US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[The Black Forrest]

These are both true. The (Federal) government was founded as a secular one. But presuming it was over a religious people. As multiple Founding Fathers have said. And, as Adams said, it is not adequate for a nonreligious people.

I’m a deist and a Libertarian, not a secular progressive, Parkus. You’re going to have to stop using the same talking points you use for secular progressives. I share the same religious opinions as Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson....

The context of the statement needs to be reviewed as well. Every once in awhile a comment made by Madison appears as to show he wasn't against for the wall. When you read the comment for where it came; it didn't even discuss the wall.

[The Parkus Empire]

These are both true. The (Federal) government was founded as a secular one. But presuming it was over a religious people. As multiple Founding Fathers have said. And, as Adams said, it is not adequate for a nonreligious people.

I’m a deist and a Libertarian, not a secular progressive, Parkus. You’re going to have to stop using the same talking points you use for secular progressives. I share the same religious opinions as Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson....

The first and last were radical fruitcakes. Washington was the only good deist Founding Father.

[The Black Forrest]

I’m a deist and a Libertarian, not a secular progressive, Parkus. You’re going to have to stop using the same talking points you use for secular progressives. I share the same religious opinions as Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson....

The first and last were radical fruitcakes. Washington was the only good deist Founding Father.

As he said:

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

[The Parkus Empire]

The first and last were radical fruitcakes. Washington was the only good deist Founding Father.

As he said:

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

Of course, his concern was one sect persecuting the others (like in England).

"While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support."

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?"

[Freezic Vast]

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/judge ... 7-09-live/

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania released a statement even before Mr. Trump released his pick, announcing that he will oppose the president's Supreme Court nominee -- no matter who it is.

"I will oppose the nomination the President will makes tonight because it represents a corrupt bargain with the far Right, big corporations, and Washington special interests."

Even more of a reason why I will be voting for Lou Barletta in November for the Senate.

[The Parkus Empire]

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/judge-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-pick-nominee-trump-announcement-pick-today-2018-07-09-live/

Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania released a statement even before Mr. Trump released his pick, announcing that he will oppose the president's Supreme Court nominee -- no matter who it is.

"I will oppose the nomination the President will makes tonight because it represents a corrupt bargain with the far Right, big corporations, and Washington special interests."

Even more of a reason why I will be voting for Lou Barletta in November for the Senate.

>pinko coping with the increasing irrelevance of his politics

[Vassenor]

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/judge-brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-pick-nominee-trump-announcement-pick-today-2018-07-09-live/



Even more of a reason why I will be voting for Lou Barletta in November for the Senate.

>pinko coping with the increasing irrelevance of his politics

So why do you think the state should be allowed unrestricted warrant-less access to your communications?

[The Parkus Empire]

>pinko coping with the increasing irrelevance of his politics

So why do you think the state should be allowed unrestricted warrant-less access to your communications?

Not sure what that has to do with saying you will veto anyone Trump picks no matter who he is.

[Vassenor]

So why do you think the state should be allowed unrestricted warrant-less access to your communications?

Not sure what that has to do with saying you will veto anyone Trump picks no matter who he is.

Just the fact you seem to be throwing your weight behind someone who's in favour of such a thing.

[Freezic Vast]

Not sure what that has to do with saying you will veto anyone Trump picks no matter who he is.

Just the fact you seem to be throwing your weight behind someone who's in favour of such a thing.

[Citation Needed]

[The Parkus Empire]

Just the fact you seem to be throwing your weight behind someone who's in favour of such a thing.

[Citation Needed]

I do strongly support the pick if that is being questioned, but I wasn't amused over opposition to it, rather over a senator opposing a pick before even knowing what it was.

[Vassenor]

Just the fact you seem to be throwing your weight behind someone who's in favour of such a thing.

[Citation Needed]

"While Kavanaugh has readily defended the constitutional rights of internet companies, he seems less concerned with the rights of technology users. In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote in support of the National Security Agency’s warrantless phone records collection program, which was challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds, Politico reported. “In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program,” Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declining to rehear a case challenging the legality of the mass surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. In other words, Kavanaugh thinks that government mass surveillance of American’s digital communications records doesn’t require a warrant and isn’t a violation of anyone’s privacy rights."

[The Parkus Empire]

[Citation Needed]

"While Kavanaugh has readily defended the constitutional rights of internet companies, he seems less concerned with the rights of technology users. In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote in support of the National Security Agency’s warrantless phone records collection program, which was challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds, Politico reported. “In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program,” Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declining to rehear a case challenging the legality of the mass surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. In other words, Kavanaugh thinks that government mass surveillance of American’s digital communications records doesn’t require a warrant and isn’t a violation of anyone’s privacy rights."

It's metadata, Vassenor. Not actual phone call recordings or email transcripts.

