Jump to content

The Political Thread - Machiavelli Edition


Recommended Posts

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including allegations of sexual assault dating back a few decades. Even if these allegations are proven true, a new poll released this week showed a majority of Republicans (55 percent) don't think that is disqualifying for one of the most important jobs in the world.

 

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

Edited by ktchong
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including allegations of sexual assault dating back a few decades. Even if these allegations are proven true, a new poll released this week showed a majority of Republicans (55 percent) don't think that is disqualifying for one of the most important jobs in the world.

 

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

 

Hey, if the President can be a rapist so should Judges.

  • Like 1
I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

People here are gonna be ticked off by what I am about to say, but I am not gonna mince words here

 

 

 

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including allegations of sexual assault dating back a few decades. Even if these allegations are proven true, a new poll released this week showed a majority of Republicans (55 percent) don't think that is disqualifying for one of the most important jobs in the world.

 

Link: https://www.newsweek.com/sexual-assault-should-not-disqualify-kavanaugh-proven-majority-republicans-1141877

 

Hey, if the President can be a rapist so should Judges.

 

 

Yikes, just goes to show ya the extent of the immorality and depravity of Americans - i.e., the American people.  The USA is Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

If the Judea-Christian God actually exist, he should have already be smitten, drowned and rained down fire and brimstone onto the USA.  The fact that the USA is still standing is the proof that God do not exist.

Edited by ktchong
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really, if Kavanaugh was any kind of judge he'd go "fine, start an investigation". As a judge, he'd know that a negligable amount of reported rapes lead to convictions anyway. It's an almost statistical certainty that he'll get off scott-free whether he did it or not. The fact that he hasn't makes it look like he has other stuff to hide or doesn't have a good understanding of the justice system, both of which are pretty poor qualities for a judge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I AM a religious man. But God doesn't do a lot of smiting despite what folks thought 4000 years ago. But then I tend to mix my Christianity with a healthy dose of Deism. The nice thing about religion is you can accept or reject as much of, any of, it as you choose. You can read the Bible, Torah, Koran, Book of Enoch. Book of Mormon, etc. any or all of them and draw your own conclusions. That might sound heretical to many if not all the religions of the earth. But if you accept there is a God then it's not by accident you have a brain that can reason and do not have to rely on what other people told you is true. You can draw your own conclusions. If you use that noodle and conclude there is no God, and there actually is I wouldn't worry too much about it. If God gave you a brain and you used it to a wrong conclusion he can hardly get down on you for that. Besides, God does not cease to exist because you've decided he does not. Sort of like aliens. There is no evidence aliens exist but if they do they don't cease to exist because you followed the evidence to a conclusion. Besides, if God is good He won't love you any less for using your brain and if He's not good who cares what He thinks?

 

Personally I find Atheism faulty reasoning. Asserting a thing is categorically so is the same as asserting that we know everything there is to know and nothing outside of that knowledge can possibly exist. 

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ktchong: There's lots of places besides the US that fire-and-brimstone (meteor salvo really) god would have 'sodom and gommorah'd' if fire-and-brimstone god actually existed. All indications are that the Old Testament god was perhaps once a fire god of some sort, though the whole flood myth thing would be water/rain god association, but that's a theological discussion for some other thread.

Edited by smjjames
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The fact that he hasn't makes it look like he has other stuff to hide or doesn't have a good understanding of the justice system, both of which are pretty poor qualities for a judge."

 

Actually, this statement is proof you don't know what a judge should be about. And, you clearly don't have a good understanding of the justice system.

 

You sound like 'you shouldn't mind cameras in your bedroom unless you have something to hide'.

 

VERY WEAK.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I AM a religious man. But God doesn't do a lot of smiting despite what folks thought 4000 years ago. But then I tend to mix my Christianity with a healthy dose of Deism. The nice thing about religion is you can accept or reject as much of, any of, it as you choose. You can read the Bible, Torah, Koran, Book of Enoch. Book of Mormon, etc. any or all of them and draw your own conclusions. That might sound heretical to many if not all the religions of the earth. But if you accept there is a God then it's not by accident you have a brain that can reason and do not have to rely on what other people told you is true. You can draw your own conclusions. If you use that noodle and conclude there is no God, and there actually is I wouldn't worry too much about it. If God gave you a brain and you used it to a wrong conclusion he can hardly get down on you for that. Besides, God does not cease to exist because you've decided he does not. Sort of like aliens. There is no evidence aliens exist but if they do they don't cease to exist because you followed the evidence to a conclusion. Besides, if God is good He won't love you any less for using your brain and if He's not good who cares what He thinks?

 

Personally I find Atheism faulty reasoning. Asserting a thing is categorically so is the same as asserting that we know everything there is to know and nothing outside of that knowledge can possibly exist. 

