Poll of the Day > Kavanaugh's rape of the 4th amendment....

(+) Yeah! (+)

....is far more relevant than unsubstantiated allegations from the 1980s.

The left knows that the claims were impossible to prove, but it was enough to vilify him in the eyes of those who vote blue, and that if they convinced enough people that the right selected a rapist as a supreme court judge, that would be the push they need for their 'blue wave'. The fact is that they couldn't challenge Kavanaugh on his belief that mass government surveillance is 'consistent with the 4th amendment', because the left lost all integrity regarding that issue the moment Obama renewed the Patriot Act in 2015.

The fact that the right nominated him in the first place, and that conservatives are bending over backwards to defend the alleged rapist despite his support of the NSA shows that 'sMaLl gOveRnMeNt' Republicans never had any integrity in the first place.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/even-after-nsa-metadata-program-revised-kavanaugh-argued-in-favor-of-it/%3famp=1

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/243850-obama-signs-nsa-bill-renewing-patriot-act-powers
---

It's a sad day in politics when both parties are using it as a centerpiece to avoid all other issues surrounding the man.

Literally no one knows anything that Kavanaugh stands for as a Supreme Court judge right now.

No facts.

ONLY EMOTION.

"Do you want an alleged rapist on the Supreme Court!!?!?!!"

"If you vote him in, YOU support rape!!!"

It's become this ridiculous game now.

The left knows that the claims were impossible to prove, but it was enough to vilify him in the eyes of those who vote blue, and that if they convinced enough people that the right selected a rapist as a supreme court judge, that would be the push they need for their 'blue wave'.

^^^^And that right there infuriates me so much that I want him to get the seat just to spite the fuckers who tried to take him down with ancient allegations to pull on the heartstrings of America in the era of #MeToo. It was insulting to real sexual assault victims.

Just look how many people showed up to protest him yesterday. So many people who felt 100% (in their hearts) that he was guilty, even though they knew nothing about him and saw no evidence. They were so CERTAIN he was a rapist. Because the media holds that power over us all.

Just a bunch of god damn sheep bumping around in the fucking dark.

I hope he gets that seat. So an ocean of tears can wash away this filth.
---

Eh I'm not gonna go as far as to say that I want him in a seat.

His views on government surveillance are literally the antithesis of what the constitution stands for.

But you're absolutely right about their genuine belief that he's guilty. Notice that one's opinion on whether or not he's guilty solely depends upon which party the person in question typically votes for. Partisan politics is brainwashing the masses, and decades of voting for 'the lesser evil' has resulted in Americans being increasingly accepting of constitutional violations.
---

Republicans haven't been "small government" for years, just as Democrats haven't really been pro-socially liberal for a very long time.

I remember saying years ago that Conservatives aren't really conservative anymore, and Liberals are no longer liberal. It still holds true.


---

GreenKnight127 posted...

Literally no one knows anything that Kavanaugh stands for as a Supreme Court judge right now.

Fuck off with that Trumpian bullshit.
YOU don't know his positions.

Just because you're ignorant, doesn't mean everyone else is.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Republicans haven't been "small government" for years, just as Democrats haven't really been pro-socially liberal for a very long time.

I remember saying years ago that Conservatives aren't really conservative anymore, and Liberals are no longer liberal. It still holds true.

Fo sho. Ironically the division amongst the people is wider and more extreme than ever, while the politicians we argue about have all essentially met in the middle as neoconservatives
---

knivesX2004 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

Literally no one knows anything that Kavanaugh stands for as a Supreme Court judge right now.

Fuck off with that Trumpian bullshit.

Trumpian bullshit?

You think just because I am defending Kavanaugh that I must love Trump as well?

One has nothing to do with the other.

A man is being accused of being a gang rapist and had to prove to the entire world that he isn't.

THAT has become the main focus of who Kavanaugh is.

His stances towards privacy, education, illegal immigration, drugs, child abuse, religion.........none of that has even been mentioned.

You vote for him: you are supporting rape.

You vote against him: you are a national hero.

Why vote based on facts when you can vote based on EMOTION!?!?!

Welcome to 2018.
---

GreenKnight127 posted...

You think just because I am defending Kavanaugh that I must love Trump as well?

I didn't say that. I just called you out on you forcing your ignorance on the subject on to other people.

knivesX2004 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

You think just because I am defending Kavanaugh that I must love Trump as well?

I didn't say that. I just called you out on you forcing your ignorance on the subject on to other people.

"Literally no one" is definitely hyperbole, but be honest with yourself - he's right that the vast majority of people who care about the issue couldn't tell you jack shit about his actual legal positions or outlook, and what his likely stances on future issues would be.

To the average voter - to most average voters - this is pretty much solely a question of whether or not he's guilty of what he's been accused of, and beyond that, he's nothing but a name and a face.

