1. ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
    Dismiss Notice

Kavanaugh/Ford Hearing

Discussion in 'Random Chat' started by Bocefish, Sep 27, 2018.

  1. ForceTen

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,722
    Here's an interesting article about Beto O'Rourke I read. Just simply based off of this opinion piece, the way he's described is the kind of candidate I would support. He even condemned protesters for making Ted Cruz leave a restaurant. He's in an area that I don't live, so I can't vote for him and haven't delved too much into his background. But, I do agree with many of his stances from what I have seen.

    On the flipside, while I agree with nearly all of this candidate's issues, because he has shown a url=https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...dership-fund/joe-radinovich-running-law/]long history of legal issues[/url]. Granted, these are mostly driving/parking violations as well as unpaid court fines. But, IMO, there's a long history of failing to abide by even the most basic of laws, as well as having unpaid court fines go to collections. So, it does make me wonder if his integrity is what he claims to be.


    FYI, both of these candidates are outside of my area and I cannot vote for either of them. But, I am using them as examples of why I may or may not vote for someone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Poison_Ivy21

    Cam Model

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,295
    @ForceTen To call it a long history is a bit hyperbolic, don’t you think? One DWI and then arrested by UTEP police for sneaking under a fence. Neither resulting in convictions. Your last link didn’t work, I think this is what you were going for. I haven’t seen anything about parking tickets, it’s not a concern of mine anyway.

    But yah, people aren’t perfect. He’s been completely transparent about it and I think that’s where his integrity shows. I can vote for him and will be at the polls early to do so! I don’t have high hopes, but getting spineless Raphael Cruz out of office would be quite a relief.
     
  3. ForceTen

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,722
    @Poison_Ivy21 thanks for the link. The link I messed up was this one which was about the other candidate I posted. This is the long history I was referring to. Again, most are driving and parking offenses. But, he's also failed to pay court fees which were turned over to collection agencies. Thus why i question the candidate's integrity.

    For the record, I don't mind if a person has some prior legal issues. So long as they aren't of a violent nature, domestic abuse, sex trafficing or the like. As well as no embezzlement, etc. But, minor drug offenses, speeding tickets, etc. I don't think should prevent someone from running so long as they've met all the requirements of their legal obligations (court ordered such as jail time, fines, etc) and there isn't a history of said issues spanning years. Which it appears that O'Rourke is very candid and open about. Another reason why I would vote for him, in that he's been open about these issues since initially running for office years ago.
     
  4. MDouble00

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages:
    273
    The issues with Ellison need to be called out, any reasonable person would agree with that. I'm not following his issues in detail because he's not in my state. But, if I were in his state, just on the optics he wouldn't get my vote and I honestly think he should remove himself from consideration and face whatever charges he has coming. I will be openly honest I'm concerned about elected people with questionable baggage getting elected, but at least in that case the ability to remove them from said role is much easier. Yes still a position of power/influence, but it is not comparable to a federal judge.

    The ability to remove a sitting judge with a lifetime appointment at any level is stacked in a way that it while not impossible is very close to that in terms of what it would take for them to be forced out of office.

    You say you're a centrist. I consider myself a moderate. I'm left leaning on Social Issues (health care, gay rights, women's contraceptive issues) I lean right on most Economic Issues (taxes, trade agreements,wage negotiations). The real toss up for me is in regards to Military Issues (spending/war powers and so forth). So as it stems with social issues or as you put it personal liberties those are issues that can and will be deeply affected if the balance keeps moving right of center. As I noted in my previous response I didn't have issues with Gorsich despite being right leaning justice, just like I didn't have an issue with Garland the left leaning justice that wasn't even given a hearing. And as I mentioned, they could have withdrawn Kavanaugh and still put up a right leaning justice candidate. I just don't think he was the right candidate for the "right" to go so all in over.