[Vassenor]

"While Kavanaugh has readily defended the constitutional rights of internet companies, he seems less concerned with the rights of technology users. In 2015, Kavanaugh wrote in support of the National Security Agency’s warrantless phone records collection program, which was challenged on Fourth Amendment grounds, Politico reported. “In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program,” Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declining to rehear a case challenging the legality of the mass surveillance programs revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. In other words, Kavanaugh thinks that government mass surveillance of American’s digital communications records doesn’t require a warrant and isn’t a violation of anyone’s privacy rights."

It's metadata, Vassenor. Not actual phone call recordings or email transcripts.

So you're fine with warrant-less surveillance then?

[The Parkus Empire]

It's metadata, Vassenor. Not actual phone call recordings or email transcripts.

So you're fine with warrant-less surveillance then?

Of metadata? Do you understand what that is? Do you know a lot of it is publicly available?

[Valrifell]

So you're fine with warrant-less surveillance then?

Of metadata? Do you understand what that is? Do you know a lot of it is publicly available?

Metadata is designed to supplement other datasets, considering metadata is literally information about data. In this context, the data is whatever you want to learn about the person and the metadata is the indirect way to get that information.

At least from my understanding.

[Ifreann]

A lot of conservatives have historically despised the 14th amendment ever since it was ratified, probably because it's too pro-freedom, renders state-level oppression unconstitutional and something-something equal rights are bad.

No one would have supported it if they knew it would be completely repurposed as it has been.

I wonder if, stripped of context, it could be determined which amendment this post was referencing.

[Myrensis]

I honestly think in some places a Republican candidate could say the Earth is flat, gravity isn't real, the space program is a lie and call for the firing of anyone who whose not white from a public service job and they still get elected

God you're unlikable.
You're not going to win an election with that mentality.

Roy Moore is and was batshit insane, he went around ranting about the homosexual Communist conspiracy to deny him a Senate seat meant for him by Jesus, and said slavery represented the high point of American History...and he still only barely lost after not-really-denying being a pedophile. (He always asked the mothers for permission!). This is a thing that actually happened, not a hypothetical.

[San Lumen]

And How was the 14th amendment repurposed to give LGBT people equal rights for example? I should have just accepted I would never be equal under the law in some states and never be able to be recognized as a family if I adopted children or had a surrogate mother.

Your stays as legal guardian is Federal. If you want to force all states to recognize same-sex marriage or polygamy, amend the Constitution, don't repurpose it.

How is legal guardian federal if my marriage and adoption isn’t recognized in another state? By your logic loving v Virginia was wrongly decided. We should have left it to the states and Mr loving should have just accepted his marriage to the women he loved would never be recognized in Virginia

[The Parkus Empire]

No one would have supported it if they knew it would be completely repurposed as it has been.

I wonder if, stripped of context, it could be determined which amendment this post was referencing.

It would apply to quite a few, as well as the commerce clause. It's possible the Constitution itself would not have been adopted if it was understood that it could be unilaterally repurposed by the Federal Government.

[Vassenor]

A lot of conservatives have historically despised the 14th amendment ever since it was ratified, probably because it's too pro-freedom, renders state-level oppression unconstitutional and something-something equal rights are bad.

No one would have supported it if they knew it would be completely repurposed as it has been.

So how has the 14th Amendment been "completely repurposed"?

[The Parkus Empire]

Your stays as legal guardian is Federal. If you want to force all states to recognize same-sex marriage or polygamy, amend the Constitution, don't repurpose it.

How is legal guardian federal if my marriage and adoption isn’t recognized in another state? By your logic loving v Virginia was wrongly decided. We should have left it to the states and Mr loving should have just accepted his marriage to the women he loved would never be recognized in Virginia

Your status as legal guardian is not contingent upon another state permitting your adoption. There is adoption all over the world lacking our criteria, we still recognize the custody even if we would not have permitted the adoption here.

The interracial marriage thing should have rather been fixed by an Act of Congress.

[Fahran]

If enough people decide not to vote because the Democrat isn't liberal enough for them thats how he could win. I do not view any election as written in stone anymore.

Having talked to a couple of Blue Dog union workers in the South and Midwest, I'm not certain the DNC's problem is that it's too close to the center. We've been shifting to the left on many social issues since the later years of the Bush administration. Trump even gave casual support to trans rights on the campaign trail, something that would have been front-page news if it were Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or even John Kerry a decade ago.

[Ifreann]

I wonder if, stripped of context, it could be determined which amendment this post was referencing.

It would apply to quite a few, as well as the commerce clause. It's possible the Constitution itself would not have been adopted if it was understood that it could be unilaterally repurposed by the Federal Government.

Well what I was thinking was that you might be mistaken for one of those liberals who say the 2nd Amendment only applies to ye olde blacke powedere armes.

[The Parkus Empire]

No one would have supported it if they knew it would be completely repurposed as it has been.

So how has the 14th Amendment been "completely repurposed"?

It's been interpreted in a way completely and knowingly inconsistent with the purpose of its creation.