Investigations and the Rule of Law

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Josh »

Bootstrap wrote:I recently heard a legal commentator refer to the courts as "the branch of government still run by reasonable adults". I couldn't help laughing. But it's sadly true right now.
Huh? The courts forced all 50 states to accept gay marriage despite a democratic mandate in most of them that they didn’t want it. A few decades ago, the courts forced legal abortion on all 50 states as well.

That’s not “adult behaviour”. If anything, courts are subverting democracy.
0 x
User avatar
Dan Z
Posts: 2651
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:20 am
Location: Central Minnesota
Affiliation: Conservative Menno

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Dan Z »

Josh wrote:Perhaps the “partisan alignment” of some of this, including Muller, is with whatever the political faction is that likes to call itself “moderates”.
I think the judicial branch, at its best, rightly tries to work out of moderation. For the sake of fairness and justice, most Americans want Mueller and his team to examine the facts of the matter of alleged Russian interference, US collusion, and obstruction of justice in an evenhanded and unbiased manor - partisanship has it's place, but not as a driver of justice.
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Dan Z wrote:
Josh wrote:Perhaps the “partisan alignment” of some of this, including Muller, is with whatever the political faction is that likes to call itself “moderates”.
I think the judicial branch, at its best, rightly tries to work out of moderation. For the sake of fairness and justice, most Americans want Mueller and his team to examine the facts of the matter of alleged Russian interference, US collusion, and obstruction of justice in an evenhanded and unbiased manor - partisanship has it's place, but not as a driver of justice.
"At its best". Are you implying anything by this?
0 x
GaryK
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:And haven't you just done to Wayne what you decry about politics? You have in other words questioned Wayne's non-partisan statement about himself which in essence has pitted Wayne's views against your own.
I don't think so. I suggested that you can't call yourself non-partisan and make calls to partisan political loyalty at the same time. I also invited him to let me know anytime he thinks I'm doing that.

That's not what I decry about politics. That's the kind of thing I think Christians need to be doing if we are going to discuss politics. I actually think healthy disagreement is a good thing, and I think we should talk with each other about how we should best relate to this partisan world around us.
And you call the following response the kind of thing Christians need to be doing if we are going to discuss politics?
Bootstrap wrote: When you say you are "non-partisan", what do you mean by that? I have heard you dismiss many people because they belong to the wrong faction, using names like Republican In Name Only to dismiss people who were not purely partisan enough to be trusted. You frequently ignore the substance of what people say by saying they belong to the wrong faction. I have thought about responding to that kind of thing with, "another call to partisan loyalty?" Maybe that would be helpful. You could feel free to do the same to me if you see me doing that kind of thing.

Given the title of this thread, let me point out that the cases you mentioned so far were investigated, and what the investigations found was considerably less frightening than what you read in the torches and pitchforks wing of partisan media. And part of the rule of law is letting it go unless new evidence is uncovered that would invalidate the investigation. Part of living in peace is agreeing not to keep pouring gas on the flames of passion by re-arguing every past offense as though we knew more than the people who did the investigations. As Christians, we must not live in partisan grievance.
Aren't you basically calling Wayne an extreme right-winger? How is that not pouring gas on the flames?
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:And you call the following response the kind of thing Christians need to be doing if we are going to discuss politics?
Bootstrap wrote: When you say you are "non-partisan", what do you mean by that? I have heard you dismiss many people because they belong to the wrong faction, using names like Republican In Name Only to dismiss people who were not purely partisan enough to be trusted. You frequently ignore the substance of what people say by saying they belong to the wrong faction. I have thought about responding to that kind of thing with, "another call to partisan loyalty?" Maybe that would be helpful. You could feel free to do the same to me if you see me doing that kind of thing.

Given the title of this thread, let me point out that the cases you mentioned so far were investigated, and what the investigations found was considerably less frightening than what you read in the torches and pitchforks wing of partisan media. And part of the rule of law is letting it go unless new evidence is uncovered that would invalidate the investigation. Part of living in peace is agreeing not to keep pouring gas on the flames of passion by re-arguing every past offense as though we knew more than the people who did the investigations. As Christians, we must not live in partisan grievance.
Actually, I think these are precisely the kinds of things we should discuss if we are going to discuss politics. Could you please let Wayne respond to my questions?
GaryK wrote:Aren't you basically calling Wayne an extreme right-winger? How is that not pouring gas on the flames?
I was very specific in what I said. I think he does make calls to partisan loyalty, I tried to be specific and concrete. He's hardly the only one who does that here. I don't think Dan or I do that, but I would be happy to see people call me out if I do. I can't imagine criticizing someone for not being a pure enough Democrat or Republican or not left-wing or right-wing enough. That's just not me. But if I do anything like that, please do let me know.

On MN, if we're going to call people out for partisanship, we're going to have to look at right-wing partisanship, because there just isn't much left-wing around here. I suspect most left-wing partisans wouldn't last here, they would be extremely uncomfortable.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:And you call the following response the kind of thing Christians need to be doing if we are going to discuss politics?
Bootstrap wrote: When you say you are "non-partisan", what do you mean by that? I have heard you dismiss many people because they belong to the wrong faction, using names like Republican In Name Only to dismiss people who were not purely partisan enough to be trusted. You frequently ignore the substance of what people say by saying they belong to the wrong faction. I have thought about responding to that kind of thing with, "another call to partisan loyalty?" Maybe that would be helpful. You could feel free to do the same to me if you see me doing that kind of thing.

