Poll: Should Democrats follow Hillary Clinton and Abandon Civility?

[Silmarien]

People are offended for a whole host of reasons. Kavanaugh, for example, was entirely civil when responding to the host of accusations made against him. That some were offended by his statements makes them no less civil.

I have no memory of Kavanaugh being entirely civil. I don't expect to ever forget that snarling hissy fit about the Clintons and their vengeance, though.

Maintaining civility should be the manner in which we attempt to provide political feedback, whether on the left or on the right. Peaceful protest, for example, can be both civil and entirely acceptable within our society, regardless of how offensive it may be to some.

Similarly, the righteous indignation exhibited by someone falsely accused for egregious political goals can be entirely civil, regardless of how offensive it may be to some.

Hopefully, that helps clarify.

It really doesn't. I agree with the difference between civil and nice, and agree that we can and should be civil. I certainly have no problem reconciling civility with some pretty sharp criticisms of the Trump base.

I don't know how you could possibly consider Trump offensive but not uncivil, though. He's incivility incarnate.

Never said it wasn't a two-way street.

I was mostly responding to your earlier claim about only the right claiming the moral high ground. In my estimation it is the left which claims the moral high ground for everything. Whether Obamacare, immigration, trade, gender stuff, etc., etc., etc., the left always claims the high moral ground. It's ALWAYS for the common good ... even when most of the country clearly says NO.

Oh, I see. I'm a leftist virtue ethicist surrounded by consequentialists, so I view morality very differently than just about everyone else over here.

I think the left is more or less correct (in its analysis if not its solution), but I don't think it has the moral highground because I basically see it as a relativistic mess with no coherent morality at all. Which is... not flattering, but yeah. I don't perceive its virtue signaling as claiming the highground at all, since that's just not how I define morality. Mostly I just think it's stupid. (I mean, come on. Admitting that privilege exists is a lot easier than not being a hypocrite. Do we really need an award for not wanting to be racist? Maybe we should start succeeding at actually not being racist before congratulating ourselves on how great we are.)

I was just saying that there's a big difference between the right not caring about Trump's infidelity, and the left not caring about Clinton's infidelity, because the left doesn't care about infidelity at all. You can't accuse them of hypocrisy on an issue that doesn't bother them. For the right to suddenly not care about moral character is a very different situation, especially since everyone knows who has been claiming the moral highground as far as actual moral character goes. Let's not forget the whole "repent godless liberals" angle.

For Democrats, sure.

Republicans have been called on it for years. Democrats, however, are not used to being reprimanded for their sexual mis-deeds. Nevertheless, that's what happens when one claims the moral high ground. Karma bites.

Having mistresses and the like, you mean? Again, unlike the right, they don't care about that so there's no real reason to call them on it. Actual abuse scandals would be different, but the GOP decided to spin the case against Clinton into an infidelity issue instead, so of course nobody cared.

Seriously?

Ted Cruz was demonized eight ways from Sunday in the national press. Consider though that not one Republican candidate was more civil than Ted Cruz during the election. Not one. Still, his civility was met with vilification and demonization in the national press.

You do realize that we had a collective nervous breakdown after the election, right? I thought this was common knowledge. It wasn't just a matter of saying negative things about GOP politicans. When I say "meltdown," I'm actually talking about actual psychological issues. That was not normal, and I don't think that any other candidate would have actually broken us like that.

LOL, where did that come from?

Eh, Citizens United is a stone toss away from a corporate takeover of the democracy. Lifting the limits on political spending for corporations, giving them inordinate power in influencing politics. Like I said: corporatocracy. Government by the Corporation.

If you're into that, okay. I kind of like constitutional monarchies, so I can't really criticize someone else for having the occasional anti-democratic taste.

 

[Go Braves]

What I'd much prefer is if our Republicans acted with more civility so that "the other side" didn't feel like it needed to go so low to be on the same level as some of them (not saying all from either side). I don't think anybody should abandon civility but I do see her point. Trump's behavior is frequently so beyond the pale that you can't just react to it with diplomacy all the time without it seeming sanctimonious. OTOH the more folks who act like Trump does with the insults & all that, the coarser we are going to become as a society.