    You're correct neither party is shining example of what is right or good for the Country. And you express many ideals for what the US government should be like, but that isn't the structure or balance that we have. And there has been well designed efforts to make sure that it doesn't happen. One side does a better job of protecting and increasing their control than the other and all you have to do is really dig into voting district demographics. We can also look at how population density of say the electoral college really gives more "power" to States where less people live and "penalizes" States where more people live.

    The money and power that is in the lobbying/partisan driving nature of our politics is one that is so entrenched it will never be broken. Or why when the stakes get to rough (i.e. they have pissed off their electorate enough that even their strongest supporters want them gone) the elected official bows out of "public" service and waltzes into a six figure+ "private" sector job. Same with military officials, and anyone with clearances.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. ForceTen

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,722
    While Ellison isn't going for a Federal position, people should be concerned because he is a sitting Co-chair of the DNC and he is a US Representative so he does have an impact at the federal level. It's hypocritical for the DNC to keep him there, and he should be removed. Just like an officer when they are involved in a shooting, officials (elected and appointed) should be removed until an investigation has been done.
    For me, I don't view the typical definitions as being specific to one party or the other. Remember, JFK was a devout Catholic, yet was a member of the Democratic party which caused a lot of controversy and fear of church mingling with the state. There's also Republicans who are pro-choice, and I think there's only a select few who would have ill-will towards the gay community. So, there's exceptions there, and somehow these definitions of which party is associated to what are incorrectly defined. The same goes for wealth, I would venture a guess that there's as many [mb]illionaires who lean left as there are on the right. Probably more given how much of Hollywood, athletes and the tech industry typically lean left. Yet, why aren't the 99% screaming about unfairness there? Especially when Hillary charges more than $300,000 per speech (average is 20 minutes). But, again, it's easy to overlook the "evils" people are against when it's your own candidate.
    As mentioned, I don't like Kavanaugh and I don't think he should have been appointed. I even went so far as to say that these people should be heavily vetted before they are nominated for a position, or when they get the official support of the political party. But it'll never happen.
    I looked into how much the RNC and DNC have been in power at the Federal level. Learned an interesting bit of information regarding the so-called "shift in the balance of power" that so many fear. If that page is correct, there never was a balance of power to begin with. I'll leave it to you and others to read it instead of my giving the details.
    I can't speak to the redistricting aspect as I haven't looking into it and would prefer to not speak wrongly on it. I do know there are two mandates at the Federal level which are supposed to govern redistricing: Equal population distribution for each district within a particular state and that there shall be no discrimination based upon race or ethnicity. This second I would imagine is very difficult to balance out given minorities typically live in higher density areas instead of suburbs or rural areas. So, it is either unfairly a minority centric vote for the district or it gets split and unfairly diluted with others. Almost seems a no-win situation.
    As to state with lower population having equal votes as those with higher populations, that is Constitutionally setup and has been since its inception because it was a problem early on in our country's history as well as before then in other countries. This is to ensure that states have equal say in the matter, and comes from years of issues where lesser population centers are constantly overrun and neglected by those with more. Look at some of the larger states with very rural areas. Many of those places are barely surviving and get very little assistance from Federal and state aid. Again, kind of a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
    Personally, I have no issues if a public official leaves and goes into a high-paying job. If you're as you say you are, then you shouldn't either as it's market and experience driven and people are willing to pay them that. Where I have issues, is when our elected officials take money while they are in office and become very wealthy. Or, significantly more than when they first entered.
    While I thik he was one of our worst Presidents, I have a huge amount of respect for Jimmy Carter in his post-Presidency life. Not only for some of the things he's done to help improve the lives of others. But, because he's lived such a humble life since leaving office. The article I linked shows the kind of person he is compared to those who've been president after him.
    I'd hate to see what Trump is going to cost us per year after his term is over. At least he'll be out of office. But, I'd still be concerned regarding the level of Nat'l Secrets he knows and what may be done to make money off them, sell, etc.
     