Given the title of this thread, let me point out that the cases you mentioned so far were investigated, and what the investigations found was considerably less frightening than what you read in the torches and pitchforks wing of partisan media. And part of the rule of law is letting it go unless new evidence is uncovered that would invalidate the investigation. Part of living in peace is agreeing not to keep pouring gas on the flames of passion by re-arguing every past offense as though we knew more than the people who did the investigations. As Christians, we must not live in partisan grievance.
Actually, I think these are precisely the kinds of things we should discuss if we are going to discuss politics. Could you please let Wayne respond to my questions?
GaryK wrote:Aren't you basically calling Wayne an extreme right-winger? How is that not pouring gas on the flames?
I was very specific in what I said. I think he does make calls to partisan loyalty, I tried to be specific and concrete. He's hardly the only one who does that here. I don't think Dan or I do that, but I would be happy to see people call me out if I do. I can't imagine criticizing someone for not being a pure enough Democrat or Republican or not left-wing or right-wing enough. That's just not me. But if I do anything like that, please do let me know.

On MN, if we're going to call people out for partisanship, we're going to have to look at right-wing partisanship, because there just isn't much left-wing around here. I suspect most left-wing partisans wouldn't last here, they would be extremely uncomfortable.
But you will criticize someone (who I think does not get involved in the political process) for not being non-partisan enough.

Who sets the standard for what right-wing partisanship is on MN? Bootstrap, right?
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:But you will criticize someone (who I think does not get involved in the political process) for not being non-partisan enough.

Who sets the standard for what right-wing partisanship is on MN? Bootstrap, right?
I don't think I have ever criticized anyone for failing to be loyal to a political faction or politician. I don't think that I derail discussion of a topic with calls for partisan loyalty. I don't think that I am doing the things that I am calling partisanship. And to me, saying you don't vote is pretty meaningless if you do those other things.

I don't think those are things that I do. If you see me do any of these things, please do point it out. Especially if you point it out on all sides, regardless of which factions or politicians people are loyal to. I'll try to do the same. But I don't think partisanship on any side needs to be protected.

And in this thread, I think the issue is really investigations and the rule of law. No president is above the law. No matter what their politics are.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:But you will criticize someone (who I think does not get involved in the political process) for not being non-partisan enough.

Who sets the standard for what right-wing partisanship is on MN? Bootstrap, right?
I don't think I have ever criticized anyone for failing to be loyal to a political faction or politician. I don't think that I derail discussion of a topic with calls for partisan loyalty. I don't think that I am doing the things that I am calling partisanship. And to me, saying you don't vote is pretty meaningless if you do those other things.

I don't think those are things that I do. If you see me do any of these things, please do point it out. Especially if you point it out on all sides, regardless of which factions or politicians people are loyal to. I'll try to do the same.
Is criticizing someone for not being non-partisan enough any different than criticizing someone for failing to be loyal to a political faction or politician? I sincerely doubt Wayne feels he does what you have accused him of. If you don't want others doubting your being non-partisan why do it to others when they say they consider themselves non-partisan?
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14445
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:Is criticizing someone for not being non-partisan enough any different than criticizing someone for failing to be loyal to a political faction or politician? I sincerely doubt Wayne feels he does what you have accused him of.
Wayne can speak for himself. I was responding to a post in which Wayne says he considers himself non-partisan. I asked him about that, pointing to things that don't look non-partisan to me. That question wasn't aimed at you.
GaryK wrote:If you don't want others doubting your being non-partisan why do it to others when they say they consider themselves non-partisan?
I would much rather define what we mean by non-partisan. I've tried to do this. Do you have issues with my definition of non-partisan? How would you define the term? I actually do see non-partisan as a goal, not being loyal to political parties, factions, or politicians. Do you agree or disagree?

I would love to be able to discuss topics without calls for partisan loyalty and without implying that anyone who doesn't buy into a particular party line is just blinded by partisanship. In other words, I would like discussion to focus on the actual topic we are discussing.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2281
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:Is criticizing someone for not being non-partisan enough any different than criticizing someone for failing to be loyal to a political faction or politician? I sincerely doubt Wayne feels he does what you have accused him of.
Wayne can speak for himself. I was responding to a post in which Wayne says he considers himself non-partisan. I asked him about that, pointing to things that don't look non-partisan to me. That question wasn't aimed at you.
GaryK wrote:If you don't want others doubting your being non-partisan why do it to others when they say they consider themselves non-partisan?
I would much rather define what we mean by non-partisan. I've tried to do this. Do you have issues with my definition of non-partisan? How would you define the term? I actually do see non-partisan as a goal, not being loyal to political parties, factions, or politicians. Do you agree or disagree?

I would love to be able to discuss topics without calls for partisan loyalty and without implying that anyone who doesn't buy into a particular party line is just blinded by partisanship. In other words, I would like discussion to focus on the actual topic we are discussing.
I realize Wayne can speak for himself. I'm focused on the criticism of Wayne for saying he is non-partisan. I'll leave it like this - it does not seem consistent to me for you to say that Wayne is wrong for criticizing those who are not loyal partisans only for you to criticize him for saying he is non-partisan. IMO what you engaged in mirrors quite closely what happens all the time in politics.
0 x
Post Reply