 

[mina]

Honestly, I think both sides are just as bad as they imagine the other side to be; Two sides of the same coin. Politics isn't civil and it hasn't been for a long time or ever. All the feigned shock of "Gosh! They are so terrible! OUr side would NEVER do that!" "lemme clutch my pearls" is just stupid. Both sides do the same things; it just might be dressed up differently. I will say I think Trump ushered in a new kind of public awful and worked at making it justified and acceptable and I think that would have happened no matter what side he chose to be on.

 

[eleos1954]

Watch Hillary Clinton Call For Liberals To Abandon Civility Until They Retake Congress

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for."

Her remarks come just a day after Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was ceremonially sworn in to serve at the highest court in the land following a weeks-long campaign by leftists to paint him as a serial gang rapist. While he was taking the official oath of office on Saturday, protestors stormed the Supreme Court building and banged on the doors in an effort to force them open. Several Republican senators who supported Kavanaugh’s confirmation have received death threats, have had their home addresses published online, and been chased out of restaurants.

So the question remains: What civility do liberals have left to abandon? How can the left get any less civil than they already are without breaking into open street riots? Does this mean instead of threatening violence liberals should actually follow through and harm those who disagree with them?​

Sure glad she didn't win the last election. Jus' sayin ...

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for."

civil - relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters.

Being "civil" affects ordinary citizens ... and it is.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I have no memory of Kavanaugh being entirely civil. I don't expect to ever forget that snarling hissy fit about the Clintons and their vengeance, though.

Interesting. I listened to the entirety of Kavanaugh's interrogation before the Judiciary Committee, even watched parts of it. What I observed was a man who was remarkably reserved given the dog-pile of baseless accusations which had been hurled against him. What he said about the political hackery seemed entirely accurate.

Did you observe anything he said about the political hackery to be untrue?

I agree with the difference between civil and nice, and agree that we can and should be civil.

I certainly have no problem reconciling civility with some pretty sharp criticisms of the Trump base.

That's interesting. Stereotyping now?

I don't know how you could possibly consider Trump offensive but not uncivil, though. He's incivility incarnate.

Like I said earlier I didn't vote for him. Not in the primary. Not in the general. Still, I generally support his administration's policies and the country's direction during his tenure.

As for his being uncivil, I agree with you. That's part of why I didn't vote for him. I would have preferred more merit based dialogue. My candidates didn't win though ... which, btw, is true for most Republican voters. Trump had a minority of support among Republican voters. Trump didn't even win the Iowa caucus. Trump won by using the technique the Republican party had put in place for Jeb Bush to defeat Ted Cruz. Had the Republican party apparatchiks not schemed for a system to install Jeb Bush as the next standard bearer then there is little doubt that the election would have been more civil. Whether Ted Cruz would have won the general election though is something we'll never know, though I suspect from the way things have played out with Trump that Cruz would have lost to Hillary, herself coronated the Democrat standard bearer by the Democrat party apparatchiks.

Oh, I see. I'm a leftist virtue ethicist surrounded by consequentialists, so I view morality very differently than just about everyone else over here.

A contrarian.

I think the left is more or less correct (in its analysis if not its solution), but I don't think it has the moral highground because I basically see it as a relativistic mess with no coherent morality at all. Which is... not flattering, but yeah. I don't perceive its virtue signaling as claiming the highground at all, since that's just not how I define morality. Mostly I just think it's stupid. (I mean, come on. Admitting that privilege exists is a lot easier than not being a hypocrite. Do we really need an award for not wanting to be racist? Maybe we should start succeeding at actually not being racist before congratulating ourselves on how great we are.)

I was just saying that there's a big difference between the right not caring about Trump's infidelity, and the left not caring about Clinton's infidelity, because the left doesn't care about infidelity at all. You can't accuse them of hypocrisy on an issue that doesn't bother them. For the right to suddenly not care about moral character is a very different situation, especially since everyone knows who has been claiming the moral highground as far as actual moral character goes. Let's not forget the whole "repent godless liberals" angle.

Having mistresses and the like, you mean? Again, unlike the right, they don't care about that so there's no real reason to call them on it. Actual abuse scandals would be different, but the GOP decided to spin the case against Clinton into an infidelity issue instead, so of course nobody cared.

You covered that fairly well, so I'll just add one point.

