Forum Thread

Make Mr. Trump Unelectable

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 61 - 75 of 92 Prev 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:
    Dave Volek Wrote:

    I watched a good part of the Kavanagh hearings yesterday. When an 11th hour "new evidence" can derail a thorough political process to vet a supreme court candidate, I would say that is a sign of a political order breaking down.

    Yes, Kavanaugh should have been fully vetted long ago.

    I also watched the hearings. Dr Ford was fully convincing; her testimony was as close to perfect as any honest person can get. Seriously, WOW! Kavanaugh was aggressive, defensive, evasive and well rehearsed in terms the scope of topics he would and won't not address. If he had been like this during any of the his previous confirmation hearings, he never would have reached this stage.

    • Perspective 1: Assuming Dr. Ford statements are 100% true, In a better system of government he never would have risen high in the government or system of justice without have come come clean about his past and clearly atoned for his crimes by making Dr. Ford whole again (a state of forgiveness).
    • Perspective 2: Assuming Dr Ford is mistaken somehow (ie False memories, flawed memory, mentally ill, lying, etc), and Judge Kananaugh has never done any of the things he has been accused of, then the justice system would be allowed to be involved and their investigation would flush out the facts well enough to prove he is an innocent man. Imagine if the FBI's fact report showed the Kavanaugh was in a hospital 100 miles away when the attacked occurred, and there were other collaborating facts of his innocence, then Dr. Ford would need to figured out how she got it so dead wrong. Honest women have mistakenly identified the innocence men before. Hypothetically, what if Kavanaugh has an brother who looks similar enough that its easy to mistake them for one another. What if it was the brother that committed the crime.... Just pointing out it is possible for Kavanaugh to be innocent, while she's being 100% honest.

    This controversy shows how flawed the system when things like this become too political. An impartial system of vetting needs to be part of the process. And of course, justice should have happened 36 years ago when the attacked happened; meaning a system should have been in place so Dr Ford felt safe to come forward as a teenage girl.

    In a great movie called "Lolly Moddona XXX" there is a scene where a traumatized teenage girl comes running home, runs right past her mother who is sitting on the front porch. The mother does not move and doesn't need to be told the details, she knows her daughter has just been raped, and likely raped by boys she trusted. It was something many generations of have girls experienced, and had to accept because nothing would be done about it; aka, teenage boys rape teenage girls, and the girls needed to accept it.

    wwjd

    In the parts of the hearing I could catch, it was a riveting experience. I thought Mr. Kavanaugh handled himself quite well, as too did Ms. Ford. But it wasn't that difficult to see both sides were enhancing the spin to their political advantage. I came to the conclusion than even if there are sane thinkers on either side of the R-D divide, they can't vote against party lines--or the internal party elections will have them unemployed politically speaking. In many ways, the whole hearing is a charade. At best, it might convince a lot of non-voters to vote in November.

    The D's may indeed get their way (and in my opinion, don't deserve because they waited too long to present their "evidence"), but it will come to bite them in the ass during the next D. president. And we could say that the R's are being bitten in the ass for their efforts to impeach Mr. Clinton.

    And again coming from Canada, I'm far from getting the full story. But I have yet to hear of any evidence or anecdotes that Mr. Kavanagh made bad decisions as a judge.

    As my book focuses mostly on the elected decision makers and their appointed advisers, I don't delve into new ways for the justice system. But I do give possible new ways for the various institutions of democracy to interact with each other (albeit an a simplistic level). It will be up to builders of the TDG, after going through their learning curve to make the TDG work, to discover new ways to determine the new relationship between the decision makers and justice system. And the TDG will be a lot more fluid. It will change when it finds systems are not functioning well.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    wwjd Wrote:
    Dave Volek Wrote:

    I watched a good part of the Kavanagh hearings yesterday. When an 11th hour "new evidence" can derail a thorough political process to vet a supreme court candidate, I would say that is a sign of a political order breaking down.

    Yes, Kavanaugh should have been fully vetted long ago.

    I also watched the hearings. Dr Ford was fully convincing; her testimony was as close to perfect as any honest person can get. Seriously, WOW! Kavanaugh was aggressive, defensive, evasive and well rehearsed in terms the scope of topics he would and won't not address. If he had been like this during any of the his previous confirmation hearings, he never would have reached this stage.

