Should a high School incident be relevant 35 years later?

[Schnitzer318is]

Vote much? Seems a pretty good way to hold politicians accountable. Not changing many minds by doxxing and screaming at them at dinner, or their front yard..... quite the opposite actually. I have yet to hear a politician say the screaming protester throwing a temper tantrum persuaded them.

No shit. I intend to vote for O'Rourke here. Not because I am Dem, or support all of their policies, but because Cruz is a shit stain (as is Cornyn) and I want to send a message to him and all the PACs that pay for his campaign and his policies. I feel the same about most of the incumbents actually... regardless of political party affiliation.

If anything you are galvanizing minds against your cause by acting in uncivilized forms of dissent. Myself for example. I am 100% for protesting and political oversight by the citizenry. Up to and including unrest. But I can not support any group that doesn't respect the property of the rest of the citizens. Vandalizing and destruction hurts the average citizen and the community, not the policies you disagree with.

[decay]

Not changing many minds by doxxing

when antifa doxxed the proud boys who ran around looking for counter-protesters to fight in new york, the local police finally decided to go after them rather than pulling security on them

seems like we changed someone's mind there

i'm registered to vote, and i will. i just don't think political action has to be limited to voting

[mbonder]

if politicians have access to my paycheck without my consent, then they forfeit their right to privacy.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. If you live within the country and you participate by voting (stated just above this post) then you are consenting to paying taxes, that's part of the compromise when you are a part of a society. You give up some of your freedom (and money) so that you can benefit from the protections and advantages of the society.

[naplesE30]

^but that doesn’t make for a good sound bite for tv. So much intellectual laziness going around. Much like term limits. People are so damn lazy they want the govt to impose term limits for them when we damn well already control how many terms a member of Congress will serve. Quit giving our constitutional responsibilities to the govt to decide.

[decay]

I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. If you live within the country and you participate by voting (stated just above this post) then you are consenting to paying taxes, that's part of the compromise when you are a part of a society. You give up some of your freedom (and money) so that you can benefit from the protections and advantages of the society.

and depending on your level of involvement with the government, you may give away more, such as being subject to UCMJ if you're in the military, or having to maintain a security clearance if you're working with a TLA

politicians are public figures and have less expectation of privacy. we audit the taxes of presidential candidates- or, we used to before corruption took over

transparency is absolutely more important. if you're calling that "intellectually lazy" then i wonder if you understand the implications of what we're talking about

[Schnitzer318is]

"The second part of Article V of the Constitution allows us to bypass Congress. We would be able to call a Term Limits Convention which would ultimately allow us to impose the necessary term limits on Congress.

Here’s how it was set up by our founding fathers:

- Two-thirds of state legislatures (34) pass bills applying for the Term Limits Convention.
- Congress is mandated to call the Convention.
- The Convention, which features delegates chosen by the states, proposes one or more term limits amendments.
- Three-quarters of states (38) must ratify the amendment, either by legislature or state convention."

^That doesn't sound very easy to accomplish naples. I hardly think term limits is something that is readily changeable by the citizenry. Is it possible? Technically, yes. But I'm not going to hold my breath for 34 state legislatures to pass bills applying for that convention. I know mine wouldn't.

[naplesE30]

"The second part of Article V of the Constitution allows us to bypass Congress. We would be able to call a Term Limits Convention which would ultimately allow us to impose the necessary term limits on Congress.

Here’s how it was set up by our founding fathers:

- Two-thirds of state legislatures (34) pass bills applying for the Term Limits Convention.
- Congress is mandated to call the Convention.
- The Convention, which features delegates chosen by the states, proposes one or more term limits amendments.
- Three-quarters of states (38) must ratify the amendment, either by legislature or state convention."

^That doesn't sound very easy to accomplish naples. I hardly think term limits is something that is readily changeable by the citizenry. Is it possible? Technically, yes. But I'm not going to hold my breath for 34 state legislatures to pass bills applying for that convention. I know mine wouldn't.

Maybe you didn’t get the context of my post. I fully understand the amendment process. The point is a politician gets the tv sound byte of “I’m for term limits” John Q Public says to himself: he will vote for term limits.l, they get my vote. Candidates say what they will knowing that the willpower to impose them does not match reality. As such, we already have term limits in the form of voting out incumbents. It’s our responsibility to vote accordingly and the vote for insert politician who is for term limits is b.s. One is giving away a power they already posses to a hollow promise.

Much like decays simple logic of I pay taxes so every politician should be open for doxxing because they have my money. It might sound good on a 5 sec tv clip to someone who doesn’t think it through to what the ends of it may be.

I won’t get into why not having term limits isn’t a bad idea in my mind. Especially if one is worried about an centralization of power in one branch of govt.

[decay]

Much like decays simple logic of I pay taxes so every politician should be open for doxxing because they have my money. It might sound good on a 5 sec tv clip to someone who doesn’t think it through to what the ends of it may be.

once again, if that's your limited understanding of what i'm saying, the simple is on your end

[naplesE30]

Doxxing does not equal transparency. You are misguided.