  6. Bocefish

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    8,800
    I was also concerned about his demeanor yet also understand there is a limit to anyone's patience while undergoing partisan attacks... especially when a man's family is receiving death threats.

    His record as a judge is stellar from everything I've heard, otherwise, the left wouldn't have "Leaked" what was meant to be confidential in the first place, no?
     
  7. MDouble00

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages:
    273
    As I stated previously he should remove himself and face his charges and the consequences. Optically if I lived in his state party aside he wouldn't get my vote. And I agree he should remove himself from all aspects of his current privelges. For him not, can easily and should be seen as hypocritical. However, if the DNC and the "left" choose to let him stay they should expect the backlash that is him voted out of office. Something that if he were an "appointed' official like a Federal Judge is much harder to accomplish. While yes he has a federal impact it isn't necessarily lifelong or blocked from easy removal. But, again I agree he's a black mark for the "Left' until he's dealt with.

    There is a lot to unpack there and I'll just say we'll have to agree to disagree. My issue isn't about outliers on either side or their supporters. There are clear and distinct positions that either side has on particularly policies. That is just a fact. More of the left is going to be anti-abortion than the right. More of the left is going to be pro gay marriage than the right. More of the right is going to be pro busines than the left. More of the right is going to be pro defense spending than the left. And if there is a policy of national change such as a constituional ammendment or whatever those outliers are going to tend to vote for their "Party" and not necessarily their own belief. Which is why I cited Susan Collins 4 hour speech to say she sided with her party like she often does. To your point Joe Manichin and Lisa Murkowski broke from party line on Kavanaugh. Murkowski is likely safe, But, that was more likely for self preservation for Manichin in his voting area than what he really wanted to do. As if/not when the "right" has a better candiate to challenge him they will likely take his seat back.

    I'm sorry but that reads like "left wing media" talking point 101 from the "right". There have been plenty of Athletes, Musicians, Actors, Fortune 500 execs etc that vote republican. It goes under reported that the CEO/Board of Directors of the scary left wing media is controlled by people that vote right. The arguments that come out of this group of people particularly the "Athlete/Musician/Actor realm is that it's stick to "blank" if you don't agree with my position but then it is totally cool if you are that person and are on my side. So just take lightning rod Kanye West. When Kanye said George Bush doesn't care about black people oh the uproar on the right. And then when the same dude says slavery is a choice uproar from the left. Or when that same individual gets challenged for clearly having shitty and uniformed positions. Since he's currently leaning towards the "MAGA Trump" side you got people like Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, and Ben Shapiro. Who nortiously want to discredit any celebrity that speaks for the left informed or uniformed like Kanye. Blatantly ignoring their own positions on "celebrites" to defend the one that is saying the things they like. Hell Charlie Kirk just did this a couple of days ago when Taylor Swift expressed a detailed opinion of why she wasn't supporting a Republican candidate. He cast her aside as just another "leftist" know nothing but he's been staunchly saying the opposite for Kanye who on Kanye's own words is proving to be uniformed and just a provocateur.

    We can agree that it's a damned if you do damned if you don't area. But, there is something that needs to be considered that people claim the will of the people. When you have an Senator in California that represents a million people and a Senator in say Wyoming that represent less than 500,000 people. The proportionality of these things are out of line. But, yeah there is no real way to fix this so we agree there. I see what you are saying about the population distribution rules. First those will never pass at a National Level. There is a case in Florida that is likely headed to the Supreme Court for this on a State level. You bring up unfairly minority centric vote districts. That is exactly what i'm talking about take a place. For example in North Carolina There is a district that is drawn in a crazy diagonal line to force all the minorities into the same district. Not because it geographically makes sense. It was done to dilute a voter base that was predominately against the party in control of drawing the lines. So instead of areas that could be 60/40 or 55/45 you get areas that are 90/10 and 80/20 etc. So really 'you are representing the people', but you aren't representing the people. And then this flows into other aspects of representation. There isn't a perfect way to draw these lines, but there is a better way than what is being currently done.

