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

[anatess2]

42 minutes ago, 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.

Glad to hear my suspicion is unfounded.  It would be good if you go dig and compare the 2 accusations and see if you still think the Kavanaugh accusation is worth derailing a confirmation over.  And while you're at it - remember that the mainstream media has a proven agenda (as you accepted in another post to estradling) so your digging will have to include alternative sources.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

DiFi

I am not following your use of this abbreviation... and google did not give me any "oh ok" hits

[Guest Godless]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

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!

I don't see this as much of a possibility as you apparently do. But if it did somehow play out that way, I would have to admit that the timing would be very suspect. We've seen instances of multiple accusers play out before (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Donald Trump) and unless my recollection is off, they seemed to not be very spread out after the first one hit.

Quote

Do you see a problem with this?

Yes, though I'm very skeptical that things will play out the way you described. See above. 

Quote

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?

I don't recall ever demanding that Kavanaugh prove his innocence. Rather, I've said that the accuser's claims need to be heard and evaluated. The difference between your viewpoint and mine is that I'm assuming the accusation is true until it can be proven otherwise and you're assuming the opposite. But yes, I know where the burden of proof lies. And I also know that your viewpoint is, from a legal standpoint, correct. I'll freely admit that I allow my personal feelings to show through quite a bit where sexual abuse and assault are concerned. I also know that fear of not being believed is a big reason why many victims stay silent.

Quote

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

Unequivocally yes.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am not following your use of this abbreviation... and google did not give me any "oh ok" hits

Google... there's your problem... because big tech is increasingly propagandish now.  Try Duckduckgo if you want to see the results from the other side.

DiFi - Diane Feinstein.  Admittedly swiped from a Rush Limbaugh show calling her DiFi with the chinese spy (in reference to her staff of 20 years who works for the chinese government).

[estradling75]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Google... there's your problem... because big tech is increasingly propagandish now.  Try Duckduckgo if you want to see the results from the other side.

DiFi - Diane Feinstein.  Admittedly swiped from a Rush Limbaugh show calling her DiFi with the chinese spy (in reference to her staff of 20 years who works for the chinese government).

Ahh thanks....  Google did give me Diane Feinstein... but I did not make the connection.   I try to focus on principles not people when it comes to politics and on occasion that ends up biting me.

 

[Vort]

Well, I may disagree with you, but if you're okay with Repubs pulling the same endless crap as the Dems, I can't argue with your consistency.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Ahh thanks....  Google did give me Diane Feinstein... but I did not make the connection.   I try to focus on principles not people when it comes to politics and on occasion that ends up biting me.

 

I always note the people... because it's easier to spot the motivation when you put a name to it.

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I always note the people... because it's easier to spot the motivation when you put a name to it.

Understandable...  I find that tons and tons of people are willing to tell me about peoples motives.... much less are willing to constantly stand on principle (much less then I would like anyways) especially  if it goes against a person the otherwise like

[estradling75]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Well, I may disagree with you, but if you're okay with Repubs pulling the same endless crap as the Dems, I can't argue with your consistency.

Indeed...  It is the golden rule  'Do unto others as you would have done you to'   That is something both sides of the political weaponziation could stand to internalize, because it will come back on them. 

Even the scriptures say this...  Matthew 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
 

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Understandable...  I find that tons and tons of people are willing to tell me about peoples motives.... much less are willing to constantly stand on principle (much less then I would like anyways) especially  if it goes against a person the otherwise like

I'm not sure I understand this.  This is how I see it - you can say that my consulting company is an awesome company with great principles aligned to my principles... well and good.  But then I look at who is running the company and what his objectives are and how effective he is in either - promoting these great principles or derailing these great principles.  It doesn't really matter much to me what the company's principles are if the activities of its leadership is not effective in achieving them, I would still be wary about joining the team.  So that's why I always look at the people and their motivations.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not sure I understand this.  This is how I see it - you can say that my consulting company is an awesome company with great principles aligned to my principles... well and good.  But then I look at who is running the company and what his objectives are and how effective he is in either - promoting these great principles or derailing these great principles.  It doesn't really matter much to me what the company's principles are if the activities of its leadership is not effective in achieving them, I would still be wary about joining the team.  So that's why I always look at the people and their motivations.