    • Perspective 1: Assuming Dr. Ford statements are 100% true, In a better system of government he never would have risen high in the government or system of justice without have come come clean about his past and clearly atoned for his crimes by making Dr. Ford whole again (a state of forgiveness).
    • Perspective 2: Assuming Dr Ford is mistaken somehow (ie False memories, flawed memory, mentally ill, lying, etc), and Judge Kananaugh has never done any of the things he has been accused of, then the justice system would be allowed to be involved and their investigation would flush out the facts well enough to prove he is an innocent man. Imagine if the FBI's fact report showed the Kavanaugh was in a hospital 100 miles away when the attacked occurred, and there were other collaborating facts of his innocence, then Dr. Ford would need to figured out how she got it so dead wrong. Honest women have mistakenly identified the innocence men before. Hypothetically, what if Kavanaugh has an brother who looks similar enough that its easy to mistake them for one another. What if it was the brother that committed the crime.... Just pointing out it is possible for Kavanaugh to be innocent, while she's being 100% honest.

    This controversy shows how flawed the system when things like this become too political. An impartial system of vetting needs to be part of the process. And of course, justice should have happened 36 years ago when the attacked happened; meaning a system should have been in place so Dr Ford felt safe to come forward as a teenage girl.

    In a great movie called "Lolly Moddona XXX" there is a scene where a traumatized teenage girl comes running home, runs right past her mother who is sitting on the front porch. The mother does not move and doesn't need to be told the details, she knows her daughter has just been raped, and likely raped by boys she trusted. It was something many generations of have girls experienced, and had to accept because nothing would be done about it; aka, teenage boys rape teenage girls, and the girls needed to accept it.

    wwjd

    In the parts of the hearing I could catch, it was a riveting experience. I thought Mr. Kavanaugh handled himself quite well, as too did Ms. Ford. But it wasn't that difficult to see both sides were enhancing the spin to their political advantage. I came to the conclusion than even if there are sane thinkers on either side of the R-D divide, they can't vote against party lines--or the internal party elections will have them unemployed politically speaking. In many ways, the whole hearing is a charade. At best, it might convince a lot of non-voters to vote in November.

    The D's may indeed get their way (and in my opinion, don't deserve because they waited too long to present their "evidence"), but it will come to bite them in the ass during the next D. president. And we could say that the R's are being bitten in the ass for their efforts to impeach Mr. Clinton.

    And again coming from Canada, I'm far from getting the full story. But I have yet to hear of any evidence or anecdotes that Mr. Kavanagh made bad decisions as a judge.

    As my book focuses mostly on the elected decision makers and their appointed advisers, I don't delve into new ways for the justice system. But I do give possible new ways for the various institutions of democracy to interact with each other (albeit an a simplistic level). It will be up to builders of the TDG, after going through their learning curve to make the TDG work, to discover new ways to determine the new relationship between the decision makers and justice system. And the TDG will be a lot more fluid. It will change when it finds systems are not functioning well.

    Just read an article (from a left-wing writer) about the Kavanough part of the hearing. It seems he ducked a few important questions----and could not admit his binge drinking tendencies as a frat boy. The writer mentioned a few other questions I didn't get to hear. If true, I could change my opinion of Mr. Kavanough.

    I too had binge drinking tendencies in my youth. But I don't try to hide from that past. If people want to judge me for that past, it is their right to do so. BTW, I've been dry since 1994.

    Again I'm not getting the full coverage. But it sure would be nice if some of those prominent people in the Kavanough hearing were to advise youth to stay away from drunken parties because a great deal of harm can come. But I guess the prominent people cannot do that because, even if they agree with me, much of their demographic would be appalled at this suggestion. It's a strange world.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:

    Just read an article (from a left-wing writer) about the Kavanough part of the hearing. It seems he ducked a few important questions----and could not admit his binge drinking tendencies as a frat boy. The writer mentioned a few other questions I didn't get to hear. If true, I could change my opinion of Mr. Kavanough.

    I too had binge drinking tendencies in my youth. But I don't try to hide from that past. If people want to judge me for that past, it is their right to do so. BTW, I've been dry since 1994.

    Again I'm not getting the full coverage. But it sure would be nice if some of those prominent people in the Kavanough hearing were to advise youth to stay away from drunken parties because a great deal of harm can come. But I guess the prominent people cannot do that because, even if they agree with me, much of their demographic would be appalled at this suggestion. It's a strange world.


