all know what this nomination (were it him or someone else) was really about - Roe vs. Wade. Part of the reason you hear so many abortion rights proponents screaming Roe is settled law on TV these days is because they expect it to come under challenge now AND they want to set up the argument that the principles of the case are firmly rooted in precedent. And they are right to be worried. I've never understood how anyone can defend the ruling of that decision on logical grounds these days. Science has advanced a lot in the last 50 years and rendered the basis of that decision more or less logically bankrupt. Essentially the case was grounded in a right of privacy but said as the pregnancy advanced the state's interest in regulating the abortion grew stronger. And it then based that state's interest on the viability of the fetus outside the womb. Well, that viability outside the womb has been rolled back significantly from a science standpoint since 1973. Yet Roe became a national litmus for the timing of when abortion can be performed legally and that timing has not really moved (and some abortion advocates are pushing for it to move even closer to the date of birth). That's where the decision falls apart in my thinking. If you argue a fetus can't be aborted when it is viable outside the womb, the next logical step you have to draw is that if you perform an abortion when a fetus is viable outside the womb you have committed a murder.
Obviously this is why abortion has always been such a lightening rod issue. And it is a dicey place for the court as well. Keep in mind there are a host of very liberal minded countries that do not permit abortion along nearly the same timelines they are allowed in the U.S. And you can expect to hear that line of attack be used much more openly politically than it has been historically. Today the debate is framed in very black/white type terms. You are either for or against abortion rights. Going forward you will hear all about how abortion cannot be performed legally past X weeks of pregnancy in France or how it is otherwise restricted in various countries in Europe, Japan, etc. Where the decision gets even more dicey for abortion rights advocates is that Kavanaugh may or may not be the type of guy who finds a right of privacy in the Constitution. I can tell you that right is no where enumerated in the Constitution. It should be, but it isn't. It seems firmly rooted in precedent though, at least to me.

Also, to the extent abortion rights get turned into a seminal issue in the election I think that is a loser for those who want to push those rights. Public opinion no doubt favors the right to choose. But most people who favor that right are not going to pull the lever solely on that issue. By contrast a very large part of the evangelical vote will pull the lever solely on that issue and will be extremely motivated to vote based upon that issue.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the last part of your argument. The reason that most voters who are pro-choice don't make that their sole issue is because Roe is still on the books, and abortion rights are still legal. If that is removed, I have little doubt that issue will quickly move to the top of their list when voting, and they will vote much more similar to evangelicals on abortion rights. You take away that right, which took so long to get, and I don't think pro-choice voters will be nearly so complacent in their voting habits afterwards. As for evangelicals, their vote on abortion is likely to do the opposite, as they will have gotten what they wanted. Why make it your sole issue when it's been made illegal again in most states? If Roe is overturned, and I expect it will be within the next few years, I think the voting patterns will largely flip on this issue. Not that evangelicals will vote Democratic, of course, but it won't be the driving force that it has been since the SC ruled in Roe v. Wade back in the seventies.
 
Last edited:
Part of me thinks that Republicans won’t push that hard to get it overturned because it’s like the sole thing motivating a large portion of their rube class to keep voting for them. Once they get those blinders removed they may realize that the only thing the GOP offers them is tax cuts that don’t affect them and a piece of shit president who insults them to their faces.
 
06deacon said:
Part of me thinks that Republicans won’t push that hard to get it overturned because it’s like the sole thing motivating a large portion of their rube class to keep voting for them. Once they get those blinders removed they may realize that the only thing the GOP offers them is tax cuts that don’t affect them and a piece of shit president who insults them to their faces.
Click to expand...

I've thought that as well, but the only problem is that the GOP has loudly proclaimed that they'd pack the Court with "pro-life" justices who would overturn Roe. Now that they've got that majority, if it doesn't happen, or worse, an abortion case comes before the Court and it isn't overturned because some of the conservatives won't do it, then I think the Religious Right will be up in arms. Ironically, the GOP's electoral victories, and subsequent ability to pack the Court, may be backing them into a corner on this.
 
You think the religious right rube class will want to stop with just over turning roe v wade, they will look to put into place a law that outright bans abortion nationwide not just returning it to the states. That would require a super majority so better keep voting for us white men as we dangle that to distract from our tax cuts and entitlement rollbacks you rely on the most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top