The right seems to have learned that the left simply uses the morality of the right to divide the right. After all, when the choice is between voting for a politician who may have flawed moral character vs voting for a politician who cares not about morals at all ... the choice becomes a no-brainer.

You do realize that we had a collective nervous breakdown after the election, right? I thought this was common knowledge. It wasn't just a matter of saying negative things about GOP politicans. When I say "meltdown," I'm actually talking about actual psychological issues. That was not normal, and I don't think that any other candidate would have actually broken us like that.

Thanks for that insight. I was mostly looking at things from the perspective that any Republican candidate would have been treated just as horribly as Trump was ... regardless of whether they deserved it or not.

From that perspective it seems that Trump may have been the only candidate who was up to the task of taking on the inevitable fight. Personally, I'd have rather it hadn't come down to the constant fighting but perhaps that was inevitable to break the impasse.

Eh, Citizens United is a stone toss away from a corporate takeover of the democracy. Lifting the limits on political spending for corporations, giving them inordinate power in influencing politics. Like I said: corporatocracy. Government by the Corporation.

That's a somewhat short-sighted view.

The flip side of that coin is that public unions and open-society organizations have been funding the left for years. The money coffers of the left look really ugly.

Citizens United simply opened up more avenues for competitive politics. That it disturbs some on the left was always expected. The left had rigged the game so that they got the lion's share of money.

I have little sympathy for the left in regard to Citizens United.

If you're into that, okay. I kind of like constitutional monarchies, so I can't really criticize someone else for having the occasional anti-democratic taste.

Just so you know, less regulations favor smaller and numerous companies. That single aspect of Trump's presidency gets very little press but Trump's administration has been requiring the bureaucracies to cut down on regulation. That's a good thing.

 

[zippy2006]

Oh, I am not sure I see the turnover as a good thing. It would be nice to trust that there are decent Republicans near him, keeping him from doing anything too crazy, but if he keeps chasing them away and replacing them with loons, that's a bad sign. Are the moderate Republicans putting up resistance, or are they being marginalized and ignored? It looks more like the latter to me, though I am obviously not an insider here.

I don't think the turnover is a good thing in general, but it does show that Republicans have not sold their birthright, and that's good.

[edit] I should probably also specify that my initial concern here was more about what moral effect support of Trump has upon Trump's actual supporters as individuals. Wasn't sure how best to express that, so I kind of went off on a tangent. But when someone goes from a Never Trumper to a full-fledged fanatic, which has definitely happened, something has clearly gone wrong somewhere. Did they give up a little until they had nothing left to give, and what happens once this mess is over?

I'm not sure how to measure something like that, but it doesn't reflect my experience. I know only one person who has increased their support of Trump in the last two years, and a couple who have maintained their fervor. There are rumors that some have turned to the right in the wake of Kavanaugh, etc., but that simply isn't Trump-driven. In fact I would be careful about inferring that folks are becoming or staying Republicans because of Trump. There are too many other possible reasons that must be considered before making that jump.

(Sorry, trimmed that down to aid my escape. )

While I agree with you about Trump's inability to actually establish such a regime, I do worry that now that his base is willing to elect a man like him, who clearly has some love of fascism based upon his views on fascist dictators, what if they elect a man just like that, but who is smart and diplomatic enough?

Perhaps. I'll wait until 2020 to draw a conclusion there. Nominees can be a bit like a black box, and Trump more than most.

 

[Silmarien]

Interesting. I listened to the entirety of Kavanaugh's interrogation before the Judiciary Committee, even watched parts of it. What I observed was a man who was remarkably reserved given the dog-pile of baseless accusations which had been hurled against him. What he said about the political hackery seemed entirely accurate.

Did you observe anything he said about the political hackery to be untrue?

Revenge of the Clintons? I don't remember the Clintons being directly involved at all, so that's at the very least not entirely accurate. And frankly, we'll never know if any of it was accurate at all, since we'll never know what happened 36 years ago.

What you perceived as "remarkably reserved," I perceived as "unhinged and unsuited for office."

That's interesting. Stereotyping now?

No, not stereotyping. If you look like a reactionary crowd following a man with delusions of fascism, then that is what you look like. (Not you personally.) I'm sure that some had genuine reasons, but a populist mob can be dangerous, whether it's rightist or leftist. I think I'm justified in pointing out that I'm concerned about what this type of group mentality can turn into.