Unless your thoughts directly affect the fabric of reality, in which case; expect a friendly visit from the Ordo Hereticus.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done nothing but mock and ridicule this whole confirmation process. But the truth is I don't give a crap how much beer he drank of how many women he didn't rape in high school. When he said the NSA's data collection program was "entirely consistent" with the 4th Amendment he was a firm "no" from me.

 

There is one thing the Republicans and Democrats both agree on. The federal government they are fighting each other for control of is all powerful and can take, kill, or lock up whatever or whomever it pleases. When Kavanaugh answered that question they all had a little wood.

  • Like 1

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my own reasons for him being a 'no'. His near-belief (or complete belief maybe. He's said in other statements that put some doubt on that) that the President is above the law and cannot be indicted is the big one and just screams 'Trump chose him because he'd be a vote in Trumps pocket'.

 

While the sexual allegations are a concerning thing, theres the bigger surrounding issue of Kavanaughs credibility in the whole proccess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the 4th Amendment next week the Supreme Court will start hearing cases again. This is the first one up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/theyre-great-little-animals-the-dusky-gopher-frog-goes-before-the-supreme-court/2018/09/29/b928b9b4-bc4f-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.243d7dcc4ecf

 

The short stokes of this are: The FWC has determined that privately owned land in Mississippi is critical habitat for a frog that is no longer found on that land due to ecological changes. Natural changes not man made. So the owner of the land is suing to remove the designation. Th FWC, being a part of the government, never ever gives anything back once it has taken it away. Now, ordinarily this challenge would be DOA because the the "Chevron Deference" doctrine. In the 1980's the SCOTUS decided that unelected agencies with no oversight or accountability to anyone are our Gods and masters and whatever they say goes because they are above the law. The pendulum is swinging the other way now thanks to Roberts, Thomas, Goresuch, Sotomayor and Kennedy. From what I saw of Kavanaugh he's more likely to side on the infallibility of the almighty State. Hopefully he will not be on the court when this one is decided. I'm betting this goes 5-3 for the Weyerhaeuser Co. and the Chevron Deference moves one step closer to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the 4th Amendment next week the Supreme Court will start hearing cases again. This is the first one up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/theyre-great-little-animals-the-dusky-gopher-frog-goes-before-the-supreme-court/2018/09/29/b928b9b4-bc4f-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.243d7dcc4ecf

 

The short stokes of this are: The FWC has determined that privately owned land in Mississippi is critical habitat for a frog that is no longer found on that land due to ecological changes. Natural changes not man made. So the owner of the land is suing to remove the designation. Th FWC, being a part of the government, never ever gives anything back once it has taken it away. Now, ordinarily this challenge would be DOA because the the "Chevron Deference" doctrine. In the 1980's the SCOTUS decided that unelected agencies with no oversight or accountability to anyone are our Gods and masters and whatever they say goes because they are above the law. The pendulum is swinging the other way now thanks to Roberts, Thomas, Goresuch, Sotomayor and Kennedy. From what I saw of Kavanaugh he's more likely to side on the infallibility of the almighty State. Hopefully he will not be on the court when this one is decided. I'm betting this goes 5-3 for the Weyerhaeuser Co. and the Chevron Deference moves one step closer to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

 

*AHEM* From article: “The main driver of its near extinction was human activity and habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation,”

 

The article doesn't mention why the particular area is no longer suitable for the frogs particular needs, so, we don't know how much land management practices and climate change are to blame, but habitat fragmentation doesn't help either.

 

However, I'd agree that they shouldn't rely on just one charischerestic to define potential habitats (how many other places have 'ephermeral ponds'? Deserts by their very nature can have 'ephemeral ponds', but these aren't desert dwellers) and as the climate changes, they're going to need flexibility as habitat disappears and new habitat appears elsewhere. But since when is the government flexible, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Gov't shouldn't steal properties. That is Nazism.  They should make an offer. If they're turned down offer more or shut up. But, nope, Nazis will Nazis. And, the gov't Nazis have guns so they win.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Speaking of the 4th Amendment next week the Supreme Court will start hearing cases again. This is the first one up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/theyre-great-little-animals-the-dusky-gopher-frog-goes-before-the-supreme-court/2018/09/29/b928b9b4-bc4f-11e8-8792-78719177250f_story.html?utm_term=.243d7dcc4ecf

 

The short stokes of this are: The FWC has determined that privately owned land in Mississippi is critical habitat for a frog that is no longer found on that land due to ecological changes. Natural changes not man made. So the owner of the land is suing to remove the designation. Th FWC, being a part of the government, never ever gives anything back once it has taken it away. Now, ordinarily this challenge would be DOA because the the "Chevron Deference" doctrine. In the 1980's the SCOTUS decided that unelected agencies with no oversight or accountability to anyone are our Gods and masters and whatever they say goes because they are above the law. The pendulum is swinging the other way now thanks to Roberts, Thomas, Goresuch, Sotomayor and Kennedy. From what I saw of Kavanaugh he's more likely to side on the infallibility of the almighty State. Hopefully he will not be on the court when this one is decided. I'm betting this goes 5-3 for the Weyerhaeuser Co. and the Chevron Deference moves one step closer to the dustbin of history where it belongs.

