Going nuclear

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Message
Author
User avatar
tlynn78
Posts: 8653
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Location: Montana

Going nuclear

#1 Post by tlynn78 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:07 pm

on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. -Ayn Rand
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26428
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Going nuclear

#2 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:17 pm

tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.
The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: Going nuclear

#3 Post by BackInTex » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:53 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.
The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.
No, just that somebody that didn't win a single state in the electi...oh wait.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23177
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Going nuclear

#4 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:57 pm

I am glad to see the filibuster gone, and I hope they get rid of it for legislation as well. I don't know where this notion began that we "needed" 60 votes or 66 votes for a Supreme Court justice, and I question how "long-standing" this tradition is. Clarence Thomas got voted in by a 52-48 vote.

The Republicans were wrong not to let Garland come up for a vote, but the Democrats failed to make enough of an issue of it to win three more Senate seats in a year in which the landscape favored them. They could have won Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana. They didn't, and in some of those states they trotted out bad candidates with worse campaigns. Win those seats and we wouldn't be having this debate no matter who Trump nominated. Now, we're probably stuck with a Republican Senate for four years thanks to the election geography in 2018.

What the Democrats should be doing is what they're doing right now in my back yard, picking strong candidates and running strong campaigns. If Jon Ossoff wins my Congressional district, that's going to put a damper on the Republican enthusiasm.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
gsabc
Posts: 6486
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:03 am
Location: Federal Bureaucracy City
Contact:

Re: Going nuclear

#5 Post by gsabc » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:09 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.
The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.
Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.
I just ordered chicken and an egg from Amazon. I'll let you know.

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: Going nuclear

#6 Post by earendel » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:25 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:I am glad to see the filibuster gone, and I hope they get rid of it for legislation as well. I don't know where this notion began that we "needed" 60 votes or 66 votes for a Supreme Court justice, and I question how "long-standing" this tradition is. Clarence Thomas got voted in by a 52-48 vote.
The filibuster dates back to the 1850s, though, according to Wikipedia, the possibility of filibusters came about as a result of the Senate eliminating the move to previous question.
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Going nuclear

#7 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:30 pm

gsabc wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.
The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.
Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.
I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) but I would nonetheless support Donny's impeachment assuming that the investigations show that there really is fire behind all that smoke. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 26428
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Going nuclear

#8 Post by Bob Juch » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:01 pm

gsabc wrote:
Bob Juch wrote:
tlynn78 wrote:on Gorsuch. It's a shame it came to this.
The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.
Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.
I'd rather have Pence that a loose cannon on the ship of state, but Pence will probably go down with Trump. President Ryan?
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Going nuclear

#9 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:16 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
gsabc wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.
Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.
I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) but I would nonetheless support Donny's impeachment assuming that the investigations show that there really is fire behind all that smoke. --Bob
Well, there's a concession. You now say you would need some actual evidence to support impeachment. There's a small ray of hope for you.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Going nuclear

#10 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:16 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
gsabc wrote:
Bob Juch wrote: The Democrats think Trump shouldn't be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice in the last year of his presidency.
Funny once, Bob. No longer so funny. Both sides are to blame - the Democrats for making the rule switch for all Senate-approved appointees except Supreme Court justices in 2013 (2012?), the Republicans of that time for a refusal to compromise on virtually any important matter and total opposition of anything and anyone proposed by President Obama.

People keep saying that O'Connell gambled that the GOP presidential nominee would win by blocking Garland and it paid off. Not so much. He vowed well before the election to do the same for any nominee of President Hillary Clinton. It's completely hypocritical of O'Connell to make the high-horse claim that the Democrats had no reason to oppose Gorsuch other than for political reasons. Makes me want to reach into the television and slap him.

Throw all of them out on the street and start over again, while allowing a NOTA choice on the ballots. As the saying goes, the water don't start tasting good until you get the hogs out of the river.