[decay]

Doxxing does not equal transparency. You are misguided.

people who make arguments without a "because" are basically saying "because i said so"

i like to tell those people to shove their unbackable opinions where the sun don't shine

[naplesE30]

2+2=4 because I said so.


Does that now make it an opinion since I added a “because” or should that be left out...I so confused.

[Schnitzer318is]

Maybe you didn’t get the context of my post. I fully understand the amendment process. The point is a politician gets the tv sound byte of “I’m for term limits” John Q Public says to himself: he will vote for term limits.l, they get my vote. Candidates say what they will knowing that the willpower to impose them does not match reality. As such, we already have term limits in the form of voting out incumbents. It’s our responsibility to vote accordingly and the vote for insert politician who is for term limits is b.s. One is giving away a power they already posses to a hollow promise.

Much like decays simple logic of I pay taxes so every politician should be open for doxxing because they have my money. It might sound good on a 5 sec tv clip to someone who doesn’t think it through to what the ends of it may be.

I won’t get into why not having term limits isn’t a bad idea in my mind. Especially if one is worried about an centralization of power in one branch of govt.

I follow you now. But the campaigning on being for term limits only gets you elected once... but many times, that's all it takes to be dug in like a tick due to the current campaign laws. Besides, if you aren't going to give any weight to the "hollow promise" of the candidates... what are we doing here? I'd rather hear hollow promises than attack ads during the campaign any day. But, I understand your point, and am voting according to your premise as I am voting against incumbents on most races.

There are sound arguments for and against term limits in Congress admittedly. I just prefer that members of Congress have to participate in the same society the rest of us do as businessmen, lawyers, doctors, etc.

[mbonder]

and depending on your level of involvement with the government, you may give away more, such as being subject to UCMJ if you're in the military, or having to maintain a security clearance if you're working with a TLA

politicians are public figures and have less expectation of privacy. we audit the taxes of presidential candidates- or, we used to before corruption took over

transparency is absolutely more important. if you're calling that "intellectually lazy" then i wonder if you understand the implications of what we're talking about

I said nothing about intellectual laziness, that was naples, however, all the things you mentioned are voluntary and are done by individuals that consent to hold those clearances. My point here is that your statement was wrong, you said you don't consent to taxes, I've said that you do.

To go off your next point, which I will state, is altered from above where you stated politicians have forfeited their right to privacy by becoming politicians (it's now "have less expectation of privacy"), where do you draw the line? Just because people become politicians does that mean that every bit of their lives now becomes public? I just don't believe that should be the case.

There are plenty of public figures that had complicated private lives that we've only learned details about long after they are gone. There is a reason for that--these private matters didn't change the way they operated in their political life. Sure JFK banged a bunch of broads in the white house, but that didn't change the way he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. Jefferson was having an affair with a slave, but he still got the Louisiana Purchase completed and America is far better because of it. There are plenty of other examples, old and new illustrating the point.

Just because someone has a complicated private life doesn't automatically mean that there is corruption there. I know I'm beginning to sound more conservative by the second, but some of what I'm hearing from portions of the left is beginning to sound like a person coming unhinged and I just, as a sane person, can't really agree with it.

Which I imagine might actually steer this in some fashion slightly back toward the initial discussion about Kavanaugh and the private lives of public figures. Bam! You're welcome P&R!

[decay]

To go off your next point, which I will state, is altered from above where you stated politicians have forfeited their right to privacy by becoming politicians (it's now "have less expectation of privacy")

that's not an altered statement, they mean the same thing

accepting that "less" is the expectation *is* a forfeiture of rights, just as you voluntarily give up constitutional rights when you join the military

you don't give up *all* of them so try to stop thinking in absolutes, and also try to read everything instead of just cherry-picking the parts that can be twisted to make your desired point, because intellectual dishonesty is worse than intellectual laziness

if you're going to argue that that forfeiture is wrong, then why is any of this conversation re: kavanagh happening?

it's happening because we should vet our elected or appointed (especially the latter, and extra especially when they are appointed for life) officials, and that process inherently involves a person having less privacy than they otherwise would

fucking duh

[mbonder]

if politicians have access to my paycheck without my consent, then they forfeit their right to privacy.

politicians are public figures and have less expectation of privacy.

I guess I didn't quote it so you didn't remember what you wrote. If you're going to accuse me of not reading everything at least make sure you know what you're talking about.

The statement above is exactly what you said. "They forfeit their right to privacy", there is no qualifier there. I'm not the one thinking or speaking in absolutes, you are.

I'm not being academically dishonest either, I'm doing exactly what you suggested I do, read. That's what you wrote, then you turned around several posts later and qualified your statement by saying that there is a reduction in rights rather than a total loss of them and made a comparison to the military.

Just keep shifting your stance so that you can accuse other people of either not reading, misunderstanding, or lying about statements that you made. it's all right there, I've quoted both of them this time so there's no guessing involved as to what I'm referring to.


And just because: Fucking duh