As for his being uncivil, I agree with you. That's part of why I didn't vote for him. I would have preferred more merit based dialogue. My candidates didn't win though ... which, btw, is true for most Republican voters.

I'm aware. I was briefly considering voting for John Kasich over the Democrats if he took the primary. (Mostly because he was the only candidate who actually looked like a Christian. That was when I realized I was being a really strange secularist. )

Didn't have to worry about that dilemma in the end, though.

The right seems to have learned that the left simply uses the morality of the right to divide the right. After all, when the choice is between voting for a politician who may have flawed moral character vs voting for a politician who cares not about morals at all ... the choice becomes a no-brainer.

I agree. That's why I voted for Clinton.

From that perspective it seems that Trump may have been the only candidate who was up to the task of taking on the inevitable fight. Personally, I'd have rather it hadn't come down to the constant fighting but perhaps that was inevitable to break the impasse.

I honestly don't see what impasse has been broken, unless you're referring to the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers set in place to preserve democracy in this country.

That's a somewhat short-sighted view.

The flip side of that coin is that public unions and open-society organizations have been funding the left for years. The money coffers of the left look really ugly.

Citizens United simply opened up more avenues for competitive politics. That it disturbs some on the left was always expected. The left had rigged the game so that they got the lion's share of money.

I have little sympathy for the left in regard to Citizens United.

The labor unions have to disclose their contributions. The corporations don't. Lots of ugly things going on here beyond "how dare the left."

Regardless, I would say that the arms race for political funding is the short-sighted view compared to setting the stage for a corporate takeover of politics. That seems likely to be a far more longterm problem.

Just so you know, less regulations favor smaller and numerous companies. That single aspect of Trump's presidency gets very little press but Trump's administration has been requiring the bureaucracies to cut down on regulation. That's a good thing.

And trickle down economics actually work, I'm sure.

I'm aware of the regulatory cut-backs going on. I'm very much pro-regulation, though, so forgive me for not rejoicing.

Anyway, nice chat, though I'm not sure if there's anywhere left to go except in circles at this point. There are a handful of points of actual contention here, but I think really debating them would require a separate thread. And possibly a dissertation.

 

[Chesterton]

For the record, I didn't study poli-sci or economics, so they were under no obligation to teach me conservative politics and economics.

To be accurate, you don't have to be taught. It's like how Muslims say everyone is born a Muslim. IMO, everyone is born a conservative. It's innate. It's why common sense is called common.

Now that I think of it, we actually did cover conservative jurisprudence in law school, but it was basically written off as crazy. And I technically got Thomistic natural law once too (without the "crazy" angle), so I guess I learned more about the conservative perspective than I thought.

Interesting. Not sure I've ever heard the term "conservative jurisprudence". After an admittedly brief bit of internet searching, I couldn't find anyone who seems to know for certain what it means.

You conservatives with your brainwashing tactics, trying to convince me that I never learned anything about conservativism.

My bad. It sounded like you implied that.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm not sure how to measure something like that, but it doesn't reflect my experience. I know only one person who has increased their support of Trump in the last two years, and a couple who have maintained their fervor. There are rumors that some have turned to the right in the wake of Kavanaugh, etc., but that simply isn't Trump-driven. In fact I would be careful about inferring that folks are becoming or staying Republicans because of Trump. There are too many other possible reasons that must be considered before making that jump.

(Sorry, trimmed that down to aid my escape. )

My mother has both a cousin and a friend who have become fanatical. It's horrifying, though I hope it's not the norm.

Aside from that, I only hear about the worst cases, but they're... uh. Judge for yourself.

 

[Silmarien]

To be accurate, you don't have to be taught. It's like how Muslims say everyone is born a Muslim. IMO, everyone is born a conservative. It's innate. It's why common sense is called common.

Where'd you pick up this gem of wisdom?

Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

Interesting. Not sure I've ever heard the term "conservative jurisprudence". After an admittedly brief bit of internet searching, I couldn't find anyone who seems to know for certain what it means.

How hard did you try? A google search brings up almost 4 million results.

Jurisprudence is legal theory. Conservative is... well, conservative. The most famous position in conservative jurisprudence is originalism.

