Kavanaugh and Perjury

[_canpakes]

I'm a bit lost on how legal abortion as it actually exists in the US is forcing people to live in some way they object to and wouldn't live otherwise.

It doesn’t. Water Dog is wrong about this as well as the Obergefell decision because he’s confused about just who is doing any forcing.

[_honorentheos]

I'm a bit lost on how legal abortion as it actually exists in the US is forcing people to live in some way they object to and wouldn't live otherwise.

It doesn’t. Water Dog is wrong about this as well as the Obergefell decision because he’s confused about just who is doing any forcing.

His argument later in the thread about this is rather bizarre, in my opinion. He argues that liberals are using individual liberty as a trojan horse to eventually force abortion on people who otherwise wouldn't seek them. AND, AND! Liberals are luring kiddies into their perverted sexual dreamscape of debauched perversions where gay sex and abortions on demand are all part of a culture liberals intend to impose on all god-fearing Americans. So this justifies ACTUALLY imposing cultural norms and beliefs on people through laws that limit personal liberty because that's a particular group's heritage and culture currently.

It's bananas.

[_canpakes]

GOP turnout could hinge in large part on a contingent that could be called the “Mama Bears” — women who defend Kavanaugh and fear their sons could fall victim to unfounded allegations in the #MeToo age.

“I fear for my sons,” said Gayle Chasen of Staten Island. “I believe in women’s rights, but I also believe in the deviousness of girls. Anybody can come up with something from the past and just make up any kind of story.”

“It’s so terrifying,” Freeman said of her 15-year-old son. “I’m not giving him a calendar. I’m just thinking about not letting him go anywhere.”

“We were not Trump supporters initially, but we voted for him because of the Supreme Court,” she said. “So we have to make sure our voices are heard.

Mama bears. Hrm.

- Doc

Still waiting for anyone to point out how a vote for Republicans, based on the Kavanaugh hearings, solves this imagined problem of males being set upon in droves by women with false allegations in attempts to ruin their lives, especially given that the Kavanaugh drama played out within a setting of complete government control by Republicans.

All I see in this is some very easily-led people making this decision for reasons that they probably can’t even explain if they sat down to try.

I suppose that’s all well and good for Republicans to keep siphoning off ever-increasing numbers of folks with poor reasoning skills into their ranks based on fear of imaginary threats, but it’s nonetheless a fine illustration of just how bereft the party is these days of moral leadership and strong policy ideas.

[_canpakes]

His argument later in the thread about this is rather bizarre, in my opinion. He argues that liberals are using individual liberty as a trojan horse to eventually force abortion on people who otherwise wouldn't seek them. AND, AND! Liberals are luring kiddies into their perverted sexual dreamscape of debauched perversions where gay sex and abortions on demand are all part of a culture liberals intend to impose on all god-fearing Americans. So this justifies ACTUALLY imposing cultural norms and beliefs on people through laws that limit personal liberty because that's a particular group's heritage and culture currently.

It's bananas.

His culture argument is fatally flawed. If he complains about one culture displacing another, then on what basis is one to be judged superior? He just masks the failure of logic by cloaking it in a new environment.

And if we have dueling ‘cultures’ to consider, then it would seem imperative to protect the rights of the individual against mob rule.

I don’t believe that he actually believes the argument he has presented. He just needs a sloppily-constructed bit of camouflage to cover it long enough to distract away to another talking point.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Still waiting for anyone to point out how a vote for Republicans, based on the Kavanaugh hearings, solves this imagined problem of males being set upon in droves by women with false allegations in attempts to ruin their lives, especially given that the Kavanaugh drama played out within a setting of complete government control by Republicans.

All I see in this is some very easily-led people making this decision for reasons that they probably can’t even explain if they sat down to try.

I suppose that’s all well and good for Republicans to keep siphoning off ever-increasing numbers of folks with poor reasoning skills into their ranks based on fear of imaginary threats, but it’s nonetheless a fine illustration of just how bereft the party is these days of moral leadership and strong policy ideas.

Who's making the argument that "voting for Republicans based on the Kavanaugh hearings", whatever that means, solves the "imagined" problem of false rape accusations meant to ruin their lives?