    Nearly everybody has done regrettable things in their past that most likely would disqualifying in mind of the public unless we were to come clean about it 100% and demonstrate empathy for people we have harmed.

    On my DVR I recorded the entire coverage of the Senate hearing. During Dr. Ford's testimony I personally did not detect any deception or being evasive. At best there maybe things she held back because she not asked about.

    Kavanaugh made no effort to demonstrate he had empathy for women who have been victims (its what sexual assault victims want to her from men). IMO, an innocent man would have reached out to woman everywhere and demonstrated empathy for them. Even if guilty and had sincere remorse for what he had done, he would done that (without admitting guilt directly). He could have won over enough to get confirmed. People are forgiving if they are convinced a person has seriously changed and continues do things going forward to ensure there are less victims in the future..... Kavanaugh demonstrated no empathy for victims of sexual assault. The lack of empathy does not make him guilty of the allegations, it just makes him look unqualified to be SC justice and creates the perception that he is more guilty than innocent.

    It remains an big unknown how guilty Kavanaugh is related to the accusation against him. Kavanaugh comes from a conservative background where it was common for preppy boys to drink and do unsavory things (commit crimes). Its a bit like thrill seeking, doing things just to see how far they can push the limits and not get caught. He is now a leader in that rich conservative community and would loose everything if he were to ever admit to have participated in sexual assaulting girls\women. Even his wife might be profoundly shocked to learn all that he has done.... What I am saying is even if deep down he wanted to come clean about everything, it would cost him pretty much everything; friends, family, professional career. If guilty, his best option is to be deceptive and claim 100% innocence of all accusations, and being deceptive would be a shortcut tool he has used many times to rise up through the political and professional ranks. Sometimes a minority second tier people in all professions resort to various kinds cheating to keep pace with top tier people. (aka some people's best skills are cheating and deceptive skills). If innocent, being deceptive would not be something he would be using now to get to the SC, but would be if guilty.

    Whether he is guilty or innocent, he has chosen to use Trump's method of dealing with these sexual accusation: Always deny 100% and redirect blame back onto the victim or others. Show no empathy, and create a false narrative that supporters can believe. These methods and tactic are frequently used by guilty men, not innocent men. If he is innocent, then he is getting extremely bad advice on how to convince the American public he is worthy of being a SC justice.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Kavanaugh comes across to me as above the law. Actually a sociopath. His ranting was at times both irrational and incoherent. Exhibiting a trapped cornered reaction. He has never been challenged before. Bringing in the FBI has probably pushed him over the edge. Don't forget that if true holding Ford against her will after shoving her in the room are two different crimes analagous to kidnapping. Serious total of 3 felonies.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Don't forget that if true holding Ford against her will after shoving her in the room are two different crimes analagous to kidnapping. Serious total of 3 felonies.

    Yes, Which is another reason he would lie about it.

    It is likely previous background investigations never included anything related to his juvenile behavior since there were no reported crimes. At worst, the previous background checks reveals some underage drinking.

    Mark Judge could be Kavanugh's down fall. If Mark Judge is granted immunity for all confessed crimes that involved Kavanugh, Kavaugh will be in serious legal trouble.

    Assuming Dr Ford's accusations are true, Mark Judge might confess to the FBI something akin to this:

    "I don't remember that specific night at the party with Christine Ford, but I can tell you that together Bret and I drugged several young girls in HS and college and then had sex with them while the girls were passed out. What Christine Ford testified about is something we had done to various girls, some girls we never even knew their names. I probably can't tell even how many, but it was several in HS, and several in college. Its not like it was something we wrote down and kept track of. I believe her testimony even through I don't remember what happened that night; if she said I was there, I probably was and we probably did push her into the bedroom and attempt to rape her.... It all ended after college, at least for what Bret and I did together"

    Game over!

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    His disrespectful interaction with the Democratic panelist, United States senators, in the setting of a Supreme Court future shows he can be totally over come by personal feelings. Not SC metal.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    All of these "posts" show that this country is still in its "child" years; other countries "vet" people way before selecting or "nominating" high positions. For instance would Apple, if they would hire an new CEO, not properly "vet" a person BEFORE they even contemplate to hire such person? The way the government is doing it, is totally ass backwards. Look at how we got Trump; he lied already day one; an "under oath" thing is laughable and does not work as has been proven time upon time. Mueller is doing the "vetting" two years later. And that at an huge cost, let alone how much money (now over $350 million) Trump wasted on himself from taxpayers money, as well that we've got now all his "maffia" buddies who "sneaked" into the government via the backdoor or FOX .

