Should a high School incident be relevant 35 years later?

[mbonder]

you went straight back to "NO U" and finger pointing and ignored the question that would have kept the conversation on your desired track (the last paragraph of your previous post), so you don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling people out about consistency

Oh whatever man, there you go again, failing to address what I actually said. My comments about what you said in relation to privacy have everything to do with the conversation about Kavanaugh. I stated my claim, I don't believe public figures should have every aspect of their lives made public. You stated they should, then maybe not all, I called out your shifting position. My calling you out is most certainly not a shift from the topic, it's a highlight of what you've said on the topic.

[naplesE30]

the first part is true, but that doesn't make it a permanent condition

if you think violence never accomplishes anything, you are not a student of either war, history, or current social politics

How are you that lost where you feel your the anti fascist, while arguing that violence and the intimidation it causes will change hearts if used properly over time. I don’t expect anyone on a bmw car forum to undue the knots in your head to come to that logic, but you have lost a grip on reality if you believe what you post.

Also, how have the aggressors of violence fared throughout history?

[naplesE30]

Schnitzer: I agree on the 30sec ads and context. There is a serious lack of honesty in politicians and the public in general. For instance, while I would never have supported Clinton, her deplorable comment was clearly in reference to the alt right and not Trump supporters as a whole. It still irks me when people call themselves deplorable as a badge of pride. Likewise, many things Trump says are completely taken out of context and twisted against him. I donÂ’t think the majority are interested in the truth as sad as that is. They are looking for affirmation, however they need to twist it, in there beliefs. You and I prob have opposite views on the majority of issues, but you seem to be an honest broker who is willing to confront your own side which is what is needed from both sides.

So much fodder for attack ads could be avoided with some new Senate rules. The way bills for something like hurricane relief will include funding for other pet projects puts politicians in almost impossible situations one way or another. Then an add says so and so voted for this pork or against hurricane relief. It makes it so easy to deceive the public with bs attack adds. I also think eliminating the filibuster was a monumental mistake and has far reaching consequences which has lead to this toxic environment. The founders knew what would happen if the simple majority party rammed shit down the throat of the minority party. 60 votes almost always requires a bit of bipartisanship which is better for the health of the country no matter how hard it is to accomplish sometimes.

[decay]

violence begets violence and doesn't change minds or opinions, it hardens them

the first part is true, but that doesn't make it a permanent condition

if you think violence never accomplishes anything, you are not a student of either war, history, or current social politics

congrats on being able somehow to delude yourself into thinking your serving a higher calling

i was in the army, remember?

not my first rodeo

[Schnitzer318is]

In the end however, we the electorate ultimately hold the power and the ability to vote in new people.There is no true need for an amendment, as we can vote out an incumbent every 2 to 6 yrs depending on their office. Now with the inter-webs it should be easier than ever to bring in new and fresh people to an engaged and thinking electorate. However, people are sheeppole

I agree with you in principle. But with our current campaign structure and Citizens United... I don't think the electorate has a fair shot at getting the information they need to make a decision that would actually be in their best interest. We live in a world of 30 second attack ads where sound bites are taken out of context or flat out lied about. The majority aren't even run by the candidate's campaign itself, but the PACs. Also, we need to remove the party ticket vote from the ballot. Talk about encouraging group think. Even if you want to vote straight ticket... you can take the time to go ahead and check those boxes.

[cale]

We have that problem up here in the great white north with our PM. We don’t vote him in. The party picks its leader and we vote on our local representative of whatever party we like.

Trudeau was voted in by his party members, who are citizens.

[naplesE30]

I believe I understand the context of your first post in that the voting public has the ability to vote out anyone at any election, thus ending there term and limiting terms in general... correct. I believe that is what you are referring to?

Now, the issue with this philosophy is if you go around thinking this way then the party in power loses a chance to remain in power with a different representative. I don’t believe you can have two democrat candidates, or two republican candidates running for the same position. If you vote out the representative in power, you effectively vote in the opposition. That is not what you are attempting to accomplish.

We have that problem up here in the great white north with our PM. We don’t vote him in. The party picks its leader and we vote on our local representative of whatever party we like. The leader of the party that wins becomes PM. He or she just has to win his /her local riding to be admissible, and even then there are ways around that.
This created a big issue when people were sick and tired of Stephen Harpers control freak nature and wanted him gone. The only way to get him out was throw the party out of power, even though the party was doing a decent job on most things.(subjective) So now we have a drop out drama teacher running our country, spending out of control.

My post wasn’t really saying for or against term limits as much as it was about people falling for candidates who say they are for them, as they realistically have no power, or more importantly the will, to amend the constitution for the reasons you listed. It is more a cheap talking point, that if anyone thinks through it realizes it as such.

I think our founders were ingenious in the way they set up our checks and balances to avoid a scenario like Canada’s with your PM. I also believe the way our founderscame up with such an amazing government structure was through compromise and bi-partisanship. Clearly the founders were bitterly divided when forming our govt as evidenced by the federalist- and ant-federalist papers. Thank God they were divided, as often group think leads to ideas that are flawed in the long run.

Having said that: in most states one would need to primary a candidate, which has happened a few times in the last few years, to have a new candidate of the same party. It is hard admittedly to primary an incumbent as they get the backing and more importantly the $$$ of the national party, but it is doable.

I think California is an exception where you can have two of the same party running against each other in the general election with no opposition party based on their state laws.... which leads to even less diverse politica thought as both candidates are typically trying to out flank the other farther and farther to the same direction.

In the end however, we the electorate ultimately hold the power and the ability to vote in new people.There is no true need for an amendment, as we can vote out an incumbent every 2 to 6 yrs depending on their office. Now with the inter-webs it should be easier than ever to bring in new and fresh people to an engaged and thinking electorate. However, people are sheeppole

[Todd Black 88]

^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.

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 believe I understand the context of your first post in that the voting public has the ability to vote out anyone at any election, thus ending there term and limiting terms in general... correct. I believe that is what you are referring to?

Now, the issue with this philosophy is if you go around thinking this way then the party in power loses a chance to remain in power with a different representative. I don’t believe you can have two democrat candidates, or two republican candidates running for the same position. If you vote out the representative in power, you effectively vote in the opposition. That is not what you are attempting to accomplish.

We have that problem up here in the great white north with our PM. We don’t vote him in. The party picks its leader and we vote on our local representative of whatever party we like. The leader of the party that wins becomes PM. He or she just has to win his /her local riding to be admissible, and even then there are ways around that.
This created a big issue when people were sick and tired of Stephen Harpers control freak nature and wanted him gone. The only way to get him out was throw the party out of power, even though the party was doing a decent job on most things.(subjective) So now we have a drop out drama teacher running our country, spending out of control.

[Schnitzer318is]

I think I am going to have to add another person to my "pay no attention to" list.

[gwb72tii]

well decay, and frankly others, I'm surprised you haven't learned one of life's rules

violence begets violence and doesn't change minds or opinions, it hardens them

Antifa is frankly a pathetic excuse to knock heads around, nothing more, just like the Patriot boys or whatever they call themselves. For the great unwashed, to quote Rush, both sides are seen as immature, dangerous idiots that serve no higher calling other than violence.

congrats on being able somehow to delude yourself into thinking your serving a higher calling

[decay]

you went straight back to "NO U" and finger pointing and ignored the question that would have kept the conversation on your desired track (the last paragraph of your previous post), so you don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling people out about consistency

[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

[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]

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!

[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.