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

[LatterDSaint]

7 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I will reword, which country do you have citizenship in.

I will not be as specific as you would like as to protect my identity some, but I am from a country in Europe.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Are you suggesting all women only believe what their husbands tell them to believe?  Or only conservative women?   

My wife believes everything I tell her, because I'm the one in charge. She told me so herself.

[LatterDSaint]

9 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You realize that we are discussing an alleged crime that happened 37 years ago......In the last 37 years they have come up with nothing!!!!! So we have to go back to highschool? 

I think attempted rape is defining of ones character no matter how old they were when it occurred. Especially if they aren't remorseful about it. That's just me though....

Edited September 14, 2018 by LatterDSaint

[LatterDSaint]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

My wife believes everything I tell her, because I'm the one in charge. She told me so herself.

The most appropriate setting in regards to what is contained in scripture. Of course, respect should be a factor in a marital relationship so I expect that you also grant your wife that.

[zil]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

honkin' hypocrite

I'm seeing a business opportunity here ... selling bumper stickers ...

[Vort]

2 hours ago, LatterDSaint said:

I have no desire to see any republicans in the senate after November.

Then...

1 hour ago, LatterDSaint said:

I also want to discuss the supreme court nominee Brett Kavanugh. Recently, a woman has alleged that he and one of his buddies attempted to gang rape her when they were drunk at a party back in high school, and that they turned the music up to quell her protests. Does anyone believe this allegation may have some plausibility or is it a smear job by the democrats to make Republicans look like rape apologists? I am still awaiting details on this case, but as far as I am aware, Donald Trump is not an honest man, and the people around him are evidently not honest people either with all the guilty pleas in recent months. Then there was the endorsement of Roy Moore. I still can't quite purge that from my mind, the way republicans desperately defended Roy even though any sensible and honest human being knew he was a pedophile... I hope that if these allegations against Kavanaugh are true, republicans will not make the same mistake that they did with Roy Moore otherwise they will get slaughtered in the midterms. We need to be able to trust these people who are occupying these Government positions....

You do realize that there is nothing the least bit credible about what you say, right? Republicans are Evil! Kavanaugh is Bad because Trump nominated him, and some random person accused him of something! You should perhaps consider that media reports are deeply biased, and give some actual thought to what is being said rather than glomming onto whatever the talking heads are saying.

[estradling75]

14 minutes ago, LatterDSaint said:

Hi Mod. I will push back on this here. Sometimes the statute of limitations prevents someone from even going to trial for an alleged crime. That would occur here. Presumed innocence in the court of law is one thing. Public perception of an alleged criminal is another. And as of right now, my presumption of Kavanugh's innocence gets less and less with the way Senator Chuck Grassley released signatures of 65 woman who were supposedly Kavanaugh's classmates (even though he went to an all boys school) within 24 hours of the allegation coming to light. That screams that the GOP knew that such an allegation might come to light and prepared this defense in case it did. Those actions give me much more reason to believe Kanaugh did attempt to rape someone while he was in highschool. Now can we all be forgiven? Of course, but I don't know kavanaugh well enough to extend my sympathies for him and not see this allegation worthy of some credibility....

There are very good reason for the Statute of Limitations...  Namely the farther back you go the harder it is to get any evidence... It is harder to prove guilt... but it is also harder to mount a defense.  It cuts both ways. 

Case in point you are already to lynch Kanaugh without any proof whatsoever... you simply want to.. so you are confirmation biasing everything to that end.  You ignore the fact that it has been denied by both the accused, and you consider the witnesses of his character  to be proof of guilt... (that is seriously messed up)

But I guarantee you the day you get accused of something horrible that you are going to want public opinion to "Presume your Innocence," you are going to want to be able to find witnesses to your character, you are going to want to have people wait for you to face your accuser and defend yourself in a court of law, before they judge your worth as a person.     

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, LatterDSaint said:

I appreciate your response. However a "pretty mainstream legal position across American party lines" suggests that Democrats would not want a Democratic President to be indicted and Republicans wouldn't want a republican president to be indicted. I would want any President to be indicted if there was sufficient evidence that they violated the law. As you graduated from law school in the US, could you respond to whether that is an unreasonable position to hold? 

You’re moving the target.  It’s not a question of whether anyone *wants* a particular sitting president to be indicted; it’s a question of a) whether it’s legally possible given current statute and precedent, and b) whether such a systemic feature is structurally desireable and promotes stability in the long run regardless of whoever may be in the White House at any given moment.

The whole point of a law-and-order society is that there are things people will want in the short term that they are not going to get.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[LatterDSaint]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

There are very good reason for the Statute of Limitations...  Namely the farther back you go the harder it is to get any evidence... It is harder to prove guilt... but it is also harder to mount a defense.  It cuts both ways. 

Case in point you are already to lynch Kanaugh without any proof whatsoever... you simply want to.. so you are confirmation biasing everything to that end.  You ignore the fact that it has been denied by both the accused, and you consider the witnesses of his character  to be proof of guilt... (that is seriously messed up)

But I guarantee you the day you get accused of something horrible that you are going to want public opinion to "Presume your Innocence," you are going to want to be able to find witnesses to your character, you are going to want to have people wait for you to face your accuser and defend yourself in a court of law, before they judge your worth as a person.     

Look I understand the point you are trying to make. I would hope that I would never be found guilty of a crime I never committed by the courts or public perception. But let me tell you WHY I am ready to "lynch" kavanaugh as you claim. 6% of his official records have been accessed. That is only 6 %. What does he have to hide? Gambling debts? Russian assets? My speculation is not unreasonable because he has not released all of his documents to dispute it. Until he does I can speculate as much as I want. 