And Bob, remember who takes over if the implication of your statement is true. Be careful what you wish for.
I'd rather have Pence that a loose cannon on the ship of state, but Pence will probably go down with Trump. President Ryan?
There's never been any hope for you.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Going nuclear

#11 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:18 pm

The democrats reap what they sow.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Going nuclear

#12 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:23 pm

The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Going nuclear

#13 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:31 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.
You do realize why the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, right? Because railroad robber barons were having much too easy a time buying State Legislatures, and through them, Senate seats. Those are the days you want to return to? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 7742
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Going nuclear

#14 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:03 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.
You do realize why the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, right? Because railroad robber barons were having much too easy a time buying State Legislatures, and through them, Senate seats. Those are the days you want to return to? --Bob
Yup, I do. Not too many railroad robber barons left. Today it will be a lot harder to do that. Senators are beholden to no one right now.
When the 17th Amendment was ratified, it changed the way senators were selected from appointment to popular election. Therefore, senators are now more influenced by lobbyists and payoffs than they are by the constituents they are supposed to serve — hence, the passage of Obamacare and other noxious bills.

During the Constitutional ratifying convention, John Jay, co-author of “The Federalist Papers,” said: “The Senate is to be composed of men appointed by the state legislatures … I presume they will also instruct them, that there will be a constant correspondence between the senators and the state executives.”

In Federalist No. 62, James Madison wrote: “The appointment of senators by the state legislatures … is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former … In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.”
http://personalliberty.com/u-s-senators ... t-elected/
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling, Anti-Trans Bigot.. A Lunatic AND a Bigot.. Very Ignorant of the World in General... Sounds deranged... Fake Christian... Weird... has the mind of a child... has paranoid delusions... Simpleton

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Going nuclear

#15 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:14 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.
You do realize why the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, right? Because railroad robber barons were having much too easy a time buying State Legislatures, and through them, Senate seats. Those are the days you want to return to? --Bob
Yup, I do. Not too many railroad robber barons left. Today it will be a lot harder to do that. Senators are beholden to no one right now.
When the 17th Amendment was ratified, it changed the way senators were selected from appointment to popular election. Therefore, senators are now more influenced by lobbyists and payoffs than they are by the constituents they are supposed to serve — hence, the passage of Obamacare and other noxious bills.

During the Constitutional ratifying convention, John Jay, co-author of “The Federalist Papers,” said: “The Senate is to be composed of men appointed by the state legislatures … I presume they will also instruct them, that there will be a constant correspondence between the senators and the state executives.”

In Federalist No. 62, James Madison wrote: “The appointment of senators by the state legislatures … is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the state governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government, as must secure the authority of the former … In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.”
http://personalliberty.com/u-s-senators ... t-elected/
You don't think one of the Koch brothers could by a Senate seat with "campaign contributions" to enough legislators? If that's what you think, you're delusional. Buying a legislature in this day and age is a lot cheaper than trying to buy an election for a Senate seat. Just ask Mike Huffington.

The Framers didn't have the advantage of more than a century of evidence concerning how their system actually worked in practice. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23177
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Going nuclear

#16 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:19 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.
You do realize why the Seventeenth Amendment was passed, right? Because railroad robber barons were having much too easy a time buying State Legislatures, and through them, Senate seats. Those are the days you want to return to? --Bob
Here's an article from the Senate's official web site about the difficulty in legislatures selecting Senators (and that's not even counting the gerrymandering that has gone on at the state level):

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hi ... nators.htm

It's not just potential bribery.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: Going nuclear

#17 Post by earendel » Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:21 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:The Senate is a totally dysfunctional body. We should go back to the original structure of the Senate. Senators should be elected by the State Legislatures and represent the State. (And they should have term limits).

Support the Article V Convention of the States.
Should we also return to those halcyon days when only property owners could vote?
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

Spock
Posts: 4295
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm

Re: Going nuclear

#18 Post by Spock » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:43 am

SSS>>>but the Democrats failed to make enough of an issue of it to win three more Senate seats in a year in which the landscape favored them. They could have won Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, and Indiana.<<<<

Don't forget Pennsylvania.

Spock
Posts: 4295
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm

Re: Going nuclear

#19 Post by Spock » Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:48 am

Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23177
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Going nuclear

#20 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:08 pm

Spock wrote:
We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.
Trump with any woman he finds attractive.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Going nuclear

#21 Post by Bob78164 » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:11 pm

Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.
It's highly problematic because, particularly in Washington, business gets done all the time via private, after-hours meetings. Vice President Pence's policies essentially exclude women from these meetings to their severe disadvantage.