Additionally, what makes you think you're in possession of superior reasoning skills, and that traditional-thinking Americans aren't? They just have different motivations and standards for normalcy. Calling them stupid just reinforces the very real perception that left-leaning types are completely unreasonable and up their own asses to the point of absurdity. Y'all better start toning down this "we're smart and they're idiots" thing if you want to pick up enough votes to actually have a Blue wave in November.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

Still waiting for anyone to point out how a vote for Republicans, based on the Kavanaugh hearings, solves this imagined problem of males being set upon in droves by women with false allegations in attempts to ruin their lives, especially given that the Kavanaugh drama played out within a setting of complete government control by Republicans.

All I see in this is some very easily-led people making this decision for reasons that they probably can’t even explain if they sat down to try.

I suppose that’s all well and good for Republicans to keep siphoning off ever-increasing numbers of folks with poor reasoning skills into their ranks based on fear of imaginary threats, but it’s nonetheless a fine illustration of just how bereft the party is these days of moral leadership and strong policy ideas.

Who's making the argument that "voting for Republicans based on the Kavanaugh hearings", whatever that means, solves the "imagined" problem of false rape accusations meant to ruin their lives?

Else why the supposed urge to vote Republican? Is it just to ‘get back’ at Democrats? For what? And how does it fix this problem that ‘Mama Bears’ are supposedly so fearful about?

Let’s unpack just what the perceived problem and solution are here, by way of this strategy of voting Republican.

Additionally, what makes you think you're in possession of superior reasoning skills, and that traditional-thinking Americans aren't?

I have no idea what defines a traditional-thinking American, but that term in and of itself could be seen to imply a certain superiority of reasoning, right?

But, I’m always one for a well-reasoned argument, so I’ll ask again just what the percieved problem actually is, and how voting for Trump or any Republican helps resolve it. What, why and on what basis?

They just have different motivations and standards for normalcy. Calling them stupid just reinforces the very real perception that left-leaning types are completely unreasonable and up their own asses to the point of absurdity.

Sure, that’s the claim that has been out there for a while now. And taken at face value I don’t see how this differs from how Republicans characterized Democrats and liberals as both moral and intellectual failures for the prior decade or three (‘Moral Majority’ for Repubs, ‘libtards’ for everyone else, etc.). So I’m not seeing that continually rolling over and saying, “I’m sorry for being a (insert non-Republican-approved group)” is a better strategy. To me, it’s just as bad as the arguably liberal idea that everyone’s a winner!! in a classroom, and that you can’t give a student a zero for not doing their due diligence. Here, I want to see some due diligence. Let’s hear the reasoning behind the need to vote Republican ‘because Kavanaugh’.

Y'all better start toning down this "we're smart and they're idiots" thing if you want to pick up enough votes to actually have a Blue wave in November.

That wasn’t a problem for Republicans when they did the same, and it isn’t the real problem for Democrats. The latter group really needs to be willing to vote more often than they do.

[_EAllusion]

Most people are going to vote the way they do for reasons other than any particular issue du jour and you should be inherently skeptical of a claim that a person voted a particular way because of an issue. it happens, but it's over-determined in polling. That's behavior seeking a rationale. When you get narratives that come in the form of voting for Democrats or Republicans because treatment from the other party made them do it, that's almost invariably partisans who are trying to game politics. If Kavanaugh is going to help Republicans, it's primarily because it made them pay more attention to national politics and increased their motivation to go out in vote.

Re: Death treats. It's not talked about a lot, but death threats are a very, very common feature of right-wing, and especially religious right advocacy. If you piss off conservatives in a school board meeting, you're probably gonna get death threats. I, and I imagine a bunch of other people here, have gotten death threats in the past from Mormons for critical posting about their religion. If you choose to inject yourself into a national story that will trigger aggrieved conservatives, you're gonna get death threats that sound scary. It just comes with the territory. The same thing happens on the left, but not nearly to the same extent. The threshhold seems higher. It's more with niche issues and major national stories or figures that you get the same phenomenon. In the case of this story, I imagine it's death threats galore.

[_Some Schmo]

I wish I knew if Water Dog was intentionally trolling with an Ed Whelan article or if he believes what he's pushing.