 

*AHEM* From article: “The main driver of its near extinction was human activity and habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation,”

 

The article doesn't mention why the particular area is no longer suitable for the frogs particular needs, so, we don't know how much land management practices and climate change are to blame, but habitat fragmentation doesn't help either.

 

However, I'd agree that they shouldn't rely on just one charischerestic to define potential habitats (how many other places have 'ephermeral ponds'? Deserts by their very nature can have 'ephemeral ponds', but these aren't desert dwellers) and as the climate changes, they're going to need flexibility as habitat disappears and new habitat appears elsewhere. But since when is the government flexible, right?

 

That is the main diver of it's endangerment but it has nothing to do with the ecological changes to the piece of land that is the subject of the lawsuit. You are taking a big issue and conflating it with a little one. This suit is only about the disposition of a single piece of land that is no longer ecologically suitable to the frogs. That the land is unsuitable is not in question. It isn't. That much is stipulated. The question is can the FWC still bar the owner from using the land despite that fact. The government says it can because "F--k You. We are the government and we f-----g own you!

Edited by Guard Dog

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this particular case, if it's not potential habitat for other endangered or vulnerable species and can't be made into one without significant artificial intervention and maintainance, then yes, I'd say give it with a condition on responsible land management practices.

 

On a side note, since gopher tortoise burrows are mentioned as being essential (though according to the article, they'll take any old hole), I wonder if that area would also be gopher tortoise habitat? Just a thought since the article mentions pine tree harvesting and I wiki'd that and the gopher tortoises best habitat is the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Edited by smjjames
Link to post
Share on other sites

42803627_2182892511774015_75298422728509

 

:lol:

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't need police. Or an army. Or lawyers. Or judges. But, we do. It's called the real world that has billions of people. Not all of them are my moral equal. :)

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how much use an actual firearm would be.

 

In other news, seems Canada and US have reached a deal on NAFTA - https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-finale-sunday-deadline-trump-1.4844623

 

No end to Canadian supply management, and NAFTA Chapter 19 is kept word for word, but US can sell more of their dairy in Canada. Seems auto and auto parts aren't going to be hit with tarrifs (to be honest that'd be a bit of a mess given how car parts shuffle to and from US and Canada). Probably be some other bits where we get shafted, like IP/copyright laws.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind if I steal your link for another forum? heh.

 

Anyways, the deadline turned out to be a bit of a fake deadline since on Friday, Mexican President-elect Obrador said he'd accept and sign whatever gets negotiated, https://www.axios.com/nafta-united-states-canada-mexico-negotiations-545a0a49-27aa-4538-8c4d-1098c7b7765b.html

 

Not exactly new news, but Trump has also rebranded it as the US-Mexico-Canada agreement. UMCA or USMCA (or maybe USMECAA) doesn't roll off the tongue in the same way as NAFTA does, but whatever works I guess.

Edited by smjjames
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42803627_2182892511774015_75298422728509

 

:lol:

 

Could. It's their right. They shouldn't have to.

 

There's a lot of things that shouldn't happen, but they do. I'd really like to hear your solution though.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see gun rights as a means of protecting oneself when away from timely police dispatch or outside of police jurisdiction. It's also a deterrent from unlawful seizure or trespassing because no office wants to risk their life butting heads with someone who will defend their own rights.

 

What guns aren't, is the solution to things like assault. It's a reaction, it's a precaution, it's a deterrent if you open carry. What is desired is to not even have to take such precautions. Which is why the prescription should be could, not should. Obviously, a Woman Democrat is going to seek out ways to mitigate assault in the first place, and not just because they needs some solution that would work if the 2nd were to vanish. Suggesting instead they should be carrying guns as the way to deter assault since it will happens anyways is the wrong prescription.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was supposed to be just for a chuckle. Since it's the Democrats who are determined to take everyone's firearms away (except the government's and their bodyguards of course) I found it a little funny. It wasn't really intended to segue into a gun rights conversation.

 

Of course if that's where you guys want to go, by all means. Don't let me stop you. Seems like we've plowed that field a few times but what's one more? 

"The man of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys. Power, like a desolating pestilence, pollutes whate'er it touches; and obedience, bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth, makes slaves of men, and of the human frame a mechanized automaton."

P.B. Shelley

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...