Civility in politics

[seahawk]

Still not over the asshole Bork.

The thing about Bork was that he lacked judicial temperament as much as Kavanaugh does. Bork wanted to be a congressman, not a judge. So does Kavanaugh--that's not really the role of a SCOTUS justice.

[twocoach]

man, I was hoping to hold out for some more snarky conservative zingers before actually attempting civil discussion, but let's just get into it.

Trump is arguably the most extreme example of a lack of civility in politics, and very well may have changed the game. But is he a cause or a symptom? Weren't things getting ugly before he got into politics?

and what's something that both wings can agree on? 1 percenters are too rich and average joes is too poor? whatever happened to that occupy wall street movement anyway?

Things got ugly when the DNC put a black man on the ticket and got to this level of ugly when he got elected.

[jfish26]

jfish, my impression watching politics in this particular election cycle is that people are paying less attention to the national noise and deciding on local issues from their own district/state. That is a big change from recent elections and probably a good start. Although there are teams at the local level, there is also a lot of crossing of party lines to get things done.

In the end, politics really is all local, but the electorate has not fully accepted that somewhat for awhile. This cycle seems to be returning to earlier times, maybe because people are just tired of the national circus. Maybe because there are tons of female candidates, who tend to be more focused on details and local policy issues.

There isn't a lively race for any material positions my district will vote on (and the McCaskill/Hawley race has pretty clear dividing lines).

In any case, I do think - I do hope - that there's going to be a very jarring return to blandness and tedium once this presidency passes. And a lot of media people who've made quite a profile, and likely a lot of money, off the wackiness of the last 36 months will find themselves a bit out in the cold.

[twocoach]

Sadly, I think that the tactics Trump has utilized to weaponize the worst of his base will be tactics utilized by future GOP nominees for years to come.

[DCHawk1]

Religious nut.

[seahawk]

I think we saw some on Friday. Three GOP Senators (Blake, Collins, Murkowski) and perhaps three Democrats (Manchin, Donnelly, Heitkamp) formed a coalition and got something for both sides of the aisle. Small steps. GOP wanted a vote on Tuesday. Dems wanted a FBI Investigation. Each got something. Maybe vote on Friday or Saturday. Not as deep as they wanted but the FBI is on the job asking questions. This all came about with Senator Flakes and Senator Coons being friends. A GOP and a Dem. It was give and take. I have hope for the Senate. I wish that Flakes had also included all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee to votes with him based on the FBI Report. If the FBI Report is substantially the same findings of the Committee's Investigators, then all of the Flake Gang votes with Senator Flake. All 10 of the Democrats from the Judiciary (Feinstein, Harris, Booker, Durbin, Coons, Whitehorse, etc) vote for Kavanaugh on the Floor Vote with the before mentioned Flake Gang. If the FBI Reports comes back different, then Flake and the Gang vote NO.

Leahy, Harris, Whitehorse, Blumenthal, Klobuchar are all former prosecutors. The likelihood of a former prosecutor voting for a man they know--without an FBI investigation--has lied repeatedly and lied in the hearing on Friday to serve on the highest court in the land--unlikely.

If you are right that Democrats didn't need a FBI Investigation to decide...why did they beg for it? If they came in with a closed mind then vote and let the chips fall where they may. Does sound very tolerant for your tribe to decide before the actual facts are confirmed.

As former prosecutors, those individuals know the difference between the limited whitewash that you are calling an FBI "report" and an actual investigation that follows leads and interviews all the people surrounding a case, that looks at records like dorm records, matches calendars with maps and time frames, etc.

In my experience, having lived with a former prosecutor for several decades, they're really good at picking up on lies, they hear all the inconsistencies and note them--it's what experience has trained them at doing, That's not close mindedness, simply a learned skill. However, as Judiciary Committee members they're supposed to advise on nominations for their colleagues in the larger Senate and as such, they're asking for a legitimate, normal FBI investigation, not the limited "exonerate Kavanaugh only" whitewash that some seem close-mindedly in favor of.

[twocoach]

Religious nut.

Ha. The next church service I attend will be the first church service I attend.

[Lonestarjayhawk]

You just explained why you are closed-minded and then declared me closed-minded. Care to define TOLERANT to me too?

[seahawk]

You just explained why you are closed-minded and then declared me closed-minded. Care to define TOLERANT to me too?

Having been involved in investigations, I know the same thing as most prosecutors--that actual investigations don't always turn up the results one expects.

That's somewhat different than limiting questions and people to be interviewed in an attempt to simply arrive at the conclusion that one started with.

[ousdahl]

soo what’s everyone’s definition of “civil dialogue?”

[HouseDivided]

soo what’s everyone’s definition of “civil dialogue?”

My personal operational definition would include:
1.) No profanity
2.) No name-calling
3.) No personal attacks

It is possible to argue issues without attacking the person, but it is a slippery slope around here for some reason.

[chiknbut]

I suppose a lot is on the media.

OWS had critical mass in a lot of places, but they were always dismissed in the (big rich corporate) news, because the real story was Obama's birth certificate...

I think you could make a good argument that it's nearly 100 percent on today's 24-hour media cycle.

[DrPepper]

soo what’s everyone’s definition of “civil dialogue?”

My personal operational definition would include:
1.) No profanity
2.) No name-calling
3.) No personal attacks

It is possible to argue issues without attacking the person, but it is a slippery slope around here for some reason.

4. No trolling. If you have a take, then support it.

[HouseDivided]

soo what’s everyone’s definition of “civil dialogue?”

My personal operational definition would include:
1.) No profanity
2.) No name-calling
3.) No personal attacks

It is possible to argue issues without attacking the person, but it is a slippery slope around here for some reason.

4. No trolling. If you have a take, then support it.

Define trolling, please. There seem to be multiple definitions around here.

[ousdahl]

One way to define it may be, when someone is being snarky and antagonistic without any apparent intent to contribute to a substantive dialogue?

[Deleted User 89]

“libtard”

term of endearment?

[HouseDivided]

One way to define it may be, when someone is being snarky and antagonistic without any apparent intent to contribute to a substantive dialogue?

I will admit I have been guilty of that. I will try to do better moving forward.

[ousdahl]

Whoa nice!

POTD

[Leawood]

I agree with the above. We can all be better.

[ousdahl]

None can be better.




...than your avatar. Holy funbags, Batman!