My bad. It sounded like you implied that.

I did. There were a lot of aspects of conservative thought I didn't know all that much about. But it's not like a law school could have gotten away with pretending Scalia didn't exist, as much as it might have liked to.

 

[jgarden]

Should Democrats follow Hillary Clinton and Abandon Civility?

"NARCISSISM 101" concludes that the "ends justify the means," "the best defence is a good offence" and when all else fails, impersonate an innocent victim while labelling your opponent as the vile aggressor - irrespective of the facts!

If the Democrats succumb to temptation and resort to "The Donald's" tactics, not only will they lose because he is far more adept at using them than they are, but they will have also lost the moral "high ground!"

 

[Fantine]

Obama's biggest mistake was in not sharing the FBI's information about Russian collusion during the 2016 campaign because McConnell refused to make the news bipartisan.

He was ethical, and because he was ethical, Democrats lost the election, both houses of Congress (hopefully that will change in three weeks), and the Supreme Court for perhaps 25 years!

There are three kinds of behavior: aggressive, assertive, and passive. Republicans have been aggressive, extremely aggressive, for far too long. They have suppressed voting, gerrymandered districts, obstructed legislation and judicial appointments in Congress, and failed to investigate the finances, emoluments violations, and other questionable actions of the president.

Democrats don't need to be "aggressive," but they must be assertive, very assertive. If you believe in man-made climate change, as I do, our very lives may depend on it.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Revenge of the Clintons? I don't remember the Clintons being directly involved at all, so that's at the very least not entirely accurate. And frankly, we'll never know if any of it was accurate at all, since we'll never know what happened 36 years ago.

OK. Of course the Clintons have a long history of attacking those whom they viewed as a threat. Kavanaugh after all had been part of the legal team investigating the Clintons under Ken Starr. It's not surprising that Kavanaugh entertained the thought of revenge by the Clintons. It needn't have been said but given the long list of baseless allegations being thrown against him by Democrats I find it hard to fault him for making the statement.

What you perceived as "remarkably reserved," I perceived as "unhinged and unsuited for office."

In truth though, wouldn't you have similar thoughts about anyone nominated by Donald Trump?

I honestly don't see what impasse has been broken, unless you're referring to the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers set in place to preserve democracy in this country.

... and the electoral college worked as designed.

Your argument about the failure of checks and balances seems fundamentally flawed. Didn't you argue against the electoral college earlier?

Maybe I'm confusing threads though ...

The labor unions have to disclose their contributions. The corporations don't. Lots of ugly things going on here beyond "how dare the left."

Regardless, I would say that the arms race for political funding is the short-sighted view compared to setting the stage for a corporate takeover of politics. That seems likely to be a far more longterm problem.

Are you aware that the best funded candidate did not win the election. Not in the primaries. Not in the General Election.

In the primary Jeb Bush was far better funded than Donald Trump. In the general election Hillary was far better funded.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates ...​

In light of evidence your concern about funding seems somewhat misplaced. The corporate funded and union funded candidates did not win. Do you suppose that might be a good thing?

I'm aware of the regulatory cut-backs going on. I'm very much pro-regulation, though, so forgive me for not rejoicing.

Thanks for the honesty.

Anyway, nice chat, though I'm not sure if there's anywhere left to go except in circles at this point.

Likewise. Thanks for engaging in genuine discussion. Such discourse seems too often lacking on this forum.

There are a handful of points of actual contention here, but I think really debating them would require a separate thread. And possibly a dissertation.

Perhaps another thread then a different day. Until then, take care.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for."

It sure would make it easy then for Trump to arrest them and send them to re-education facilities. He wouldn't even be doing anything illegal. If he took such a measure against ordinary, law-abiding Democrats, however... (if there still is such a thing)

 

[Silmarien]

In truth though, wouldn't you have similar thoughts about anyone nominated by Donald Trump?

I would prefer it if both parties were nominating moderate rather than partisan judges, but I wasn't too broken up about the Gorsuch nomination.

My major problem with Kavanaugh was the executive privilege, but sexual abuse and domestic violence is one of my major issues, and as unhappy as I am with the Democrats potentially exploiting it, the GOP not taking the time to address it properly is going to leave a black spot on all of this forever. Which is unfortunate if he actually is innocent. (I'm neutral with regards to that, but this isn't something I'm going to forget.)