Now it's true that if I had a daughter, I'd be very concerned if she were alone in a room with Donny, but that should still be her choice to make in light of our knowledge that Donny is a sexual predator. Vice President Pence is just a politician. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: Going nuclear

#22 Post by Appa23 » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:19 pm

Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.
I took Bob #'s post as just being someone who has never held a position of authority, power, or leadership, and hence does not understand the possibility for accusations to be made in a "he said, she said" manner. Now, I do not have a hard and fast rule, but I certainly am cognizant of the possibility for issues when I hold a close door meeting with one of my young, female attorneys (door closed because of the privileged nature of the conversation), or travel with one on a case. With that in mind, I do try to limit the number of times that I am in that situation.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Going nuclear

#23 Post by Bob78164 » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:25 pm

Appa23 wrote:
Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.
I took Bob #'s post as just being someone who has never held a position of authority, power, or leadership, and hence does not understand the possibility for accusations to be made in a "he said, she said" manner. Now, I do not have a hard and fast rule, but I certainly am cognizant of the possibility for issues when I hold a close door meeting with one of my young, female attorneys (door closed because of the privileged nature of the conversation), or travel with one on a case. With that in mind, I do try to limit the number of times that I am in that situation.
I'm a partner at my law firm and head of our patent litigation practice group.

And there's no reason such accusations couldn't be made by young male attorneys just as well as by young female attorneys. Either you trust the people you work with or you don't. But there's no way I could justify excluding or limiting some attorneys from those opportunities on the basis of their gender. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Appa23
Posts: 3747
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:04 pm

Re: Going nuclear

#24 Post by Appa23 » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:32 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Appa23 wrote:
Spock wrote:Bob #'s>>>I consider many of Vice President Pence's policies and views loathsome (is it still true that he won't take a private meeting with a woman?) <<<

I have not seen that he wouldn't take a private meeting with a woman, I have only seen that he would not have a private dinner with a woman and that he would not be around alcohol without his wife. I stand to be corrected if I have not seen the full story.

However, be that as it may, it does not seem like a bad idea to set some boundaries considering the following:

1) With power being an aphrodisiac and countless women gunning for powerful politicians and:

2) Conversely, countless women being pressured into sexual activity by powerful politicians.

We have all seen the train wrecks that can arise when no boundaries are set:

Clinton/Lewinski
Petraeus/Broadwell
Wiener and his phone.

It is certainly possible that Wiener's lack of boundaries may have cost Hilary the election. See Comey.
I took Bob #'s post as just being someone who has never held a position of authority, power, or leadership, and hence does not understand the possibility for accusations to be made in a "he said, she said" manner. Now, I do not have a hard and fast rule, but I certainly am cognizant of the possibility for issues when I hold a close door meeting with one of my young, female attorneys (door closed because of the privileged nature of the conversation), or travel with one on a case. With that in mind, I do try to limit the number of times that I am in that situation.
I'm a partner at my law firm and head of our patent litigation practice group.

And there's no reason such accusations couldn't be made by young male attorneys just as well as by young female attorneys. Either you trust the people you work with or you don't. But there's no way I could justify excluding or limiting some attorneys from those opportunities on the basis of their gender. --Bob
Well, I have no young male attorneys right now, so . . . . :)

Also, I don't think that I said anything about limiting anyone from any opportunities.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: Going nuclear

#25 Post by Bob78164 » Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:00 pm

Appa23 wrote:Well, I have no young male attorneys right now, so . . . . :)

Also, I don't think that I said anything about limiting anyone from any opportunities.
At least in my practice, precluding young attorneys from private meetings with me would absolutely limit their opportunities. Among other things, that's when and how I give feedback about the quality of their work and changes I'd like to see on a forward-going basis, as well as the things they've done well. In short, that's how they learn and when my comments constitute criticism, I see no reason to give them in public. (When young attorneys do something very, very right that is beyond what I expect from someone of their experience, I tend to make my comments very publicly.) Strategy meetings often have to happen behind closed doors for the reasons you've noted. And of course, although client development is not my forte (and not a part of your job description at all), those meetings tend to be one-on-one and occur after hours. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

Post Reply