• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Nation of Simpletons

The accuser passed a lie detector test, the accused refused to take one. Sorry pal, but the accuser was infinitely more credible than the piece of **** on the court. Even if there's only a 50% chance he did the things she said he did that's more than enough to deny him a seat on our nations highest court.

lie detector tests are not 100% at all, plus who knows what could have happened? someone can believe something and it not be true, but could pass a lie detector test based on what they believe. Sorry pal, but unless he has been convicted by a jury of his peers with clear evidence, he is not guilty. that is how proper justice works.

if you want to push stuff like this then you have no business questioning others conspiracy theories, including conservative's.
 
lie detector tests are not 100% at all

She was willing to take one with confidence. He was not. That alone speaks volumes.

It's kind of like how Hillary Clinton was willing to testify under oath for 11 hours straight before Congress, whereas Trump was too chicken **** to do it and instead had his lawyers handcraft written responses claiming he forgot everything.
 
lie detector tests are not 100% at all, plus who knows what could have happened? someone can believe something and it not be true, but could pass a lie detector test based on what they believe. Sorry pal, but unless he has been convicted by a jury of his peers with clear evidence, he is not guilty. that is how proper justice works.

if you want to push stuff like this then you have no business questioning others conspiracy theories, including conservative's.
That is the most bizarre line of non-logic I have seen in some time. First, "unless he has been convicted by a jury of his peers with clear evidence, he is not guilty. that is how proper justice works." No, that is not how it works. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is applicable only for criminal proceedings. Was this a criminal proceeding? This is a "bait and switch argument." The statute of limitations had already run, so there is no basis for applying the criminal standard. Which leads to the second point: this was appointment to a Supreme Court seat. I would expect that anyone appointed to such a high position would have better qualifications than, "well, he wasn't convicted." Again, lowering the bar so far that virtually anyone could cover it. Do you believe that John Gotti was an upstanding citizen just because witnesses against him kept disappearing? "Well, he wasn't convicted." So I guess, under this standard, he's a good guy. OJ wasn't convicted either, so he must be a great guy, right? That, my friend, is NOT how it works. It's supposed to be the best qualified candidate.

Then you throw in support for conspiracy theories? Talk about a non sequitur.
 
She was willing to take one with confidence. He was not. That alone speaks volumes.

It's kind of like how Hillary Clinton was willing to testify under oath for 11 hours straight before Congress, whereas Trump was too chicken **** to do it and instead had his lawyers handcraft written responses claiming he forgot everything.

Well, yes. She took with confidence an "exam" including questions of her devising about a statement she drafted. That's a polygraph stunt, not a polygraph examination.
 
That is the most bizarre line of non-logic I have seen in some time. First, "unless he has been convicted by a jury of his peers with clear evidence, he is not guilty. that is how proper justice works." No, that is not how it works. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is applicable only for criminal proceedings. Was this a criminal proceeding? This is a "bait and switch argument." The statute of limitations had already run, so there is no basis for applying the criminal standard. Which leads to the second point: this was appointment to a Supreme Court seat. I would expect that anyone appointed to such a high position would have better qualifications than, "well, he wasn't convicted." Again, lowering the bar so far that virtually anyone could cover it. Do you believe that John Gotti was an upstanding citizen just because witnesses against him kept disappearing? "Well, he wasn't convicted." So I guess, under this standard, he's a good guy. OJ wasn't convicted either, so he must be a great guy, right? That, my friend, is NOT how it works. It's supposed to be the best qualified candidate.

Then you throw in support for conspiracy theories? Talk about a non sequitur.

The hearing produced no credible evidence against the idea that he was the best qualified candidate.
 
In my lifetime I have had 3 "careers" and at least 24 jobs, ranging from janitor, cook and bottlewasher (literally) to Executive Officer and Assistant Attorney General. I consider myself intellectual, as I like to think about all kinds of things, including what I think and do, but, notwithstanding some posts to the contrary, not arrogant. But... I have noticed, even in myself, a creeping pattern of discourse that is both crude and dismissive. It's not just here on this forum, it is in our newspapers and magazines, on our televisions, and in our daily lives. Conversations are boiled down to "tweets" and text messages (email is so passe), or, if particularly loquacious, a brief exchange while waiting for our lattes at Starbucks. People don't interact with each other as fully as they did even a few decades ago. They get their information and form beliefs from headlines, not the articles.

