Jump to content

ck

Huntington Tower 330'
  • Content Count

    482
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. ck

    The Trump Presidency

    I wonder what he would say if you asked him how the feelings that he would be called a bigot if he expressed his conservative views had affected his day to day? What I see is a lot of people reading extreme views from the loudest and most obnoxious people, on the internet, and then extrapolating that into their daily lives. It's obviously something a lot of us experience and is very difficult to compartmentalize, but in my opinion is what drives most of this thinking. You have media, blogs, and twitter highlighting fringe elements and people start thinking they're more mainstream than they are. All I've seen under Trump is those fringe elements actually getting more mainstream coverage and thus deteriorating discourse. We shouldn't be emboldening twitter reactions, we should be contextualizing them (i.e. this is 1 lunatic, stop paying attention to them).
  2. ck

    SCOTUS

    Would you consider Kavanaugh to have been a top choice of most conservatives before Trump selected him? If not, that's the point. There's a certain viewpoint Kavanaugh had that doesn't necessarily jive with conservative ideology overall. That appears to be why he was selected by Trump.
  3. ck

    SCOTUS

    If he's still in office and under investigation (which is basically one in the same for him), then he will nominate someone who has opined or expressed in some way that executive powers are broad and shouldn't be challenged. I don't know anything about Amy Coney Barrett, but if she doesn't follow that, I'm willing to bet she won't be his pick. I'm out of my swimlane here, but I don't believe Kavanaugh was someone on the top of anyone but Trump's list, for this very reason.
  4. ck

    Terrorism / Mass Shootings

    Meh, i think that's a little paranoid. Put a structure in place and make it law. Put a tiny tax in place federally and then disperse it evenly to the candidates at each stage. It wouldn't be too difficult to setup and it would take away the over-represented private interests aspect. Seems to be a good way to ensure the rich and powerful don't get to solely dictate the message. I don't think we should do that in everything, but for elections it makes a lot of sense. Let the best ideas rise to the top (hopefully), not the ones with the most money behind them.
  5. Once that area is built out, this will be a jewel.
  6. As a Seattlite, this comment made me miss home ? 1655/mo for my current studio which is not luxury at all. ugh
  7. ^is that the right rendering for that location? I think the rendering you're showing was the one on State St, and the pic you're showing is Oak?
  8. ck

    SCOTUS

    Framing it like this makes me very worried: A POTUS under investigation nominates a man who was barely on the radar of most lists for SCOTUS; who happens to also be a staunch advocate for a fairly radical interpretation of executive power which would, if given the chance, shield the current POTUS from the current investigation. Senators vote to confirm, even though there are very relevant questions about his temperament and truthfulness, largely along party lines. The great divider has struck again. Damn the country.
  9. ck

    SCOTUS

    Seriously. So tired of grouping people into a category and saying that we should vote for a category instead of a person. There is truth in diversity being beneficial, but we often focus on the most rudimentary distinctions. I don't think it's wrong to say that our Congress should reflect the national populous as much as possible. And since women are underrepresented I think it's a worthy goal to elect more women. Now, being a woman isn't my number one variable or even my 10th. But if two candidates both agree on all the issues important to me and one of them is a member of an underrepresented group, I'll go with that person. I feel we focus on rudimentary diversity. Adding more Sarah Palins doesn't help anyone. More Ben Carsons doesn't help. More Chuck Grassleys certainly doesn't help :) And race/sex aren't the full spectrum of diversity we should be looking at either. We get very caught up in race & sex, and for a lot of good reasons, but sometimes it prevents us from seeing what true diversity of thought is. Edit - apologies, probably way off topic here. Well, race and sex are general buckets that it is easy to put people into. I'd say professions is another one. There are a ton of lawyers in Congress. We could use some representation from other professions. But it is not Palin's, Carson's, or Grassley's sex/race/profession/etc. that make them bad, it is their ideas. So again, I'd say that I'd look at people's ideas first, and then ways in which they increase diversity. If a black woman and a white man have the same ideas, I'll vote for the black woman. If a lawyer and a construction worker have the same ideas, I'll vote for the construction worker. A gay, black, female construction worker would be great for Congress. :) I won't fault the thought, but I will say I don't think I've ever come across two candidates who I felt were equal except their race or sex. And if there are, I doubt we looked closely enough.
  10. ck

    SCOTUS

    Seriously. So tired of grouping people into a category and saying that we should vote for a category instead of a person. There is truth in diversity being beneficial, but we often focus on the most rudimentary distinctions. I don't think it's wrong to say that our Congress should reflect the national populous as much as possible. And since women are underrepresented I think it's a worthy goal to elect more women. Now, being a woman isn't my number one variable or even my 10th. But if two candidates both agree on all the issues important to me and one of them is a member of an underrepresented group, I'll go with that person. I feel we focus on rudimentary diversity. Adding more Sarah Palins doesn't help anyone. More Ben Carsons doesn't help. More Chuck Grassleys certainly doesn't help :) And race/sex aren't the full spectrum of diversity we should be looking at either. We get very caught up in race & sex, and for a lot of good reasons, but sometimes it prevents us from seeing what true diversity of thought is. Edit - apologies, probably way off topic here.
  11. ck

    SCOTUS

    Seriously. So tired of grouping people into a category and saying that we should vote for a category instead of a person. There is truth in diversity being beneficial, but we often focus on the most rudimentary distinctions.
  12. I'll readily admit my opinion can be non-standard - but I like it. I like the revised tower concept as well, as I think Columbus needs some new building 30+ stories. But this looks awesome to me:
  13. ck

    SCOTUS

    Nothing galvanizes the Republican base like...attempted rape? or false allegations :) Which is determined based on the party you associate with. Totally fair.
  14. ck

    SCOTUS

    Brutus, I won't call you a troll because I think that's a discussion end-er and fairly insulting to someone legitimately expressing their views. However, you must see the difference between having your rights taken away from you and being locked up in jail, and being granted power to influence the direction of the country for life. Right? Even in criminal vs civil law, there are different degrees of evidence required to convict. You are applying what we use as our best mechanism to ensure we don't take away all of someone's rights as a test to grant someone immense power. It's not the same, not even close. Granting someone power like this doesn't require the same burden of proof. It requires convincing everyone that you're the right person for the job. You typically do that through your life's actions. You also get a chance in front of Congress to make your case, if you get that far. When he did get that far, what was the case he made in front of Congress? That he is appalled he is being vetted thoroughly, that he will yell at Democrats for doing so, he will play childish games with people questioning him, and that he will be an emotional wreck on the biggest stage of his life. Pass. Nobody is destroying his life by not giving him immense power. He was nominated by someone who is under investigation, likely because of his views on executive power (he wasn't the first choice of anyone before this). Congress has an absolute duty to ensure he is right for this position because it stinks really bad how he even got nominated. If he lived a life that was open to controversy, he is smart enough to know he shouldn't have accepted. You blaming people who are trying to ensure we protect the sanctity of the highest court we have as ruining his life is absurd. And frankly, the women have more credibility than he does based on what is being gained by telling the truth v lying, their demeanor, and how Brett obviously lied about his drinking habits and yearbook notations. The accusers, that we know of, haven't lied about anything. Brett has pretty obviously done so, to Congress. I know I wrote a lot here, which leaves plenty of room for you to pick one particular part and debate it. But the main point of this post is that the burden of proof we use in criminal cases has absolutely no bearing in a nomination for SCOTUS. That is really not debatable. This says it pretty well: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-law-professors-letter.html
×