Also Kavanaugh has lied under oath multiple times. Aren't we against lying or did it suddenly become a small deal because its a Trump appointee SCOTUS nomination? Really confused how politics all of a sudden makes many church members forget about the values Christ has laid out for us in the gospel....

[LatterDSaint]

4 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

whether such a systemic feature is structurally desireable and promotes stability in the long run regardless of whoever may be in the White House at any given moment.

I seriously do not understand how someone could argue for this. Would you defend criminals in the highest office of your government just because they would promote the "stability in the long run"?

YIKES

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 

The whole point of a law-and-order society is that there are things people will want in the short term that they are not going to get.

But didn't you know @Just_A_Guy we only want rule of Law when we can use it to our benefit (Like removing a certain president), but when it hinders us (like with a certain supreme court nominee) we totally want to throw the rule of law out the window and lynch people we do not like.

We want to accuse him of raping and lying but not really let the courts handle such accusations as the law requires

[LatterDSaint]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

But didn't you know @Just_A_Guy we only want rule of Law when we can use it to our benefit (Like removing a certain president), but when it hinders us (like with a certain supreme court nominee) we totally want to throw the rule of law out the window and lynch people we do not like.

We want to accuse him of raping and lying but not really let the courts handle such accusations as the law requires

Sorry mod but Kavanaugh lying under oath is not an allegation. Its a reality....

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, LatterDSaint said:

Sorry mod but Kavanaugh lying under oath is not an allegation. Its a reality....

Maybe one day you will understand what the Rule of Law is...

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I find it amusing just how blind some people can be to their own hypocrisy.  Did you notice how he didn't even blink.  He automatically thought you were talking about someone else.

He meaning whom??? 

Often we (meaning people in general) have a tendency to overlook bad behavior from those we agree with.  Personally I don't think that was was considered a personal attack was meant to be so, but perhaps that is my bias. We are all guilty of bias sometimes. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Often we (meaning people in general) have a tendency to overlook bad behavior from those we agree with

10,000% correct. 

[LatterDSaint]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Maybe one day you will understand what the Rule of Law is...

I understand that Trump doesn't believe in it even though he claims he does. Lookie here

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, LatterDSaint said:

I understand that Trump doesn't believe in it even though he claims he does. Lookie here

Hey look you and Trump have something in common

[Just_A_Guy]

32 minutes ago, LatterDSaint said:

 And as of right now, my presumption of Kavanugh's innocence gets less and less with the way Senator Chuck Grassley released signatures of 65 woman who were supposedly Kavanaugh's classmates (even though he went to an all boys school) within 24 hours of the allegation coming to light. That screams that the GOP knew that such an allegation might come to light and prepared this defense in case it did.

Who said the authors of the letter were classmates of Kavanaugh’s?  The letter itself notes Kavanaugh went to an all-boys school and that most of the signatories went to all-girls schools.  

And, you’re complaining that Kavanaugh’s defense was *too efficient*?  The accuser’s letter has been on Capitol Hill for two months now, and it’s very likely that Senator Feinstein mentioned its contours to Grassley weeks ago in the midst of the backroom dickering that is—Washington Kabuki theater aside—the way most stuff gets done there.  

At any rate, as things now stand we have two named direct witnesses and sixty-five character witnesses against this accusation; two Democratic congresswomen who spent two months not believing the accusation; and zero named witnesses supporting it.  

[LatterDSaint]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Who said the authors of the letter were classmates of Kavanaugh’s?  The letter itself notes Kavanaugh went to an all-boys school and that most of the signatories went to all-girls schools.  

WHich kinda makes those 65 signatures worthless lol and grants more credibility to the allegation of attempted rape

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

At any rate, as things now stand we have two named direct witnesses and sixty-five character witnesses against this accusation; two Democratic congresswomen who spent two months not believing the accusation; and zero named witnesses supporting it.  

But hey lets ignore all that and go for a lynching... all while claiming to support the Rule of Law

[LatterDSaint]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

witnesses

NO. They were not all there at the party in question where the allegation of attempted rape is said to have happened. None of the women that signed even claimed to be there sp none of them are "witnesses" to what happened at that party. They are women attesting that Kavanaugh "behaved honorably and treated women with respect" & has "stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity"

If you didn't know someone can behave this way among many women, and behave a different way among one woman, at a party, drunk, with his friends...

Edited September 14, 2018 by LatterDSaint

[Vort]

28 minutes ago, LatterDSaint said:

Also Kavanaugh has lied under oath multiple times.

You are not in the least credible. You really need to work on stopping your eye dee ten tee errors.

[LatterDSaint]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

You are not in the least credible. You really need to work on stopping your eye dee ten tee errors.

lemme guess, "Fake News" right?

Edited September 14, 2018 by LatterDSaint

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

At any rate, as things now stand we have two named direct witnesses and sixty-five character witnesses against this accusation; two Democratic congresswomen who spent two months not believing the accusation; and zero named witnesses supporting it.  

More proof of the Republican conspiracy.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, LatterDSaint said:

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Who said the authors of the letter were classmates of Kavanaugh’s?  The letter itself notes Kavanaugh went to an all-boys school and that most of the signatories went to all-girls schools.  

WHich kinda makes those 65 signatures worthless lol and grants more credibility to the allegation of attempted rape

This has surpassed the "clueless" or "bizarre" stage, venturing well into clear troll territory.

2 minutes ago, LatterDSaint said:

lemme guess, "Fake News" right?

This trollish response does not even make any sense. I suggest we let LatterDSaint continue his virtue-signaling without interrupting him with pesky little nits like facts and rational analysis.