    When is this country going to learn to start at "A" and end at "Z"

    Is n't time someone designs an "proper "vetting" manual, which includes an "lie detector/polygraph test, as well an "mentality test" by an "professional" which is not "bribed" beforehand.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    There is no statute of limitations where the alledged crime took place.

    "The Montgomery County Police Departmentreleased a statement Monday saying it had not yet opened a local investigation, and that it wouldn’t do so until (or if) Ford, Ford’s lawyer, or another victim or victim’s lawyer requested it explicitly. “Typically, in a sexual assault case, the cooperation of the victim or witnesses is necessary,” the release states. “As with any criminal investigation, a determination must be made as to the jurisdiction where the alleged offense occurred and the specific details of the event to establish a potential criminal charge.”

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dave said:

    "I got my TDG inspiration in 1992, when I figured out that party politics was not the venue to change the world."

    Coincidentally that is about the time that I decided Bill Clinton's vision was beyond the borders of the USA. His welfare reform and crime bill and subsequent financial deregulatory CFMA cemented my belief that his allegiance was to money and power and not the people of the United States.

    It has been 36 years since we came to our political enlightenment.

    I have written a book that exposes the flaws of western democracy in a way that no other thinker has---and offered a replacement system that puts governance back in the hands of the people.

    You have complained on the internet all this time.

    The TDG only needs 1% of the population to start building it.

    Your perspectives are in line with at least 20% of Americans. Yet your demographic is impotent to effect change: look at who is president.

    I watched a good part of the Kavanagh hearings yesterday. When an 11th hour "new evidence" can derail a thorough political process to vet a supreme court candidate, I would say that is a sign of a political order breaking down.

    Dave said: "look at who is president."

    Dave as soon as Trump announced his candidacy maybe April of 2015. I said he could very easily win and his campaign oh "lots of good jobs" and "make America great again" should have been Hillary's campaign. It was very obvious to me but to nobody in Hillary's campaign that the working class was hurting. That all could have and still can change for the betterment of everybody. I have no illusions about any great change but I do know that any change before It is made has to have permanent features. You can bring good times and prosperity but after a few years all the people you lift up will now be right wingers cursing the day FDR was born. You can have the best idea in the world but unless you are a Trump or have a Trump it goes nowhere.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    wwjd Wrote:
    On my DVR I recorded the entire coverage of the Senate hearing. During Dr. Ford's testimony I personally did not detect any deception or being evasive. At best there maybe things she held back because she not asked about.

    Kavanaugh made no effort to demonstrate he had empathy for women who have been victims (its what sexual assault victims want to her from men). IMO, an innocent man would have reached out to woman everywhere and demonstrated empathy for them. Even if guilty and had sincere remorse for what he had done, he would done that (without admitting guilt directly). He could have won over enough to get confirmed. People are forgiving if they are convinced a person has seriously changed and continues do things going forward to ensure there are less victims in the future..... Kavanaugh demonstrated no empathy for victims of sexual assault. The lack of empathy does not make him guilty of the allegations, it just makes him look unqualified to be SC justice and creates the perception that he is more guilty than innocent.

    It remains an big unknown how guilty Kavanaugh is related to the accusation against him. Kavanaugh comes from a conservative background where it was common for preppy boys to drink and do unsavory things (commit crimes). Its a bit like thrill seeking, doing things just to see how far they can push the limits and not get caught. He is now a leader in that rich conservative community and would loose everything if he were to ever admit to have participated in sexual assaulting girls\women. Even his wife might be profoundly shocked to learn all that he has done.... What I am saying is even if deep down he wanted to come clean about everything, it would cost him pretty much everything; friends, family, professional career. If guilty, his best option is to be deceptive and claim 100% innocence of all accusations, and being deceptive would be a shortcut tool he has used many times to rise up through the political and professional ranks. Sometimes a minority second tier people in all professions resort to various kinds cheating to keep pace with top tier people. (aka some people's best skills are cheating and deceptive skills). If innocent, being deceptive would not be something he would be using now to get to the SC, but would be if guilty.

