Politics Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, now with New allegations!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Will Kavanaugh be confirmed?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Burn it all down

Results are only viewable after voting.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's getting to the point where I'm going to have to go.
BrianFromWA said:
Just talking to the underlying point here, you can't say "if it doesn't affect you, stfu" when that's what society is most definitely not. Don't get me wrong, I'm ok with going hard-core stripped-down gov't libertarian. But what that means is: "If you can't take care of your own health care, fuck you. Not my business." "You can't pay for your kids to go to school? Fuck you, not my business." "Your kid ends up in the morgue b/c of drug abuse pushed by a dealer on your street corner? Doesn't affect me, fuck you--move somewhere where there aren't dealers on the corner." Etc. I think we'd all agree that, personal views on abortion aside, minding business isn't what our country was set up for over the last century.
Click to expand...

You're misconstruing (intentionally?). I'm talking about PERSONAL issues that don't actually affect anyone but them. What does it matter, for example, if someone is gay? I was responding to a callous reference to abortion being for the reckless. Obviously, when things affect others, it is up for debate. If taxes were actually paying for abortions, for example, it goes beyond the personal at that point and it'd be reasonable to say: I don't agree with this so I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to be complicit or whatever. But just the right to an abortion, for example? People need to fuck off. ESPECIALLY, dudes.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I don't know why the African-American community has historically voted 90%+ for (D) candidates, even ones that get crushed like Mondale, when no other demographic has such a strong correlation to almost anything...yet she points out that it's partially because any in that community talk about leaving the D party they get turned upon
Click to expand...
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
You're missing the point. Race is a social construct that is abhorrent. Except when a black person isn't a democrat. Then they're an uncle tom ass bitch or something.
Click to expand...

An odd thing it is! Although it is also somewhat paralleled by the Jewish American community. Both groups sort of defy the trends of other groups today, that is to connect with political philosophy by character attributes. Logical thinkers connect with Conservative Constitutional libertarian ideas where as the Feeling decision makers connect more with the Progressive liberal agenda.

In the total population, we are split nearly 50 50 with women slightly more on the feeling side and men slightly more the other way. It also seems it takes longer in life for a person, and even more for some people to fully develop their Logical thinking character. But real studies of this split by differing demographic groups has not been done , as far as I know . As near as I can tell, there does seem to be some differences here.

The Jews as a group maybe more, percentage wise inclined to be of the logical thinking type and defy the political association. Some here on S2 spoke up about this question when I asked, earlier this year. The group experience was the reason given for bucking the trend. At least as I remember it.

Black people on the other hand, as a group seem to have a higher percentage of the Feeling character which would support them associating with the Progressive liberal politics but not likely in the 90% as the group votes. Perhaps it is social shaming and valuing expressions of feeling that help push this along, even up a hill of logic.
 
Gronk Brady said:
Less than 1/10 of 1% of abortions are due to rape...
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it.

so that means 99.99 percent of abortions are due to irresponsible sex...
Click to expand...

Incorrect, of course. Birth control isn't 100% effective. Or maybe you consider all non-procreative sex to be irresponsible?

so instead of expecting more accountability for people, you want to allow women to kill the baby... constantly making excuses... and who are you to decide at what point a pregnancy becomes a person...
Click to expand...

I don't believe I'm in charge of that 'decision', nor have I claimed to be.

do you believe in God or have a soul? How do you know when the soul enters the organism?
Click to expand...

Not too interested in fairy tales.

barfo
 
You're misconstruing...I'm talking about PERSONAL issues that don't actually affect anyone but them. I was responding to a callous reference to abortion being for the reckless.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
(intentionally?).
Click to expand...
Nope. Your clarification makes sense.
What does it matter, for example, if someone is gay?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. So why should there be, I don't know, laws making gay people a protected class? Or that they need a method to civically marry? Not my business. Some would say "not their right".
Obviously, when things affect others, it is up for debate. If taxes were actually paying for abortions, for example, it goes beyond the personal at that point and it'd be reasonable to say: I don't agree with this so I don't want to pay for it. I don't want to be complicit or whatever.
Click to expand...
I think that's why we are having this discussion--because there are a lot of things that (to a layman) look to have been legislated from the bench over the last few decades, and I for one am interested in seeing how this goes--whether the constitutionalists will just not take cases or make decisions that make law, or if they will go back and remove precedents. As I said to @dviss1 above, I don't know what the mechanism is that would allow that, but it sounds like a lot of people are so afraid of it that we are where we are today. :dunno:
But just the right to an abortion, for example? People need to fuck off. ESPECIALLY, dudes.
Click to expand...
That's a philosophical debate. And one worth having. Are you saying then that, if a woman chooses not to have an abortion, she should fuck off with any child support claims? Or that a 13 y/o can get an abortion, but can't get medical care? There's a whole forums' worth of threads about the issues and nuances surrounding abortion. Which doesn't have much to do with having a more constitutionalist court.[/QUOTE]
 
jonnyboy said:
Ridiculous example.
Click to expand...

Ok, so a beating heart isn't the definition of personhood, that's fine. Next?

Edit: actually I see now that you were just responding to Chris' statement that there was no heartbeat. Sorry I missed that.

barfo
 
Chris Craig said:
There is no political motivation in my views on Kanvanaugh and his sexual assault of Ford and others.

I have already said I don't neccessairly agree with abortions. Its not killing a baby. The fetus is not living, there is no heartbeat.

Again abortions have nothing to do with my view of Kavanaugh
Click to expand...