And as has also been pointed out, to most people, whatever the evidence suggests or investigation uncovers is immaterial, because most people's assumptions about his guilt or innocence hinge almost entirely on which side of the political line you consider "your team", and which side is "the enemy".

To paraphrase a quote I can't remember the exact wording of at the moment, "For those who believe there can be no doubt, for those who doubt there can be no proof."


---

Political views aren't a reason to expel someone as a supreme court justice however, so it's not really relevant to his appointment.
---

hey guys, left vs right is a sham and the people who want power are gonna get it regardless of what you vote. arguing with each other over this shit is exactly what TPTB want.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

"Literally no one" is definitely hyperbole, but be honest with yourself - he's right that the vast majority of people who care about the issue couldn't tell you jack shit about his actual legal positions or outlook, and what his likely stances on future issues would be.

I don't think that's true at all. At the very least I'd say most people know where he stands on Roe V Wade and obviously the upcoming Trump pardon case.

Plus you can tell from his bullshit answers and MAGA conspiracy spouting bullshit that he's a toxic puppet who will vote however the GOP wants him to.

knivesX2004 posted...

I don't think that's true at all.

Then you have a dramatically overestimated view of the intelligence and attention span of the average voter, and I envy you your innocent naivete.

Either that, or you only surround yourself with intelligent and informed people in life and avoid reading almost everything on the Internet, in which case I envy you as well, only for different reasons.



knivesX2004 posted...

At the very least I'd say most people know where he stands on Roe V Wade

I'd be very surprised if you could find even 10% of the population who could articulate his stance on that issue in any meaningful way, let alone his more nuanced positions.

Most people don't do political research (which is why the concept of an "informed voter base" is a joke). Their entire understanding of this whole mess comes solely from Internet articles (which almost entirely focus on the case and not his views), or worse, from only reading headlines and listening to biased hearsay from other people.

The average person usually isn't even informed enough to know what Presidential candidates stand for other than what party they belong to and what soundbites they've authorized for dissemination. They sure as shit don't pay attention to what Supreme Court Justice candidates stand for.


---

knivesX2004 posted...

he's a toxic puppet who will vote however the GOP wants him to.

So in other words, he's the default candidate that both parties would nominate in this day and age - ie, someone who hews to the party line of "their side" rather than making nuanced and principled decisions based on what they consider to be morally and legally correct.

If you're expecting anything different, regardless of who the President is nominating them, then we're right back to the naivete thing.

Going "BLAH HE'S GONNA SIDE WITH THE REPUBLICANS!" is just more party-based thinking, which is at the core of almost everything wrong with American politics today. Especially when the exact same accusations can easily be lobbed at the other side with accuracy. And like it or not, it's not something any of us really have the power to change at the moment.

Short of not nominating/approving Supreme Court Justices at all and allowing the Court to lapse into abeyance forever, you really aren't solving anything.


---

When the constitution was originally written, the idea of political parties was not supposed to exist within this country. Partisan politics have corrupted the supreme court. Instead of nominating justices who stand for liberty and constitutional rights, justices are mere pawns of the party who selects them, free to interpret the constitution as however they see fit to fulfill their agendas.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

knivesX2004 posted...

GreenKnight127 posted...

You think just because I am defending Kavanaugh that I must love Trump as well?

I didn't say that. I just called you out on you forcing your ignorance on the subject on to other people.

"Literally no one" is definitely hyperbole, but be honest with yourself - he's right that the vast majority of people who care about the issue couldn't tell you jack shit about his actual legal positions or outlook, and what his likely stances on future issues would be.

To the average voter - to most average voters - this is pretty much solely a question of whether or not he's guilty of what he's been accused of, and beyond that, he's nothing but a name and a face.

And as has also been pointed out, to most people, whatever the evidence suggests or investigation uncovers is immaterial, because most people's assumptions about his guilt or innocence hinge almost entirely on which side of the political line you consider "your team", and which side is "the enemy".

To paraphrase a quote I can't remember the exact wording of at the moment, "For those who believe there can be no doubt, for those who doubt there can be no proof."

Exactly. Glad you could see what I meant. I guess I shouldnt have said "literally no one" and just said "practically no one"...lol.

And holy shit your quote at the end. That is an extremely powerful quote. I'll have to look up the source, because that's some very heavy shit. Very relevant to today's society.

It's funny, because so many people who opposed Kavanaugh from the beginning....were always saying "Why doesn't he just let them do a FBI investigation!?!?!"

Well...the FBI investigated.

Now what if they turned up nothing and just concluded that he is innocent? Would those people be satisfied then? Of course not. Because it will never be enough.

The mere fact that he was EVER accused at all, immediately made him suspect in their eyes. Not worthy of being on the supreme court.

Nothing could be said or done to convince them otherwise.
---

BADoglick posted...

When the constitution was originally written, the idea of political parties was not supposed to exist within this country. Partisan politics have corrupted the supreme court. Instead of nominating justices who stand for liberty and constitutional rights, justices are mere pawns of the party who selects them, free to interpret the constitution as however they see fit to fulfill their agendas.

