Kavanaugh Nomination

Discussion in 'Politics' started by skip, Sep 27, 2018.

  1. deleted

    deleted Visitor

  2. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Figures.
     
  3. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Isn’t that the Nik Lentz who is a complete Trump nut

    “From the looks of his Twitter activity, a huge part of Lentz’s social media time is spent praising Trump, defending Trump, arguing with people about Trump, gif-ing at Trump, meme-ing at Trump and messaging words directly at Trump.”

    So has he presented any rational or reasonable arguments as to why he supports Trump and Kavanagh?

    I mean has Nik anything to contribute to the discussion beyond some grunting?
     
    stormountainman and MeAgain like this.
  4. monkjr

    monkjr Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,299
    Likes Received:
    62
    So in true dark humor fashion; anybody want to place bets (bets of karma only), that rights to abortion are going to be further restricted?


    And I guess to counter and link this with the love and sex forums, do you think women of all ages can nationally organize to restrict access to sex, as a response to not wanting to deal with cost-hanger abortions?


    Because I feel if suddenly the access to casual sex became the conservative ideal so as to test the debate argument about why women would even need an abortion....it would send an instantly powerful political message.

    Any cases of needed abortion would then mean rape of some sort, because we ruled out consensual sex.
     
  5. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Ala Lysistrata!

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2018
    monkjr likes this.
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed that the white House had put limitations on the Kavanaugh probe.
     
    stormountainman likes this.
  7. deleted

    deleted Visitor

    [​IMG]
     
    Deidre likes this.
  8. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Just to express something that I’ve been increasingly noticing - slogan politics has always been around but now we seem to have a baser version of it the so called meme.

    I’ve heard that there are whole forums that are little more than meme factories from where people can cut and paste across the internet. I suppose it is very useful for those that find it difficult to think for themselves or can’t write, but joking aside, I find the meaning of a lot of these memes even more simplistic than the normal slogans or rather difficult to interpret.

    Take the one posted above.

    It’s been posted in a thread on Kavanaugh, but seems to be about Mueller, so are the two connected in the posters mind? Is the poster trying to say they are connected?

    *

    It seems to reference Ferris Bueller’s Day off, a film from 1986 (that’s a 32 year old cultural reference, so very ‘now’) and seems to be about a specific part of the film where a history/economics teacher is explaining that -

    In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the Great Depression, passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression.

    So is this meme meant as a critique of Trumps tariffs and the dangers of protectionist policies?

    Ben Stein who played that teacher role has pointed this out saying “This is one of Mr. Trump’s worst ideas,” Stein said in an interview with Yahoo Finance. “He has a number of not-very-good ideas, he has a number of bad ideas, and a number of very good ideas. Protectionism is probably the single worst idea.”

    *

    In the film the teacher goes on to talk about the discredited Laffer Curve which has been described as "Voodoo" economics (and ‘total bullshit’ by Paul Krugman)

    So is the meme a critique of right wing neo-liberal type economics and tax cuts for the rich?

    *

    So why is Meuller mentioned, I suppose Bueller rhymes with Mueller, but really is that it, that's the level of sophistication here?

    I don’t even think Ferris Bueller was even in the ‘anyone anyone’ scene.

    *

    And again what has it to do with Kavanaugh?
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
    Okiefreak likes this.
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Thanks for that analysis. I was wondering what it meant too.
     
  10. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    22,105
    Likes Received:
    11,610
    To mods,

    I felt like this relates. I'm very reluctant to start any new topics admittedly. If this post does not belong, please don't hesitate in any way to remove it.

    This lawsuit is expected to end up in the Supreme Court. I'm a little irked that it looks like a spotlight opportunity for the conservative justices to thumb their nose at diversity in our nation's colleges. Link to article Is Harvard fair? Historic affirmative action trial begins Monday - CNNPolitics I think it will be the first big case for Kavanaugh, depending on when it is argued and if it is at all, but it is expected. What a way to get back at Harvard!
     
  11. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Harvard and the University of Michigan Law School have been the model for diversity as a factor in law school admissions--rejecting quotas but treating race/gender as one factor, along with region, social class and other demographic factors as considerations if selecting an interesting mix of students. The argument against this is that being exposed to students of diverse backgrounds serves no valid educational purpose, so that an all-white male or Oriental class would be perfectly acceptable if the students had superior grades and test scores. How this issue is resolve could have enormous educational and social implications for our country. Taking the path of the Asians would move us in the direction of an intellectual monochromatic or bi-chormatic meritocracy.

    I think John Rawls theory of social justice is relevant here.A Theory of Justice (1971); Political Liberalsm, (2005) Arguing that a just distribution is a fair one, Rawls gets at fairness by imagining a society in a hypothetical natural state of radical ignorance in which the members must take their place in the future social order not knowing what race, ethnicity, age, gender, or income level they will have. What sorts of rules would they come up with to define the basic ground rules or practices governing civil society. Rawls think that the members would adopt two principles: (1) the liberty principle: the greatest equal basic rights and liberties compatible with similar rights and liberties for all other members; and (2) the equality principle: equal access to the offices and positions in a society, and the condition that all inequalities must work to the benefit of either all the members or of the "least advantaged members of the society. Applying the latter consideration to affirmative action taking account of diversity, such a program can be justified only if it works to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society. Harvard's policy of including Appalachian whites and Okies in the category of disadvantaged groups might be justifiable on this basis, provided this works to the benefit of all in promoting more enlightened scholars who have first hand knowledge of a diversified body of students.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
    stormountainman and scratcho like this.
  12. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    22,105
    Likes Received:
    11,610
    Working to the benefit of the least advantaged members of society is a perfectly rational concept. I feel like Harvard's in the right here as well. That's not to say that some adjustment can't be made to accommodate less fortunate Asian applicants (too broad an umbrella...), but I think that the student group is making the case that they are being given the short end of the stick. That remains to be seen, in my opinion. I have never been denied a position at an Ivy League school because I could never afford to attend one and wouldn't have had the grades/didn't ever take the SAT. But the real point that I want to make is if I have to choose to a certain degree between the diversity of the student body, (socio-economic, ethnic, and all other) and the equality with which applications are considered (and it looks like these are the very two things that the justices would need to weigh were this before SCOTUS) then I choose the diverse policy decision because it's morally of greater import. We can pretend that the prestige outweighs the need for magnanimity, but then at the end of the day who do we really consider ourselves to be? We become pompous and arrogant, cold-hearted, and weird. But that's what the authoritarian court will do!
     
  13. deleted

    deleted Visitor

    what u appealing to us for.. we dont give a shit what u post.. seriously!!
     
  14. Balbus

    Balbus Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,152
    Likes Received:
    2,672
    Soul and others

    Most mods do care about the views of members and guests on this sites and I for one am very intrested in what people post in this forum.

    Regards

    Balbus
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    scratcho, Asmodean and MeAgain like this.
  15. soulcompromise

    soulcompromise Member HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    22,105
    Likes Received:
    11,610
    sorry Orison. I just thought it might be annoyingly obvious to some people that it wasn't strictly on topic. :)
     
  16. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,782
    Likes Received:
    13,801
    Strange goings on. The DOJ has opened an investigation of decades old allegations of sexual misconduct by Catholic priests in Pennsylvania going back 40 years!

    And they're using subpoenas!
    Strange that none of that was done in the Kavanaugh investigation.
    I wonder why?
     
    scratcho and soulcompromise like this.
  17. NotMyRealName

    NotMyRealName Members

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    326
    Because none of the priest have testified before Congress under oath with 2 attorneys present and being championed by a political party to make a requested private testimony be made public.

    Just a guess.

    Maybe a better question to ask is why a sitting Republican president who supposedly got elected by the religious right, is going after members of these very same religions?
     
  18. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    When did that happen? The DOJ is going after priests, after the Pennsylvania incidents. Trump doesn't control the DOJ, although I'm sure he'd like to. Do you think of the Catholic Church as the "religious right"? They're certainly pro-life, but on immigration and welfare-related issues, not so much. Lots of Catholics voted for trump because they're blue collar.
    Catholic bishops’ opposition to Donald Trump emboldens church liberals
    Is the Catholic Church turning on Trump?
     
    MeAgain likes this.
  19. NotMyRealName

    NotMyRealName Members

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    326
    As far as the left is concerned if you are religious and voted for Trump, they are the religious right?

    Oh and wait now Trump doesn't control the DOJ? It's confusing. I was sure the members here convinced me he did.

    My bad. I gotta do better trying to keep up with the chosen scapegoat for the left to blame. It changes more often than an old lady on Depends.
     
  20. Okiefreak

    Okiefreak Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,079
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    The DOJ probe was launched by U.S. Attorney William McSwain, a Republican (Romney and Jeb Bush supporter), Harvard Law grad, and former Marine infantry officer, who was appointed to the federal Eastern Division in Pennsylvania by Donald Trump earlier this year. He has impressive credentials and the support of the two Senators from Pennsylvania--one Republican, one Democrat, one Republican. I don't know his religious affiliation, but it's an Irish surname. I doubt that Trump saw it coming. Typically, these appointments are made to accommodate the Senator(s) of the state where an opening occurs. Ordinarily, the U.S. Attorney has broad discretion to prosecute the cases he thinks need to be prosecuted. Sometimes these lower echelon professionals just do their job if the higher ups don't interfere.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2018

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