Please note I am talking about ME and MY weakness and what I need to do to stay where I should.  (and naturally I think everyone should do it my way which is wrong but I am human)  So lets use your example...  I hear what you say about your principles so I decide I like you... then I start hearing things about how you don't really do what you say, but I like you so I dismiss it.  Then I get to know you really well and I start seeing it for myself, but gosh darn it I like you so I find justification and excuses for your behavior rather then saying "NO that is not right"

Thus whatever 'wrong' you are doing goes potentially unchecked.  And perhaps your soul becomes lost.  The scriptures are clear that your soul is more important then any political win and that is what I should be focused on.  Thus I need to focus on principle and the right thing from a eternal perspective even if it cost me friends or political wins in the short term.

Thus I need to focus on principles.  Now clearly motivations can and will come into play when I am trying to determine what principles are guiding someone.  But in politics there is an overabundance of people who are totally willing and even overeager to dish on the motives of others, so I am never at a shortage of information about potential motives when I need such.  Thus I can evaluate motives when I need to, while spending my focus on principles 

 

 

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Please note I am talking about ME and MY weakness and what I need to do to stay where I should.  (and naturally I think everyone should do it my way which is wrong but I am human)  So lets use your example...  I hear what you say about your principles so I decide I like you... then I start hearing things about how you don't really do what you say, but I like you so I dismiss it.  Then I get to know you really well and I start seeing it for myself, but gosh darn it I like you so I find justification and excuses for your behavior rather then saying "NO that is not right"

Thus whatever 'wrong' you are doing goes potentially unchecked.  And perhaps your soul becomes lost.  The scriptures are clear that your soul is more important then any political win and that is what I should be focused on.  Thus I need to focus on principle and the right thing from a eternal perspective even if it cost me friends or political wins in the short term.

Thus I need to focus on principles.  Now clearly motivations can and will come into play when I am trying to determine what principles are guiding someone.  But in politics there is an overabundance of people who are totally willing and even overeager to dish on the motives of others, so I am never at a shortage of information about potential motives when I need such.  Thus I can evaluate motives when I need to, while spending my focus on principles 

 

 

Okay, I understand you now.

I do not look at politicians in the way you describe.  Rather, I look at politicians just like I look at the guy I hire to fix my plumbing - I choose them for their ability to get WHAT I WANT (which is tied to my principles) done.  And just like I don't really care if my plumber got drunk and forced himself on a girl when he was in high school as long as I am assured that he's not a criminal or he's not going to force himself on me or my children or my neighbors as he's fixing my pipes, I don't care about that for politicians either.

This is probably different than most Americans as I'm Filipino and in the Philippines, you don't vote for a party - you vote for a person.  Political parties is just a fund-raising mechanism in the Philippines - they have zero relevance to principles.  There is no political party you can tie to a historical stated principle other than - our political party had Osmena or Macapagal, etc. etc. - basically just a claim to highly adored politicians which they then claim to try to emulate.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2

[estradling75]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I understand you now.

I do not look at politicians in the way you describe.  Rather, I look at politicians just like I look at the guy I hire to fix my plumbing - I choose them for their ability to get WHAT I WANT (which is tied to my principles) done.  And just like I don't really care if my plumber got drunk and forced himself on a girl when he was in high school as long as I am assured that he's not a criminal or he's not going to force himself on me or my children or my neighbors as he's fixing my pipes, I don't care about that for politicians either.

Hmm interesting...  I think we have different views of the Job(s) we want politicians to do...  I want a politician that 'Represents' me (as imperfect that the must be when it is a person that is not me)... That is a higher bar then the one I set for the plumber that fixes my sink.  I want my Representative to get conservatives to the Supreme Court, but I also want to be able to approve the tactics used to complete that job as if I was the one doing it myself.

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Hmm interesting...  I think we have different views of the Job(s) we want politicians to do...  I want a politician that 'Represents' me (as imperfect that the must be when it is a person that is not me)... That is a higher bar then the one I set for the plumber that fixes my sink.  I want my Representative to get conservatives to the Supreme Court, but I also want to be able to approve the tactics used to complete that job as if I was the one doing it myself.

That is the same bar as the plumber who fixes my pipes.  I will have to approve the plumber's tactics used to complete the job - so he has to have the capacity to explain it to me honestly so I can make decisions (again based on my principles and moral convictions) and have those decisions carried out without me having to be an expert in plumbing.  I hire a politician to represent my voice in Congress in legislating laws to govern an entire citizenry (not just me).  I hire an executive to execute those laws including those I don't care for but others do (he's not my representative) and I hire a judge to adjudicate those laws (also not my representative).  But no, those people do not represent my entire person.  The Congressman who is my representative simply represents my decisions over the VERY LIMITED power I grant him.