I've noticed it particularly on weighty topics like climate change, global economics or the Mueller report. In lieu of in-depth study or reading, we post and respond with pithy points based upon cursory knowledge or beliefs. Again, it is not just on discussion forums like this. It seems to be everywhere. We have become a nation of simpletons. Complex thoughts and understanding are becoming rarer and rarer. Part of it is the deteriorization (that's deliberate, not a typo) of our education system, and the divisions between the haves and have nots - but it infests every strata of society. The apotheosis, in my view, is Donald Trump in the White House, the apex simpleton, and a cabinet full of singularly unqualified appointees. But again, it is not a political thing. We, as a society, have attention deficit in the worst way. We can't hold onto a line of thought to the end of a sentence, much less a paragraph, and even less a 448 page report. Our understanding of a topic has to be reduced to a bumper sticker, 288 characters, or a single double-spaced page with bullet points. In that environment bad actors get away with murder, and much worse.

I haven't determined whether our political divide is a symptom of this or merely an accelerant of the trend. Our beliefs are becoming binary: With me, agin' me; fascist or socialist; crackpot or nutjob. But there are big, complicated issues that we have to address both individually and as a nation - security (social, national and personal), environmental degradation, national and international economics, social justice - and soon we are going to be faced with even more, like a worldwide water shortage, dwindling fuel supplies, loss of natural resources and population growth. These are issues that are not amenable to bumper-sticker sized solutions or pithy programs. We need to emerge from our simpleton stupor, but the question is, how?

This is why morons shouldn't be allowed to vote and there are millions of morons on both sides. Social media is the biggest blame for all of this.
 
You're very angry. You want to believe I'm some out of touch city boy from the coast who simply doesn't understand the people I'm bashing, but the truth is that I know them all too well and that just ****s with your whole narrative. It is specifically because I understand how they think that I am am so disappointed and embarrassed by their ignorance.

Nothing the be angry about.


I don't accept any of that line of crap.
 
Because it makes you angry. It blows up your simple ideas of the world, and you have no way of contradicting it.
No, it's just crap. Stupid stuff doesn't make me "angry". Why are you so triggered?
 
That is the most bizarre line of non-logic I have seen in some time. First, "unless he has been convicted by a jury of his peers with clear evidence, he is not guilty. that is how proper justice works." No, that is not how it works. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is applicable only for criminal proceedings. Was this a criminal proceeding? This is a "bait and switch argument." The statute of limitations had already run, so there is no basis for applying the criminal standard. Which leads to the second point: this was appointment to a Supreme Court seat. I would expect that anyone appointed to such a high position would have better qualifications than, "well, he wasn't convicted." Again, lowering the bar so far that virtually anyone could cover it. Do you believe that John Gotti was an upstanding citizen just because witnesses against him kept disappearing? "Well, he wasn't convicted." So I guess, under this standard, he's a good guy. OJ wasn't convicted either, so he must be a great guy, right? That, my friend, is NOT how it works. It's supposed to be the best qualified candidate.

Then you throw in support for conspiracy theories? Talk about a non sequitur.

ok true enough about non criminal proceedings, TECHNICALLY, but what I am really saying though is that I would find it hard to deny someone access to a job they have been working toward their entire life and are fully qualified for based on questionable evidence and hearsay of a crime they may not have committed. if we do that , everyone who wants to smear politicians can come forward to keep them out of the courts based ion hearsay.
 
No, it's just crap. Stupid stuff doesn't make me "angry". Why are you so triggered?

So why can you never manage to add anything constructive to a thread? Why would you agree to get paid 5 cents a post by a Bannon-like outfit to troll and bait? You that desperate?
 
So why can you never manage to add anything constructive to a thread? Why would you agree to get paid 5 cents a post by a Bannon-like outfit to troll and bait? You that desperate?

Because you have turned this thread into a ****storm, and I don't feel moved to add anything constructive to the rubble.
 
ok true enough about non criminal proceedings, TECHNICALLY, but what I am really saying though is that I would find it hard to deny someone access to a job they have been working toward their entire life and are fully qualified for based on questionable evidence and hearsay of a crime they may not have committed. if we do that , everyone who wants to smear politicians can come forward to keep them out of the courts based ion hearsay.

I don't disagree that it should have been investigated. The reality was, it wasn't. The "hearing" was a farce; embarrassingly so. I couldn't believe that these were our elected representatives. When vetting someone for high office there should be a higher standard than "I want him."
 
Because you have turned this thread into a ****storm, and I don't feel moved to add anything constructive to the rubble.

This is one thread. Thank you for admitting that you never add anything constructive elsewhere.

And by the way, your boyfriend Alpha Omega turned this thread into a sh**storm by attacking everyone. You're just whining because you both got burned with counterattacks.
 
Back
Top Bottom