... and the electoral college worked as designed.

Not as far as I can tell. One of the reasons that the electoral college existed was specifically because the Founding Fathers were afraid of the potential for a populist movement to elect someone unsuited for the office.

Your argument about the failure of checks and balances seems fundamentally flawed. Didn't you argue against the electoral college earlier?

Maybe I'm confusing threads though ...

Threads, yes. People, no. That was me, but in a different thread.

When all three branches of government are controlled by the same party, that is a potential failure of checks and balances. The government was designed specifically to prevent this sort of consolidation of power. (Granted, it would take much more than what has happened so far to really collapse the system. Especially with the liberal media as a factor.)

Are you aware that the best funded candidate did not win the election. Not in the primaries. Not in the General Election.

In the primary Jeb Bush was far better funded than Donald Trump. In the general election Hillary was far better funded.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

He didn't win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates ...
In light of evidence your concern about funding seems somewhat misplaced. The corporate funded and union funded candidates did not win. Do you suppose that might be a good thing?

I don't think the results of one election defuse concerns over a budding corporatocracy in this country. If corporations have an inordinate amount of influence over politics, that will play out over the long run, even if individual results run counter to the trend.

Thanks for the honesty.

No reason not to be. I'm not at all cagey about my politics.

Likewise. Thanks for engaging in genuine discussion. Such discourse seems too often lacking on this forum.
Perhaps another thread then a different day. Until then, take care.

Take care.

 

[Chesterton]

Where'd you pick up this gem of wisdom?

You prompted the thought.

Please tell me you're just trolling me now.

Obviously, God would not form a liberal in the womb. </troll> Seriously, with micro-economics as example - the average grade school child could intuitively grasp basic and important things such as the law of supply and demand, and price equilibrium if you explained it to him. They could also figure them out for themselves if they operated a lemonade stand for a while. They could also grasp that such basic laws are immutable, just as they'll grasp that the law of gravity is immutable by falling out of a tree once or twice. It's only later in life when people re-think common sense and form foolish ideas (however well intentioned) about controlling economics, i.e., controlling human nature by force of law.

How hard did you try? A google search brings up almost 4 million results.

Jurisprudence is legal theory. Conservative is... well, conservative. The most famous position in conservative jurisprudence is originalism.

Can you tell me what it means? Everything I looked at was people debating what it means, or saying it doesn't mean anything, and somebody saying it's merely a term of insult for any given conservative judge.

I did. There were a lot of aspects of conservative thought I didn't know all that much about. But it's not like a law school could have gotten away with pretending Scalia didn't exist, as much as it might have liked to.

Why would your school have liked to pretend he didn't exist?

 

[Silmarien]

Obviously, God would not form a liberal in the womb. </troll> Seriously, with micro-economics as example - the average grade school child could intuitively grasp basic and important things such as the law of supply and demand, and price equilibrium if you explained it to him. They could also figure them out for themselves if they operated a lemonade stand for a while. They could also grasp that such basic laws are immutable, just as they'll grasp that the law of gravity is immutable by falling out of a tree once or twice. It's only later in life when people re-think common sense and form foolish ideas (however well intentioned) about controlling economics, i.e., controlling human nature by force of law.

You think we should be knocking each other over the head with sticks just because violence and tribalism are parts of human nature?

Of course we need to control the worst excesses of human nature. That is the point of government.

Not to go hard theological with this, but don't you believe in ancestral sin? Are we not making excuses to take the easy path (i.e., the one of unchecked self-interest) with this argument? What reason would we have to believe that the seemingly "natural" way be the correct way?

Can you tell me what it means? Everything I looked at was people debating what it means, or saying it doesn't mean anything, and somebody saying it's merely a term of insult for any given conservative judge.

I mean, both "liberal" and "conservative" can be used as insults. Conservative jurisprudence just means the type of legal theory favored by conservative judges. Originalism in particular means interpreting the Constitution in a manner consistent with the original intentions of the drafters, rather than reinterpreting it for different circumstances.

Why would your school have liked to pretend he didn't exist?

Why do you think?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Should Democrats follow Hillary Clinton and Abandon Civility?