The sad thing is, the founding fathers knew this would happen and did their best to prevent it and the American people let it happen anyway.
---

BADoglick posted...

When the constitution was originally written, the idea of political parties was not supposed to exist within this country. Partisan politics have corrupted the supreme court. Instead of nominating justices who stand for liberty and constitutional rights, justices are mere pawns of the party who selects them, free to interpret the constitution as however they see fit to fulfill their agendas.

Exactly.

This is why I dont believe any president, or hell I dont believe any politician of EITHER party, should nominate a Supreme Court judge. Im not sure what the other option should be, probably either a third party or other judges, but there is almost a guarantee that the president is always going to choose a nominee that is biased towards one side or the other. They should just stay out of it.

And thats why I dont want Kavinaugh in. Not because he may or may not have raped someone, but because I dont trust Trumps judgment that this man is qualified.
---

SeahorseCpt89 posted...

BADoglick posted...

When the constitution was originally written, the idea of political parties was not supposed to exist within this country. Partisan politics have corrupted the supreme court. Instead of nominating justices who stand for liberty and constitutional rights, justices are mere pawns of the party who selects them, free to interpret the constitution as however they see fit to fulfill their agendas.

Exactly.

This is why I dont believe any president, or hell I dont believe any politician of EITHER party, should nominate a Supreme Court judge. Im not sure what the other option should be, probably either a third party or other judges, but there is almost a guarantee that the president is always going to choose a nominee that is biased towards one side or the other. They should just stay out of it.

And thats why I dont want Kavinaugh in. Not because he may or may not have raped someone, but because I dont trust Trumps judgment that this man is qualified.

Well the good news is that Trump didn't pick him. He was given the pick from a Republican think tank.

The bad news is that means our president is a puppet who is doing literally the exact opposite of draining the swamp
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Republicans haven't been "small government" for years, just as Democrats haven't really been pro-socially liberal for a very long time.

I remember saying years ago that Conservatives aren't really conservative anymore, and Liberals are no longer liberal. It still holds true.

Liberal just means forward thinking. The thinking of the day has changed, so liberal thought must change. The only thing conservative here is your definition of liberal. It's 2018, time to accept that we know better than we used to. Any progress is a laudable achievement.

IronicFool posted...

Liberal just means forward thinking.

That's not actually what the word means at all, even though people do indeed believe that.

Originally, the term was used in a political sense to refer to people we call libertarians today, before it was co-opted. But even in the "modern" political sense it doesn't mean "forward thinking" anymore than conservative means "backward thinking".

Those would be definitions rooted in partisan politics, which again are a large part of the current problem.



IronicFool posted...

Any progress is a laudable achievement.

Assuming "progress" is actually a forward step, yes. But not all "progress" is positive change, regardless of the incredibly deceptive mindset the US educational system tends to portray. The sum total of human history is not one destined foward march onwards and upwards to greater and greater perfection.

Or to pull a previously overused phrase out of mothballs - not all "change" is GOOD change.


---

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

BADoglick posted...

they couldn't challenge Kavanaugh on his belief that mass government surveillance is 'consistent with the 4th amendment'

1) I'm not in favor of mass government surveillance. People should have their privacy unless there's a substantiated reason to invade it.
2) I also don't see how it's violating the 4th amendment. In order for one's privacy to be violated there has to be a clear expectation of privacy.

The question comes down to what is protected by the 4th and is any of that what they are monitoring. What I see as the real issue is that people either aren't informed, or can't discern for themselves, as to what is private and what is public.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But even in the "modern" political sense it doesn't mean "forward thinking" anymore than conservative means "backward thinking".

While crudely delivered, with a bit of nuance this point is demonstrably accurate in this day and age. Conservatives want to retain the old way of thinking, which is often backward such as the racist and sexist 50s. Liberals are more able to change, and even the word 'liberal' in its use means 'generous'. You need to reject those old values before better ones can be put in their place. Our emotions these days are better tuned than the racists who thought they were right. We know now they were wrong and we are right.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Assuming "progress" is actually a forward step, yes. But not all "progress" is positive change, regardless of the incredibly deceptive mindset the US educational system tends to portray. The sum total of human history is not one destined forward march onwards and upwards to greater and greater perfection.

Or to pull a previously overused phrase out of mothballs - not all "change" is GOOD change.

I agree but general progress across the entire population, surely that is self-correcting. People are smarter than they used to be, and we are subject to biases and emotional whims like we used to be. Now our emotions are used to discern truth, since we have a better foundation for what those truths are.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

1) I'm not in favor of mass government surveillance. People should have their privacy unless there's a substantiated reason to invade it.

Government surveillance of public spaces is a good thing though. I don't want a camera in my bathroom but if you were seen kidnapping someone by a camera in a public place, I'd have a hard time suggesting you should be afforded the same courtesy.