Saying, "I want conservatives to the Supreme Court" is actually not a good thing when you're using "conservative" the way most Americans do - as a political partition.  Rather, the more appropriate desire is "I want constitutionalists on the Supreme Court".  Ideally, being a constitutionalist and a political conservative is one and the same - but in the US, it is not always so.  Being a conservative in the US is not always tied to the original intent of the constitution but rather to religious or social or economic traditions, etc.  Therefore, a Supreme Court judge who is labeled a conservative does not always imply he is conservative of the law of the land - which is the LIMIT of the power he is hired to do - instead of legislating the desires of the conservative political faction into law.  I support Kavanaugh because he's a constitutionalist, not because he is a conservative.

Okay, I'm saying all these with complete knowledge that I am not an American citizen and therefore has zero representation in US government.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2

[estradling75]

31 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That is the same bar as the plumber who fixes my pipes.  I will have to approve the plumber's tactics used to complete the job - so he has to have the capacity to explain it to me honestly so I can make decisions (again based on my principles and moral convictions) and have those decisions carried out without me having to be an expert in plumbing.  I hire a politician to represent my voice in Congress in legislating laws to govern an entire citizenry (not just me).  I hire an executive to execute those laws including those I don't care for but others do (he's not my representative) and I hire a judge to adjudicate those laws (also not my representative).  But no, those people do not represent my entire person.  The Congressman who is my representative simply represents my decisions over the VERY LIMITED power I grant him.

Saying, "I want conservatives to the Supreme Court" is actually not a good thing when you're using "conservative" the way most Americans do - as a political partition.  Rather, the more appropriate desire is "I want constitutionalists on the Supreme Court".  Ideally, being a constitutionalist and a political conservative is one and the same - but in the US, it is not always so.  Being a conservative in the US is not always tied to the original intent of the constitution but rather to religious or social or economic traditions, etc.  Therefore, a Supreme Court judge who is labeled a conservative does not always imply he is conservative of the law of the land - which is the LIMIT of the power he is hired to do - instead of legislating the desires of the conservative political faction into law.  I support Kavanaugh because he's a constitutionalist, not because he is a conservative.

Okay, I'm saying all these with complete knowledge that I am not an American citizen and therefore has zero representation in US government.

Please forgive me if it seems like I am moving the goals posts... I am trying to articulate a position that I have not articulated before, and I do not always do very well on the first try.

Point about the plumber taken and agreed to.  I do want the plumber to do the right thing.  However there are very limited ways in which a plumber can fix my sink that are morally objectionable and might endanger his soul.  And yes if he engages in such and I know about it I will disapprove and try to stop it.   I just do not give that very high odds of happening.  Thus the plumber representing me in fixing my sink is not something I worry to much I beyond am I getting a fair deal.

And I have no problem with your correction of conservative to constitutionalist.  I was using it as an example.  You clearly got what I meant by the term but I think you glossed over the whole problem with the Method or How said ends might be accomplished.  Like with the plumber if they do things that are morally objectionable, and might endanger their soul then yes I have a problem with it.  Given that it is politics I put the odds of that much higher then I do with the plumber thus my level of concern is understandably higher.   Which is why I am concerned about principles that are being used/abused

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Please forgive me if it seems like I am moving the goals posts... I am trying to articulate a position that I have not articulated before, and I do not always do very well on the first try.

Point about the plumber taken and agreed to.  I do want the plumber to do the right thing.  However there are very limited ways in which a plumber can fix my sink that are morally objectionable and might endanger his soul.  And yes if he engages in such and I know about it I will disapprove and try to stop it.   I just do not give that very high odds of happening.  Thus the plumber representing me in fixing my sink is not something I worry to much I beyond am I getting a fair deal.

And I have no problem with your correction of conservative to constitutionalist.  I was using it as an example.  You clearly got what I meant by the term but I think you glossed over the whole problem with the Method or How said ends might be accomplished.  Like with the plumber if they do things that are morally objectionable, and might endanger their soul then yes I have a problem with it.  Given that it is politics I put the odds of that much higher then I do with the plumber thus my level of concern is understandably higher.   Which is why I am concerned about principles that are being used/abused

We're on the same page.  Even the same paragraph, even we're only off by a few descriptors.  I am just as concerned about principles used/abused when such principle is within the limited power I granted such representative.  Principle differences irrelevant to the exercise of such power, I don't concern myself with - like, a person who is pro capital punishment is fine with me even as I am against such principle as I currently don't have that change as one of my to-do-list at this particular Congressional election.

Edited September 18, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours 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. 

To me, it’s not really about “doing justice” to the victim at this point.*  The harsh reality is that sexual assault victims don’t get—CAN’T, in this life, get—anything like justice.  I mean, best case scenario, you convict the guy and lock him away for a few decades—maybe for life—maybe, in extreme cases, he gets the death penalty.  But, what then?  She’s still there, she’s got to live with it.  Society can’t provide the degree of recompense that justice requires; and at some point victims just have to live with that.  I’m no psychotherapist, but I don’t think that latching onto the belief that “someday he’ll get his” constitutes a solid foundation for a victim’s sustainable emotional recovery.  (It may be a necessary and appropriate coping strategy in the short term; but at some point life will force you to move on.)

As much as I sympathize with victims, my opposition* to Kavanaugh would arise less from concern about the victim’s sensitivities and more about the belief that somewhere out there is an excellent, ideologically-appropriate, confirmable SCOTUS candidate who has *not* engaged in that kind of behavior; and that as a society we can do better.

 

 

 

 

*Yes, for purposes of this post I’m assuming that there was a rape and a victim.  So, yes, assuming facts not in evidence, etc.  

Edited September 18, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To me, it’s not really about “doing justice” to the victim at this point.*  The harsh reality is that sexual assault victims don’t get—CAN’T, in this life, get—anything like justice.  I mean, best case scenario, you convict the guy and lock him away for a few decades—maybe for life—maybe, in extreme cases, he gets the death penalty.  But, what then?  She’s still there, she’s got to live with it.  Society can’t provide the degree of recompense that justice requires; and at some point victims just have to live with that.  I’m no psychotherapist, but I don’t think that latching onto the belief that “someday he’ll get his” constitutes a solid foundation for a victim’s sustainable emotional recovery.  (It may be a necessary and appropriate coping strategy in the short term; but at some point life will force you to move on.)

As much as I sympathize with victims, my opposition* to Kavanaugh would arise less from concern about the victim’s sensitivities and more about the belief that somewhere out there is an excellent, ideologically-appropriate, confirmable SCOTUS candidate who has *not* engaged in that kind of behavior; and that as a society we can do better.

 

 

 

 

*Yes, for purposes of this post I’m assuming that there was a rape and a victim.  So, yes, assuming facts not in evidence, etc.  

And here is where one can learn/benefit from the Catholic Canon Law process of Reconciliation where the state of sin of the abuser is not the only concern but also the state of sin of the victim - regardless of how unpolitically correct that sounds.  Emotional healing from a grave injustice can only come from the cultivation of righteous desires.

 

Edited September 19, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And here is where one can learn/benefit from the Catholic Canon Law process of Reconciliation where the state of sin of the abuser is not the only concern but also the state of sin of the victim - regardless of how unpolitically correct that sounds.  Emotional healing from a grave injustice can only come from the cultivation of righteous desires.

 

Ayup.  Sadly, in the Church of Christ, even suggesting that sometime down the road a victim of sexual assault may need to consider the role of forgiveness will immediately make you and your heretical patriarchal ways the subject of the next MormonStories podcast.

[anatess2]

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Ayup.  Sadly, in the Church of Christ, even suggesting that sometime down the road a victim of sexual assault may need to consider the role of forgiveness will immediately make you and your heretical patriarchal ways the subject of the next MormonStories podcast.

Yes.  Weaponized victimhood is alive and well.  Goes with weaponized compassion.

[estradling75]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As much as I sympathize with victims, my opposition* to Kavanaugh would arise less from concern about the victim’s sensitivities and more about the belief that somewhere out there is an excellent, ideologically-appropriate, confirmable SCOTUS candidate who has *not* engaged in that kind of behavior; and that as a society we can do better.

*Yes, for purposes of this post I’m assuming that there was a rape and a victim.  So, yes, assuming facts not in evidence, etc.  

I have no problem with wanting someone better... I felt that way with the presidential elections..

The big issue for me with Kavanaugh situation is that it feels like a character assassination hit piece...  Or if you want to presume guilt it feels like someone using a person's personal trauma for political ends.  No matter which way you want to swing on Kavanaugh innocence or guilt this whole setup violates some major principles that I feel are very important

[Traveler]

On 9/14/2018 at 11:52 AM, LatterDSaint said:

I definitely am not claiming that the democrats have the moral high ground in respect to its party's history but 2018 Dems> 2018 Republicans in every which way. The past is a useful tool to learn from mistakes. I believe that the democrats are learning from their past egregiousness. Republicans on the other hand appear to embrace it solely for Trump's sake....

I grew up in a political family - I left the Republican party because of corruption that I had direct association with.  I tried to join the Democratic party but it is corruption on steroids.  After college I worked as a civilian in the defense department and yes I had a top secret clearance.   I do not doubt a single critic of Trump.  However, as vial and corrupt as he is claimed to be - he is willing and able to stir the pot of corruption that is the culture of Washington DC (which is a cesspool I used to work in).  I can say with good authority that Trump has done more good to benefit the majority of middle class America than any president over the last 50 years - including John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.   Not because of his virtues - hardly - most likely because of his vises.

If our constitution is to remain a standard of freedom and liberty - I believe it must be defended.  Even by another revolutionary civil war against the corruption within if necessary.  There are prophesies that anyone that will not take arms against their neighbor must flee to Zion for safety.  I have no idea how this is going to work within the current political climate - unless G-d protects Zion as he did the city of Enoch.  Violence and property destruction against any ideological opposition is a corrupt method of conduct that we see prevalent with the secret combinations of the Book of Mormon.  It has become the hallmark of liberals growing from liberal student protests of an entitled generation raised by helicopter parents and comic book heroes.  When such protests are met in kind there will be escalation and indeed - voting will not be enough to support any political agenda - any political agenda will only be established with the sword - or gun depending on the metaphor best understood.

Is this the fault of Trump? - if anything Trump is a catalyst - not the cause.  The cause is deeply embedded the the lust and control for the wealth of this nation and the middle class that created it.  

 

The Traveler

[pam]

On 9/14/2018 at 11:08 AM, anatess2 said:

My husband doesn't get into politics much.  We usually sit down and I tell him how I would vote if I was a citizen.  He'd argue with me (oh, we could argue over capital punishment for 16 hours non-stop!) then he goes and votes his own mind.  He doesn't tell me how he voted and I don't want to know.  But basically, he just trusts me to be on top of things so he doesn't have to be and he can spend more time keeping on top of football things.

I support who I believe would be good for Americans without doing much damage to the Philippines.  I come from a political family.  My family has been in the Philippine administration since the 60's.  I was about 3 years old or so when I went on stage to rally for my uncles.  My dad was their campaign manager.

So basically you tell him who to vote for and he tells you what football teams to cheer for. 

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, pam said:

So basically you tell him who to vote for and he tells you what football teams to cheer for. 

Pretty much!

Except last year and this year he is anti-Patriots because he rooted for the Jaguars (they have been good the past 2 years).  And I did not listen to him because Belichik and Brady like Trump.  Hah hah.  There was also that one year when Patriots went to the Superbowl against the Giants and my husband rooted for the Pats and I rooted for the Giants because Brady left his pregnant girlfriend to hook up with a model while Eli Manning is faithfully married to his high-school sweetheart.  I am happy to say that that Giants' win was the sweetest win ever.  Hah hah. 

But yeah... we root for San Diego.  Even when they're a mess.

Edited September 20, 2018 by anatess2

[pam]

Just now, anatess2 said:

Pretty much!

Except last year and this year he is anti-Patriots because he rooted for the Jaguars (they have been good the past 2 years).  And I did not listen to him because Belichik and Brady like Trump.  Hah hah.  There was also that one year when Patriots went to the Superbowl against the Giants and my husband rooted for the Pats and I rooted for the Giants because Brady left his pregnant girlfriend to hook up with a model while Eli Manning is faithfully married to his high-school sweetheart.  I am happy to say that that Giants' win was the sweetest win ever.  Hah hah. 

The Pats/Giants game was the year that the Patriots went undefeated but couldn't win the big one.    I was thrilled.  I despise the Patriots.