"NARCISSISM 101" concludes that the "ends justify the means," "the best defence is a good offence" and when all else fails, impersonate an innocent victim while labelling your opponent as the vile aggressor - irrespective of the facts!

If the Democrats succumb to temptation and resort to "The Donald's" tactics, not only will they lose because he is far more adept at using them than they are, but they will have also lost the moral "high ground!"

I agree with what you've said, but at the same time, there comes a point where civility and diplomacy have failed and there's nothing left but to go to war.

If Hillary is suggesting that that time is now, then I disagree with her. The GOP and the uberright are using and exploiting the system to get what they want, nevertheless, they are still using the system. This gives them the legitimacy (or at least the appearance of such) that would cost the Dems that moral high ground if they abandon it first.

Patience is the key... At some point, the system will stand between Donald and something he wants, and he'll try to cheat his way around it.

Then, and only then, all bets are off.

 

[Chesterton]

You think we should be knocking each other over the head with sticks just because violence and tribalism are parts of human nature?

Of course we need to control the worst excesses of human nature. That is the point of government.

Violence and war are not economics. We don't have to do that, and would be much happier if we never did do that, but we pretty much do have to trade resources, goods and services. I can get along fine without beating up my neighbor, but I'd clueless if I had to milk my own cow. Plus, yuk.

Not to go hard theological with this, but don't you believe in ancestral sin? Are we not making excuses to take the easy path (i.e., the one of unchecked self-interest) with this argument? What reason would we have to believe that the seemingly "natural" way be the correct way?

Yes I believe in sin. That's why I'm conservative and why I think this stuff. I'm going to paraphrase something said by Thomas Sowell: Liberals believe a Rousseauesque notion that man is good, it's just that institutions are wrong. We could have utopia and everyone be happy if we just fix the institutions. Conservatives accept that man is hopelessly fallen, therefore there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs and compromises. And whenever you try to deal with one of man's flaws, the mechanism used to deal with it creates another problem, or even worsens the problem. You just try to get the best trade-off you can get, and that's all you can hope for in a fallen world.

I mean, both "liberal" and "conservative" can be used as insults. Conservative jurisprudence just means the type of legal theory favored by conservative judges. Originalism in particular means interpreting the Constitution in a manner consistent with the original intentions of the drafters, rather than reinterpreting it for different circumstances.

To me it's tragic that there even has to be a word "originalism". What other way to intrepret instructions could there possibly be, other than to do so consistent with intent? Any other way, then why bother reading the instructions at all? Might as well tear up the Constitution (which probably isn't far off). I don't think we've ever had "different circumstances" to which original intent couldn't be applied, even if it required amendment of the document.

Why do you think?

Because liberals dislike people who don't think like they do?

 

[Silmarien]

Violence and war are not economics. We don't have to do that, and would be much happier if we never did do that, but we pretty much do have to trade resources, goods and services. I can get along fine without beating up my neighbor, but I'd clueless if I had to milk my own cow. Plus, yuk.

You realize that economic exploitation is a thing, right?

Yes I believe in sin. That's why I'm conservative and why I think this stuff. I'm going to paraphrase something said by Thomas Sowell: Liberals believe a Rousseauesque notion that man is good, it's just that institutions are wrong. We could have utopia and everyone be happy if we just fix the institutions. Conservatives accept that man is hopelessly fallen, therefore there are no solutions, there are only trade-offs and compromises. And whenever you try to deal with one of man's flaws, the mechanism used to deal with it creates another problem, or even worsens the problem. You just try to get the best trade-off you can get, and that's all you can hope for in a fallen world.

You're generalizing. And you're arguing with the wrong person, since I think Rousseau was basically insane and am more intrigued by Stuart Mill. I don't believe in earthly utopia at all, but pessimism doesn't have to mean fatalism.

To me it's tragic that there even has to be a word "originalism". What other way to intrepret instructions could there possibly be, other than to do so consistent with intent? Any other way, then why bother reading the instructions at all? Might as well tear up the Constitution (which probably isn't far off). I don't think we've ever had "different circumstances" to which original intent couldn't be applied, even if it required amendment of the document.

If you really want an answer to that, wikipedia should suffice: Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia

Because liberals dislike people who don't think like they do?

Eh... you really need to get over your hatred of liberals. Seems unhealthy.