    Whether he is guilty or innocent, he has chosen to use Trump's method of dealing with these sexual accusation: Always deny 100% and redirect blame back onto the victim or others. Show no empathy, and create a false narrative that supporters can believe. These methods and tactic are frequently used by guilty men, not innocent men. If he is innocent, then he is getting extremely bad advice on how to convince the American public he is worthy of being a SC justice.

    Nice psychological analysis (I believe it is still an amateur analysis, but all the pieces are still fitting together). Mr. K really doesn't have a lot of choice that will keep his current life together.

    I think I saw about half of Ford's testimony and a quarter of Kavanagh's, so I must have missed some important points. When Trump finally ordered the FBI investigation, even he must have realized something was up.

    It would have been interesting to be fly on the wall in the initial meeting between Trump and Kavanaugh: "I want to nominate you for SC; are you interested?". I wonder what secondary conversation happened after that.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:

    All of these "posts" show that this country is still in its "child" years; other countries "vet" people way before selecting or "nominating" high positions. For instance would Apple, if they would hire an new CEO, not properly "vet" a person BEFORE they even contemplate to hire such person? The way the government is doing it, is totally ass backwards. Look at how we got Trump; he lied already day one; an "under oath" thing is laughable and does not work as has been proven time upon time. Mueller is doing the "vetting" two years later. And that at an huge cost, let alone how much money (now over $350 million) Trump wasted on himself from taxpayers money, as well that we've got now all his "maffia" buddies who "sneaked" into the government via the backdoor or FOX .

    When is this country going to learn to start at "A" and end at "Z"

    Is n't time someone designs an "proper "vetting" manual, which includes an "lie detector/polygraph test, as well an "mentality test" by an "professional" which is not "bribed" beforehand.

    As I have mentioned earlier, vetting is much easier said than done.

    The Reform Party of Canada had developed a system of vetting potential candidates. It struck committees to interview interested candidates. Aside from the interview, the committees commissioned a police check. That was it. In other words, the committees had no way of knowing if the interviews were a sham or if the candidate just didn't get caught with any bad deed. Nearly all candidates passed this test, and the Reform Party got its fair share of alcoholics, misogynists, and racists running for seats in the national election. But it did have some good people as well.

    Today, both the Liberal and Conservative Parties have denied people from running as a candidate in the internal party elections. Most of these denials are based on their social media postings. So there must be some resources dedicated to this investigation (perhaps workers from competing candidates?). The party leader seems to have the authority to make this decision. I'm not sure if this is a high level of vetting. Rather I think it is more that "these posts might embarrass the party if the media get a hold of them.

    But I like your comment of "child years." While we would like to believe that western democracy is the ultimate system of governance (and we can still fix its flaws), it is in the teenage stage of what humanity can really accomplish. Eventually we will decided to shed the teenage attitude--and become adults. Hopefully sooner than later.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dave said: "look at who is president."

    Dave as soon as Trump announced his candidacy maybe April of 2015. I said he could very easily win and his campaign oh "lots of good jobs" and "make America great again" should have been Hillary's campaign. It was very obvious to me but to nobody in Hillary's campaign that the working class was hurting. That all could have and still can change for the betterment of everybody. I have no illusions about any great change but I do know that any change before It is made has to have permanent features. You can bring good times and prosperity but after a few years all the people you lift up will now be right wingers cursing the day FDR was born. You can have the best idea in the world but unless you are a Trump or have a Trump it goes nowhere.

    I came to the same conclusion a little later than you. I thought Mr. Trump would find a third or fourth place finish in the R primaries, something that would have been a respectable effort and given him lots of media attention. When the R's were down to four candidates and he was at the top, I thought he could win the presidency.

    Right up to the polls closing, the mainstream media and D gave no credence to this possibility. Show how out of touch they really are.

    And I don't think Mr Trump was exactly in touch either. He just spouted off things that politicians spout out about, and he got some echos back. So he spouted more of the same things.

    In the TDG, people like Mr. Trump won't rise very high. I can't see Mr. Trump serving at the lower levels, deciding what streets need to be repaired first. Gaining this experience is necessary for the higher levels.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dave said: "look at who is president."

    Dave as soon as Trump announced his candidacy maybe April of 2015. I said he could very easily win and his campaign oh "lots of good jobs" and "make America great again" should have been Hillary's campaign. It was very obvious to me but to nobody in Hillary's campaign that the working class was hurting. That all could have and still can change for the betterment of everybody. I have no illusions about any great change but I do know that any change before It is made has to have permanent features. You can bring good times and prosperity but after a few years all the people you lift up will now be right wingers cursing the day FDR was born. You can have the best idea in the world but unless you are a Trump or have a Trump it goes nowhere.

    I came to the same conclusion a little later than you. I thought Mr. Trump would find a third or fourth place finish in the R primaries, something that would have been a respectable effort and given him lots of media attention. When the R's were down to four candidates and he was at the top, I thought he could win the presidency.

    Right up to the polls closing, the mainstream media and D gave no credence to this possibility. Show how out of touch they really are.

    And I don't think Mr Trump was exactly in touch either. He just spouted off things that politicians spout out about, and he got some echos back. So he spouted more of the same things.

    In the TDG, people like Mr. Trump won't rise very high. I can't see Mr. Trump serving at the lower levels, deciding what streets need to be repaired first. Gaining this experience is necessary for the higher levels.

    Dave, On October 28, 2016 I posted on this forum that people were lying to pollsters. I said they were too embarrassed to say they would vote for Trump but in the secrecy of the voting booth they would vote for Trump. This of course was referred to as the Bradley effect. I was the single voice (in the country ???) calling attention to the Bradley effect and saying it could win the election for Trump.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dave Volek Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:

    All of these "posts" show that this country is still in its "child" years; other countries "vet" people way before selecting or "nominating" high positions. For instance would Apple, if they would hire an new CEO, not properly "vet" a person BEFORE they even contemplate to hire such person? The way the government is doing it, is totally ass backwards. Look at how we got Trump; he lied already day one; an "under oath" thing is laughable and does not work as has been proven time upon time. Mueller is doing the "vetting" two years later. And that at an huge cost, let alone how much money (now over $350 million) Trump wasted on himself from taxpayers money, as well that we've got now all his "maffia" buddies who "sneaked" into the government via the backdoor or FOX .

    When is this country going to learn to start at "A" and end at "Z"

    Is n't time someone designs an "proper "vetting" manual, which includes an "lie detector/polygraph test, as well an "mentality test" by an "professional" which is not "bribed" beforehand.

    As I have mentioned earlier, vetting is much easier said than done.

    The Reform Party of Canada had developed a system of vetting potential candidates. It struck committees to interview interested candidates. Aside from the interview, the committees commissioned a police check. That was it. In other words, the committees had no way of knowing if the interviews were a sham or if the candidate just didn't get caught with any bad deed. Nearly all candidates passed this test, and the Reform Party got its fair share of alcoholics, misogynists, and racists running for seats in the national election. But it did have some good people as well.

    Today, both the Liberal and Conservative Parties have denied people from running as a candidate in the internal party elections. Most of these denials are based on their social media postings. So there must be some resources dedicated to this investigation (perhaps workers from competing candidates?). The party leader seems to have the authority to make this decision. I'm not sure if this is a high level of vetting. Rather I think it is more that "these posts might embarrass the party if the media get a hold of them.

    But I like your comment of "child years." While we would like to believe that western democracy is the ultimate system of governance (and we can still fix its flaws), it is in the teenage stage of what humanity can really accomplish. Eventually we will decided to shed the teenage attitude--and become adults. Hopefully sooner than later.

    Dave, I've said so many times; hook them on an lie detector; that saves so much time and B.S. Mrs Ford did, why not Kavanaugh; the Dem's should have demanded that. Under oath they lie even more!!!
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    Dave, I've said so many times; hook them on an lie detector; that saves so much time and B.S. Mrs Ford did, why not Kavanaugh; the Dem's should have demanded that. Under oath they lie even more!!!

    My understanding is that lie detectors are not regarded as 100% certain. This uncertainty is enough not to consider the device as admissible evidence in court. Maybe the technology is better than 20 years ago, I don't know.

    For sure, it does not look good when Mr. K won't hook himself to a lie detector.

    Maybe we should put a portable, permanent lie detector on all politicians. Wearing it is part of the job!

    Nah, I think we should just build a better system of governance.