I strongly suspect intentional trolling. He reminds me a great deal of some of the Flat Earther sites I have looked at who when confronted with solid evidence of heliocentrism and a round earth, they simply dismiss all the evidence as NASA lies and CGI.

There are only two real options to explain his posting. He's either a troll, or dumb enough to believe his BS.

Either way, I pity the fool who takes that jackass seriously. Then again, most of those fools have made a career out of being willingly fooled.

I've actually come to terms with the fact that a large number of people in this country are too easily fooled to ever feel good about getting this nation back on track. There are people who actually believe Drumpf. That's everything you need to know about the quality of their perception.

I look forward to the defense of the next Rapublican up for election. How fun for our country, that we get to argue over the value of having alleged rapists in positions of power.

[_Water Dog]

His argument later in the thread about this is rather bizarre, in my opinion. He argues that liberals are using individual liberty as a trojan horse to eventually force abortion on people who otherwise wouldn't seek them. AND, AND! Liberals are luring kiddies into their perverted sexual dreamscape of debauched perversions where gay sex and abortions on demand are all part of a culture liberals intend to impose on all god-fearing Americans. So this justifies ACTUALLY imposing cultural norms and beliefs on people through laws that limit personal liberty because that's a particular group's heritage and culture currently.

It's bananas.

Was it not clear that I was being hyperbolic? My reaction to lefty fears that republicans aim to impose an anti-abortion federal theocracy was to point out similar fears had by those on the right about mandatory abortions. I was being sarcastic. But, I was also alluding to those very real discussions which take place among the left.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... r-children

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/opin ... ution.html

https://www.npr.org/documents/2016/jun/ ... eering.pdf

You act as though I'm pulling this out of my ass. Not to mention a certain leftist country in Asia that has a one child mandatory abortion policy.

As for the sexual dreamscape, well, yeah. Look, I am at a place where I personally am frankly onboard with your sexual dreamscape. If I could turn back the clock I'd do my formative years a lot differently. I am not at all afraid of your little dreamscape. None of this changes the point, though. The point remains. You want to change the culture in, say, Utah. For evidence of this all one needs to do is follow John Dehlin's Facebook page. Or check /r/exmormon/ regularly. It's a thing. And you darn well know that.

Our disagreement is over the role the government plays in this process. In my opinion, you fundamentally do not understand the constitution or related concepts like individual liberty. If you think the founders did not believe states should have the right to place limits and impose norms as you say, you're understanding of history is considerably lacking. The founders believed in individual rights, but they also recognized the reality of tribalism. They envisioned lots of mini-democracies in a cooperative union. You believe in a single big government. I do not. The founders did not. My belief is that bureaucracy is inefficient and generally sucks. The further removed the "problem solvers" are from "the problem," the worse it gets. It just isn't an effective way to do things.

I feel like I really don't need to justify my point because it's already how things are now. What is the point of having states? All of the states already act independently and in ways that serve to impose certain norms or beliefs. From the very beginning with the 13 colonies to the present day, that's how it has been the whole time. How is this bananas? It's what we do now. Utah has a different culture than California. And they impose that culture in various ways. As does California. Through zoning laws. Nope, sorry, you can't build that church in that neighborhood, we won't allow it. Nope, you can't have that adult video store. Nope, you can't have that strip club. Sure, prostitution is legal. Nope, sorry, it isn't. We're going to organize our public schools to accommodate seminary. And no sex education. Well, in our schools there will be no seminary, and we're going to have tons of sex education. And here's a basket of condoms, take as many as you want.

How is this bananas? It's called having a state. It's called having a county, or a city. Any law a certain community passes serves to impose some kind of cultural boundary. Any law. Building restrictions. Your house must look a certain way. That's culture. Zoning ordinances. Only certain types of activities in this area. Culture. Tax laws, which favor or discourage certain types of activities. Culture.

It's all culture.

Libs want to erode those cultural boundaries. Bit by bit weaken the local governments and make them subject to the increasingly large and powerful federal government. And now, on this very thread, people are calling for an end to the Senate. They want the senate to be gone. Just have a House only. Y'all want to do away with republicanism and have a pure population based democracy where the cultural norms desired by people in NY gets to be imposed on people in North Dakota.

[_Water Dog]