    I like that you bring up you have personally no issues with a public official out of office and goes into a high paying job. I misunderstood you on the aspect of them getting rich while in office. And you misunderstood me on how they capitalize on who/what they are out of office for monetary gain. But, if ...IF...you are as you say you are you have no issue with them making that kind of money when they are out of office. Like you know Hillary Clinton getting $300,000 per speech she's not in office. She can command whatever a party is willing to pay for her "knowledge" right? As should any former legislator right?

    now if your issue is strictly that they are getting paid that kind of money in office then yeah we can agree that that is not a good look. And leads to much of the junk we have to deal with.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. ForceTen

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,722
    While there are exceptions to the rule when it comes to entertainers, it's well known that most entertainers are left leaning. It's also been shown that most of the Silicone Valley Tech industry is also left leaning. I was bringing this up primarily because people seem to have issues with the money CEO's make. Yet, when it comes to those who lean left that do so, it gets overlooked. This type of thing happens in general with most things, as I've been saying for a long time in this and other threads. "Point fingers and cry foul, yet deny" when caught with hand in the cookie ja.

    I think you misread what I wrote. I was saying that no matter how one looked at it, when you redistrict someone is going to be unhappy. I provided the two examples where it's either a primary minority vote, or it gets diluted. In one case, the argument could be said that they're squeezed into a district and has minimal say because it's just one district. In the other, the complaint could be that it's diluted and they could feel they won't be represented in any of them. Again, not an easy situation to resolve. But, I do agree that there are better ways to do it. Just unsure of how since there's many factors that go into redistricting which shouldn't be there such as splitting a predominately right or left leaning district. Which, isn't illegal since only race and population count are the two mandates for redistricting at a federal level. State levels are different apparently, and look at many different things according to this site. This is a situation where it'd be easier if the same rules applied to both state and fed levels.

    Again, my point was that people were having problems with how much money a CEO and corporate execs were making in terms of sheer dollars. Yet, they never complained when Clinton, as well as now Obama, make $300,000 per speech while out of office. If they can command that kind of money, good for them. It's done while they are out of office, which is good. But, again, why is it the "99% movement" has issues with CEO getting paid high amounts of money, yet don't have issues when someone from their own party makes significantly more than that by being paid the amount they do? This is hypocritical to me.
     
  9. ladylilith

    Cam Model

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    17
    Politics aside, I really just hope at the end of the day, the real lesson from this comes down to teaching men (despite their political leanings, and especially those in power for they set society's example) that they can't just stick their hand in the proverbial cookie jar and expect not to see any...

    Absolutely APPROPRIATE ramifications, for "happenings" that for too long have been swept aside as "minor", by a societal structure that I'm sure you are intelligent enough to analyse and question for yourselves now that you can surely hear our call, "enough is enough".
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. abercrombiesucks

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2018
    Messages:
    35
    Rather obvious that you didn't understand my post.
     
    • Bad Troll Attempt Bad Troll Attempt x 1
  11. Bocefish

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    8,800
    Totally Agree!

    I'm sure it's been discussed in HS & colleges. If not, it should be as a learning point to send a loud & clear message what you do in those formative years can follow you forever.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. ladylilith

    Cam Model

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    17
    Oh - excuse me, it must be my hysterical lady-brain interfering with rational logic again. Whoops!!! So what was it you were trying to express then, if not that you believe societal ramifications for sexual abusers somehow outweigh the lifelong ramifications imposed upon the victims?? Feel free to expand and help to understand what is was you were trying to say :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. abercrombiesucks

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2018
    Messages:
    35
    Can't say that I really see the need or that I feel particularly compelled to expand on such innocuous comments. Minor happenings, even well meaning ones, can often have negative results not initially thought of or apparent. A lukewarm take. Room temperature even. I'm puzzled by your decision to return to the comment and desecrate it by defecating on it but I won't feign interest by delving into how you reached it. I'll just find it funny and move on.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice