As a Political Science Major I have always been interested in general Church Views to Political Figures

[Just_A_Guy]

26 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

2012 - Romney had a big chance of beating Obama and naming BK to the SC.

It's a funny meme but it strikes of possibility - each SC constitutionalist hopeful already have a Dem strategy behind it ready to go when needed.

ONE sex sandal even at 17 years old, can still topple SC appointees regardless of the decades long impeccable qualifications of an individual, both in character and in merit following... when faced with a Republican majority.  Whereas, Keith Ellison can still, of course, head the DNC with impunity.  And that's why, it's a powerful weapon that will always cripple the Republican Party.  ALWAYS.  

Brett Kavanaugh is not just your ordinary good guy.  He's actually one of those devout Catholics who has continuously served his fellowman.  For his character to be questioned because of an accusation at a party when he was 17... it's SICK.

AND WHAT DID I TELL YA... THE CATHOLIC PEDOPHILIA THING THAT HAS GONE FRONT AND CENTER IN THE NEWS IS FOR KAVANAUGH... IT PUTS HIS CATHOLIC SERVICE WORTH NOTHING IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC.  I KNEW IT!!!!

Possibly.  I saw an article last night noting that Kavanaugh was floated as a SCOTUS pick in a New Yorker article back in ‘12 and suggesting he is the victim of a very long setup.  

And, yeah; advocating a higher standard of personal morality will always expose us to demands that we live according to our own standards.  I don’t know if Kavanaugh has or hasn’t observed those standards.  I am reasonably confident that if he hasn’t, there are lots of people who *have*.  And frankly, while Kavanaugh was ideologically a reasonably solid pick; he wasn't my first choice and we have a pretty deep bench of rock-ribbed conservative constitutionalists to pick from.  

IMHO Trump should tell the Dems, “Look—the Senate can confirm Kavanaugh, or not.  But if it doesn’t give him a vote by October 15, my next three nominees are Amy Barrett, Mike Lee, and Ted Cruz.  So—have fun with that.”

Edited September 17, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest Godless]

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

ONE sex sandal even at 17 years old, can still topple SC appointees regardless of the decades long impeccable qualifications of an individual, both in character and in merit following... when faced with a Republican majority.  

It's not a sex scandal, it's rape. He is being accused of attempted rape. 

39 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

AND WHAT DID I TELL YA... THE CATHOLIC PEDOPHILIA THING THAT HAS GONE FRONT AND CENTER IN THE NEWS IS FOR KAVANAUGH... IT PUTS HIS CATHOLIC SERVICE WORTH NOTHING IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC.  I KNEW IT!!!!

Doesn't change the fact that a lot of young boys were raped by Catholic clergy. Like I said, the victims often get forgotten in times like these. Yes, the timing of the Catholic pedophilia revelation could be seen as "convenient" for the anti-Kavanaugh crowd. But it's anything but convenient for the victims of those priests. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

Like I said, the victims often get forgotten in times like these.

Yup. We (generic) give lip service to wanting to listen to the victims but when the victims want retribution or justice, we act shocked. 

 

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Yup. We (generic) give lip service to wanting to listen to the victims but when the victims want retribution or justice, we act shocked. 

 

Since when does listening require agreement or the ability to dictate a course of action?

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Since when does listening require agreement or the ability to dictate a course of action?

I'm sorry @estradling75, I'm too stupid to understand what you are trying to get at. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

16 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm sorry @estradling75, I'm too stupid to understand what you are trying to get at. 

We listen to their story... and hear what they want ( retribution or justice ).

Sometimes we agree with what they want, sometimes we do not.  When we agree everything is great... but if we think that what they want is for some reason not possible or not a good idea we get accused of not listening or acting shocked.

Yes bad things happen to people and that is both sad and painful.  But sometimes there is nothing we can do about it.

[jerome1232]

I just can't help, everytime this sort of thing props up. If a drunk woman began taking off a man's clothes and he was able to dip out before she could finish. Would it ever come back to haunt her? I guess that isn't useful. It doesn't matter much.

I don't know which story to believe. Heck I could believe Kavanaugh actually did do it, but has zero recollection of the event. Alcohol has that effect. It's entirely possible he's a great guy, we have all of those character witnesses, but even great people do really stupid things, particularly when they are intoxicated.

Let's play pretend, let's say we find out that there's a video of a heavily intoxicated, barely able to walk Kavanaugh attempting to clumsily take off a woman's clothes all these years ago. Let's pretend this is the only nick we can find. Maybe I'd like to look harder at other nominations, but does it *really* make him unfit to be a supreme court justice? I'm not really convinced of that. Maybe if there was some sort of pattern. Maybe if there were other issues with his character. Maybe if he had drinking issues to this day it would matter more to me. But... I don't know, the time, the youth, the intoxication... doesn't make it right, but, I can't say it colors my view too darkly of who he is now really.
 

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, jerome1232 said:

I just can't help, everytime this sort of thing props up. If a drunk woman began taking off a man's clothes and he was able to dip out before she could finish. Would it ever come back to haunt her? I guess that isn't useful. It doesn't matter much.

I don't know which story to believe. Heck I could believe Kavanaugh actually did do it, but has zero recollection of the event. Alcohol has that effect. It's entirely possible he's a great guy, we have all of those character witnesses, but even great people do really stupid things, particularly when they are intoxicated.

Let's play pretend, let's say we find out that there's a video of a heavily intoxicated, barely able to walk Kavanaugh attempting to clumsily take off a woman's clothes all these years ago. Let's pretend this is the only nick we can find. Maybe I'd like to look harder at other nominations, but does it *really* make him unfit to be a supreme court justice? I'm not really convinced of that. Maybe if there was some sort of pattern. Maybe if there were other issues with his character. Maybe if he had drinking issues to this day it would matter more to me. But... I don't know, the time, the youth, the intoxication... doesn't make it right, but, I can't say it colors my view too darkly of who he is now really.

Rape victims live with the trauma of what happened for years after the fact. Kavanaugh's accuser was seeking professional help for it as recently as 2012. It's a horrific thing for a woman to go through. It haunts them for the rest of their lives, and I firmly believe that rapists (and attempted rapists, in Kavanaugh's case) should be haunted by it too, regardless of circumstances or time passed. I don't care what kind of life a rapist lives after the deed. It doesn't erase what he did, or the years of trauma and anguish that his victim has endured. I truly believe that it's something you can never fully redeem yourself from. I've seen the aftermath of such things in the lives of too many loved ones to have a lenient stance on this.

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, Godless said:

Rape victims live with the trauma of what happened for years after the fact. Kavanaugh's accuser was seeking professional help for it as recently as 2012. It's a horrific thing for a woman to go through. It haunts them for the rest of their lives, and I firmly believe that rapists (and attempted rapists, in Kavanaugh's case) should be haunted by it too, regardless of circumstances or time passed. I don't care what kind of life a rapist lives after the deed. It doesn't erase what he did, or the years of trauma and anguish that his victim has endured. I truly believe that it's something you can never fully redeem yourself from. I've seen the aftermath of such things in the lives of too many loved ones to have a lenient stance on this.

So you are not concerned about character as you are about extracting a pound of flesh.  And in this case a pound of flesh based a conflicting he said/she said account were you personally are giving her account more credibility based on no other facts in evidence.

I can not support such a desire.  There are worlds of difference between who one might use to determine who to choose to give the privilege of your vote (or support in a position of authority) and Justice.  The first is an opinion based on whatever we want (and limited in effect), the latter is based on the Rule of Law (and/or God if your are a believer)  And there is a fine line between Justice and Vengeance.  Justice has well... Rules and Laws to make sure it is the best it can be.  Vengeance is one person taking it upon themselves to punish or other wise extract the pound of flesh.

I can support the first two but vengeance is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.  If you are a Christian it is forbidden.  But if your not, simple logic, rationality and self preservation tell one not to support vengeance.  Because one day the accusation may be against you, and you are not going to like having total strangers forcibly taking pounds of flesh from you thinking it is just. 

[NeuroTypical]

Interesting footnote - an Apostle of the Lord has given kudos to the #MeToo movement in General Conference.

Prepare to Meet God - Elder Quentin L. Cook - April 2019

Quote

During my lifetime, worldly issues and concerns have moved from one extreme to another—from frivolous and trivial pursuits to serious immorality. It is commendable that nonconsensual immorality has been exposed and denounced.¹⁹

Footnote 19 takes us to:

[Guest Godless]

55 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So you are not concerned about character as you are about extracting a pound of flesh.  And in this case a pound of flesh based a conflicting he said/she said account were you personally are giving her account more credibility based on no other facts in evidence.

I can not support such a desire.  There are worlds of difference between who one might use to determine who to choose to give the privilege of your vote (or support in a position of authority) and Justice.  The first is an opinion based on whatever we want (and limited in effect), the latter is based on the Rule of Law (and/or God if your are a believer)  And there is a fine line between Justice and Vengeance.  Justice has well... Rules and Laws to make sure it is the best it can be.  Vengeance is one person taking it upon themselves to punish or other wise extract the pound of flesh.

I can support the first two but vengeance is a bad idea no matter how you look at it.  If you are a Christian it is forbidden.  But if your not, simple logic, rationality and self preservation tell one not to support vengeance.  Because one day the accusation may be against you, and you are not going to like having total strangers forcibly taking pounds of flesh from you thinking it is just. 

In a he said/she said case like this, I will always be inclined to believe the accuser unless presented with a valid reason not to. In my view, if the accusation against Kavanaugh is found to be credible and it loses him the SCOTUS seat, then some measure of justice has been done. If you want to call that vengeance, so be it. I'm not expecting him to face criminal charges for something that happened so long ago. But that doesn't mean that there can't be other consequences. A rapist, no matter how far removed from the crime, should not hold public office, period. People reform, sure, but I fully believe that sexual assault and rape are crimes that an offender should never be allowed to live down. Victims live with the pain and trauma for their entire lives. Their attackers should to. To me, that's justice. 

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

In a he said/she said case like this, I will always be inclined to believe the accuser unless presented with a valid reason not to. In my view, if the accusation against Kavanaugh is found to be credible and it loses him the SCOTUS seat, then some measure of justice has been done. If you want to call that vengeance, so be it. I'm not expecting him to face criminal charges for something that happened so long ago. But that doesn't mean that there can't be other consequences. A rapist, no matter how far removed from the crime, should not hold public office, period. People reform, sure, but I fully believe that sexual assault and rape are crimes that an offender should never be allowed to live down. Victims live with the pain and trauma for their entire lives. Their attackers should to. To me, that's justice. 

A valid reason... how about idea of "Presumed Innocent"  Something that I am sure you would want if such an accusation was leveled against you. 

There is a difference between listening and helping an accuser seek justice and healing (which is the Christ-like thing to do)... and Trying to punish and deal out consequences to the accused (Which is the vengeance and judgemental thing to do).

Now if you feel that our current Laws are not correct in the matter.... then by all means seek to change the Laws that is your right.  When it comes to sexual assault I am OK throwing the book at the guilty.  But they need to be proven guilty not just accused.

 

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Godless said:

In a he said/she said case like this, I will always be inclined to believe the accuser unless presented with a valid reason not to. In my view, if the accusation against Kavanaugh is found to be credible and it loses him the SCOTUS seat, then some measure of justice has been done. If you want to call that vengeance, so be it. I'm not expecting him to face criminal charges for something that happened so long ago. But that doesn't mean that there can't be other consequences. A rapist, no matter how far removed from the crime, should not hold public office, period. People reform, sure, but I fully believe that sexual assault and rape are crimes that an offender should never be allowed to live down. Victims live with the pain and trauma for their entire lives. Their attackers should to. To me, that's justice. 

This is not a mere he said/she said case.  This is a case with a clear political objective and a possible family history grudge.  If all you have to do to derail anybody holding public office is to accuse them of sexual misconduct without even having to provide credible evidence, then say goodbye to your democracy.  One woman who can't even remember when it happened, where it happened, and who else were at the party except for the 2 accused - both denying her claims - against the testimonies of 2 of Kavanaugh's ex-girlfriends in high school and college and 65 other women who know Kavanaugh.... but yeah, let's call Kavanaugh a rapist and believe the accuser.  That's not justice.  That's a HIT JOB.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On 9/17/2018 at 11:14 AM, Godless said:

It's not a sex scandal, it's rape. He is being accused of attempted rape. 

It was sexual misconduct, then it was attempted kidnapping, then it became rape, then it became attempted murder.  She can't get her story straight especially in the light of her being a Clinical Psychology Professor.

 

On 9/17/2018 at 11:14 AM, Godless said:

Doesn't change the fact that a lot of young boys were raped by Catholic clergy. Like I said, the victims often get forgotten in times like these. Yes, the timing of the Catholic pedophilia revelation could be seen as "convenient" for the anti-Kavanaugh crowd. But it's anything but convenient for the victims of those priests. 

Using victims of rape to further a political agenda, especially with the political target being one of the lay workers in your religious organization, is not only disgusting it is victimizing those young boys TWICE - once for rape and another for political tools.

 

[estradling75]

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not a mere he said/she said case.  This is a case with a clear political objective and a possible family history grudge.  If all you have to do to derail anybody holding public office is to accuse them of sexual misconduct without even having to provide credible evidence, then say goodbye to your democracy.  One woman who can't even remember when it happened, where it happened, and who else were at the party except for the 2 accused - both denying her claims - against the testimonies of 2 of Kavanaugh's ex-girlfriends in high school and college and 65 other women who know Kavanaugh.... but yeah, let's call Kavanaugh a rapist and believe the accuser.  That's not justice.  That's a HIT JOB.

Indeed a very real concern...  An abuse of the horrors of Rape/Sexual assault (and the survivors of such) to advance a political end. 

 

Which is one of the reasons I am interested in seeing if other stories come forth...  Anyone can make a mistake but a sexual predator/abuser will not stop at one time.

Edited September 18, 2018 by estradling75

[Guest Godless]

16 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

A valid reason... how about idea of "Presumed Innocent"  Something that I am sure you would want if such an accusation was leveled against you. 

There is a difference between listening and helping an accuser seek justice and healing (which is the Christ-like thing to do)... and Trying to punish and deal out consequences to the accused (Which is the vengeance and judgemental thing to do).

Now if you feel that our current Laws are not correct in the matter.... then by all means seek to change the Laws that is your right.  When it comes to sexual assault I am OK throwing the book at the guilty.  But they need to be proven guilty not just accused.

 

 

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not a mere he said/she said case.  This is a case with a clear political objective and a possible family history grudge.  If all you have to do to derail anybody holding public office is to accuse them of sexual misconduct without even having to provide credible evidence, then say goodbye to your democracy.  One woman who can't even remember when it happened, where it happened, and who else were at the party except for the 2 accused - both denying her claims - against the testimonies of 2 of Kavanaugh's ex-girlfriends in high school and college and 65 other women who know Kavanaugh.... but yeah, let's call Kavanaugh a rapist and believe the accuser.  That's not justice.  That's a HIT JOB.

To be clear (and I admit I probably haven't been so far), I absolutely believe in due process. If the accusation can't be substantiated to a reasonable extent, then by all means, continue with the confirmation. But until the issue is settled, there should be no other confirmation proceedings, imo.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

So you are not concerned about character as you are about extracting a pound of flesh.  And in this case a pound of flesh based a conflicting he said/she said account were you personally are giving her account more credibility based on no other facts in evidence.

What is @Godless doing about Keith Ellison?  Because... I have a suspicion that he only wants his pound of flesh for political expediency.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

To be clear (and I admit I probably haven't been so far), I absolutely believe in due process. If the accusation can't be substantiated to a reasonable extent, then by all means, continue with the confirmation. But until the issue is settled, there should be no other confirmation proceedings, imo.

Riiiigghhttt... very convenient.  That's why DiFi with the chinese spy waited months (if we don't count the 6 years from 2012) until the VERY LAST MOMENT before confirmation to pull out her political trickery.  Because she knows there are people like you who turns a blind eye on the trickery.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

 

To be clear (and I admit I probably haven't been so far), I absolutely believe in due process. If the accusation can't be substantiated to a reasonable extent, then by all means, continue with the confirmation. But until the issue is settled, there should be no other confirmation proceedings, imo.

Given the current laws and time frame the "Due Process" is probably done due to the statute of limitations. (I do not know for sure I am guessing)  That only leaves the confirmation process.  For that it sounds like they are going to have her come and testify under oath.   Which means she will be heard.  Then the committee and congress will have a choice to make...  Not on his guilt or innocence... But on if they want him as a SC Justice.  I doubt many will change from the position they already have by it, but that is what is left of due process and that is how the issue will most likely be settled.

[Guest Godless]

14 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What is @Godless doing about Keith Ellison?  Because... I have a suspicion that he only wants his pound of flesh for political expediency.

Wrong. Ellison can go down in flames for all I care, though I'll admit that I wasn't aware of his story until you brought it up. Lately I haven't had much time to explore the news beyond the latest big stories, and it's a shame that Ellison isn't a bigger story. If his accuser's account is true (and like the Kavanaugh story, I'm inclined to believe it is), then the Dems have a lot of explaining to do.

[estradling75]

Just now, Godless said:

Wrong. Ellison can go down in flames for all I care, though I'll admit that I wasn't aware of his story until you brought it up. Lately I haven't had much time to explore the news beyond the latest big stories, and it's a shame that Ellison isn't a bigger story. If his accuser's account is true (and like the Kavanaugh story, I'm inclined to believe it is), then the Dems have a lot of explaining to do.

Perhaps you should turn your energy against the large media groups who choose to favor only party in reporting sexual scandal... after all are they not therefore guilty of hiding and protecting sexual predators, and shaming victims  when it suits them?

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Perhaps you should turn your energy against the large media groups who choose to favor only party in reporting sexual scandal... after all are they not therefore guilty of hiding and protecting sexual predators, and shaming victims  when it suits them?

Absolutely. I've railed against them in the past (maybe not on here, I can't recall) for their lopsided coverage, especially when it comes to instances of abuse and sexual assault. And please believe that there are plenty of others on the left who feel the same way, even if it doesn't always seem like it.

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, Godless said:

If the accusation can't be substantiated to a reasonable extent, then by all means, continue with the confirmation. But until the issue is settled, there should be no other confirmation proceedings, imo.

So once this accusation is settled to your satisfaction -- say, in two months' time -- and the confirmation proceeds, guess what? Yet ANOTHER accusation! "It's spurious!" cry the Repubs. But the Godless Standard has been set. No confirmations until the issue is settled to Godless' satisfaction. So there's another two months while the latest accusation is disposed of. Then he can finally be confirmed...oh, wait, another accusation!

Do you see a problem with this?

Here's another, equally dangerous problem: You are requiring Kavanaugh to prove a negative -- that he did not do what he was accused of doing. Shouldn't the burden of proof be on his accuser? Outside of purely political reasons, why should her accusation be believed without any shred of evidence, and despite the testimony of at least two people that her accusations are baseless?

Are you okay with Republicans holding Democrat nominees to the same standard forever?

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

Absolutely. I've railed against them in the past (maybe not on here, I can't recall) for their lopsided coverage, especially when it comes to instances of abuse and sexual assault. And please believe that there are plenty of others on the left who feel the same way, even if it doesn't always seem like it.

Indeed both parties have a tendency to 'circle the wagons.'  However the Democrats have the larger/bigger media resources.  I am pleased that the Republicans are planing to let the accuser testify...  I do not think it will do much... but they seem to be acknowledging that the accusation is there.

 

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed both parties have a tendency to 'circle the wagons.'  However the Democrats have the larger/bigger media resources.  I am pleased that the Republicans are planing to let the accuser testify...  I do not think it will do much... but they seem to be acknowledging that the accusation is there.

 

DiFi with the chinese spy was counting on them not calling her out on it... now that they are, she's trying to do the "she's too traumatized to submit to an interview".  Her plan was to get the FBI to do their slimy thing of opening an investigation to derail the confirmation.  That didn't pan out, so now she's stuck.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2