Just to be accurate, Chris, there’s a fetal heartbeat at six weeks. More than half of babies born at 24 weeks (16 weeks premature) survive. Ninety percent of babies born at 26-27 weeks survive. I have two healthy, wonderful grandsons who were born at 32 weeks. We also had the family agony of having to deal with terminating one unsurvivable twin in order to give the healthy one the chance of living. Lumping all abortions and all fetuses throughout the entire nine months together is disingenuous.
 
jonnyboy said:
With that being said, there are tons of people who need transplants, so a beating, disembodied heart does hold a high level of importance.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there.

barfo
 
e_blazer said:
Just to be accurate, Chris, there’s a fetal heartbeat at six weeks. More than half of babies born at 24 weeks (16 weeks premature) survive. Ninety percent of babies born at 26-27 weeks survive. I have two healthy, wonderful grandsons who were born at 32 weeks. We also had the family agony of having to deal with terminating one unsurvivable twin in order to give the healthy one the chance of living. Lumping all abortions and all fetuses throughout the entire nine months together is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I said I am not for abortions. I still believe it is a womens choice. I don't care to argue it. Still not a man's choice. Maybe we should start letting women control what we do with our bodies.
 
dviss1 said:
You like to govern women's bodies.
Click to expand...

Gronk Brady said:
the political motivation of continuing to allow women to kill baby’s
Click to expand...

Chris Craig said:
Its not killing a baby
Click to expand...

>>>On the issue of abortion, I can not let emotional issues be the deciding point for what I support. The above are all emotional statements on the issue. It is not an issue that requires a single position for the nation. The Constitutions is silent on the issue . The Roe Vs Wade ruling sited stuff in the 9th amendment that is just not there. Rights yet defined are not rights to be invented by judges.

I can not find it in my heart to be pleased with abortion. On the other hand, I can not find it in my heart to force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want. Creating a human being is a multi step process, that only begins in the mother womb, it takes care and nurturing long after birth before society can count on another human being. We have no way to force this to happen. So I can not condemn a woman for her choice, nor do I have the will to force her to make my choice, or yours.

BrianFromWA said:
It's very important for me to have a strict constitutionalist Supreme Court
Click to expand...
Exactly the issue at hand. Our Constitution is one of the greatest assets of this Nation. We should all appreciate it and desire to follow it. Improve it when we must, but be guided by it until shown the way to improve it.

We would be fine without convoluted rulings like Roe V wade, probably better off than hassle over it, like the past 45 years. What we need is sound decisions following the Constitution in the future.
Perhaps Congress could craft an amendment that would please 38 states on when abortion is legal, leaving the states individual room to open the restrictions as they see fit. A wise Justice might even make the suggestion.
 
Chris Craig said:
Fair enough. I said I am not for abortions. I don't care to argue it. Still not a man's choice. Maybe we should start letting women control what we do with our bodies.
Click to expand...

The notion of a woman having total right to choose what to do with her body sounds right until we realize that there are legal limitations on personal decisions imposed by society all the time. We don’t have the legal right to commit suicide or harm ourselves. IMO, once a baby (fetus if you prefer) is survivable, society has the right to set limitations on terminating a pregnancy. That notion is actually consistent with Roe vs. Wade.
 
e_blazer said:
The notion of a woman having total right to choose what to do with her body sounds right until we realize that there are legal limitations on personal decisions imposed by society all the time. We don’t have the legal right to commit suicide or harm ourselves. IMO, once a baby (fetus if you prefer) is survivable, society has the right to set limitations on terminating a pregnancy. That notion is actually consistent with Roe vs. Wade.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think an abortion should happen after a heartbeat. I never said I agreed with that.
 
Well, now we get to watch the clock on Ruth....when she goes out toes up, if it is within one year of the next term, we may have to wait till after the election, as has been historically. Still think Trump takes 2020 and gets another SCJ.
 
DaLincolnJones said:
Well, now we get to watch the clock on Ruth....when she goes out toes up, if it is within one year of the next term, we may have to wait till after the election, as has been historically. Still think Trump takes 2020 and gets another SCJ.
Click to expand...

Nah. She is in great health. Won't leave till dems can vote in a liberal to replace her or until she dies probably at 120
 
A lot of republicans are gone in November and in 2020
 
Gronk Brady said:
Less than 1/10 of 1% of abortions are due to rape... so that means 99.99 percent of abortions are due to irresponsible sex... so instead of expecting more accountability for people, you want to allow women to kill the baby... constantly making excuses... and who are you to decide at what point a pregnancy becomes a person... do you believe in God or have a soul? How do you know when the soul enters the organism?
Click to expand...

A soul? For christ's sake what a joke.
 
Chris Craig said:
A lot of republicans are gone in November and in 2020
Click to expand...

If you only look at the odds, you would be correct. I believe as it is even reported on left media, that the best thing that could happen, by energizing the right wing base, your predicted Blue wave may very well be a Red wave. The Dems have done themselves no favor with this recent play.
 
Interesting that the press is now reporting Democrats turning against previous anti-Trump hero Avenatti.
CNN said:
A host of Democratic senators and senior aides told CNN that the allegations from Avenatti's client gave the GOP an opening to conflate -- and dismiss -- all the allegations in one broad brush.
"Well you know at some point there were a lot of folks coming forward making all sorts of accusations," said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, when asked about the allegations raised by Avenatti and his client. "It turns it into a circus atmosphere and certainly that's not where we should be."
Asked if Avenatti was helpful, Peters said: "I think we should have focused on the serious allegations that certainly appeared very credible to me that would be our best course of action."
Privately, the assessment was far more scathing.
"Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely.
Click to expand...
 
Chris Craig said:
Fair enough. I said I am not for abortions. I still believe it is a womens choice. I don't care to argue it. Still not a man's choice. Maybe we should start letting women control what we do with our bodies.
Click to expand...
What if no doctor on Earth wanted to perform them? Would it be the right of a woman to make someone perform the procedure?

Absolute rights should be things that you can do for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top