Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

2 Scoops

drkpower wrote: »

What evidence of him lying do you have?

Devils triangle is some of secret society where they'd go around drugging and raping Women and FFFFFFF is a secret occult code. In reality the triangle thing is a drinking game and the FFFFFF was them making fun of their friends lisp.

Kavanaugh downplayed his drinking during his college years, that's the big bombshell they're clinging to.

BabyCheeses

2 Scoops wrote: »

I said Juanita Broadrick had witnesses and credible corroboration that Bill Clinton raped her. Some of the same Democrat senators cascading Kavanaugh without credible evidence ignored her back in 1999. That's where the double standard comes in.

"Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rogers. Rogers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed "in a state of shock," her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit. Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had "forced himself on her."[12] Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.[3]

Broaddrick says she did not tell her husband, Gary Hickey, about the incident, and told him she accidentally injured her lip. He told NBC he did not remember the injury or her explanation.[3][13] David Broaddrick, however, has said he noticed her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her when he asked about it. Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers' sister."

Woman says she was raped and you find it credible when it's someone you hate.



You believe when someone accuses a Clinton of anything, you don't disagree with Trump when he makes accusations without evidence, you don't question any of Kavanagh's conspiracy theories. There's a bit of a pattern here.

2 Scoops

BabyCheeses wrote: »

Woman says she was raped and you find it credible when it's someone you hate.

No, I find it credible because there's a date, a location, there's multiple people who she told at the time that can back up her story, including her room mate who found her injured. If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

Christy42

drkpower wrote: »

I never said it is a fact that a thorough investigation was performed.

What evidence of him lying do you have?

A apologies. You mentioned they asked for it and then asked what a thorough investigation would be. You did not state there was a thorough investigation into the Kavanagh that we could use in this instance. Since we do not have evidence of a thorough investigation should we get evidence or have a thorough investigation then?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html

Lied about a drinking game.

Lied about people refuting Ford's story.

He lied about not being a heavy drinker which is disputed by multiple people who were drinking with him at the time.

He lied about which schools were part of the same social scene as himself.

He lied about working on the Pryor nomination.

A lot of this he could have been honest about but he wasn't. I have no idea if he participated in a Devil's Triangle and nor do I really care. The fact is he felt the need to lie about this.


This is to say nothing of his crazy rant but I guess he may as well play for the same base as Alex Jones.

drkpower

Christy42 wrote: »

A apologies. You mentioned they asked for it and then asked what a thorough investigation would be. You did not state there was a thorough investigation into the Kavanagh that we could use in this instance. Since we do not have evidence of a thorough investigation should we get evidence or have a thorough investigation then?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html

Lied about a drinking game.

Lied about people refuting Ford's story.

He lied about not being a heavy drinker which is disputed by multiple people who were drinking with him at the time.

He lied about which schools were part of the same social scene as himself.

He lied about working on the Pryor nomination.

As I said before in some detail, this is not a criminal process where a detailed investigation occurs. It is a political process and the investigation has to be seen in that context. What I would like is that IF the FBI investigation showed any corroboration of the allegations made, that the investigation continues. Apparently it didn't.

As for your examples of lying, none of that is evidence.unless you consider the allegations made recently about dr ford by some former classmate is evidence. Do you?

Christy42

drkpower wrote: »

As I said before in some detail, this is not a criminal process where a detailed investigation occurs. It is a political process and the investigation has to be seen in that context. What I would like is that IF the FBI investigation showed any corroboration of the allegations made, that the investigation continues. Apparently it didn't.

As for your examples of lying, none of that is evidence.unless you consider the allegations made recently about dr ford by some former classmate is evidence is

Not sure how him lying about his past jobs or lying about what others have said on record has anything to do with he said/she said but anyway. Those others are a bit more he said/ loads of others said nope btw.


This is for a lifetime job. I see no issue with a thorough investigation.

drkpower

Christy42 wrote: »

Not sure how him lying about his past jobs or lying about what others have said on record has anything to do with he said/she said but anyway. Those others are a bit more he said/ loads of others said nope btw.


This is for a lifetime job. I see no issue with a thorough investigation.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. The point is that in this politically charged atmosphere, there is a excess of he said/she said. None of it is evidence. You just want to believe some of it, but not others. That is simply arbitrary.

Whether the job is for a lifetime or not is irrelevant. A SC justice can be impeached and a proven sexual assault is certainly grounds. The question is what kind of investigation is required NOW. The senate has investigated. The FBI has done a limited investigation of these allegations, on top of various detailed general background checks over the past few decades. No corroborative evidence whatsoever has been found.

Christy42

drkpower wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Not sure how him lying about his past jobs or lying about what others have said on record has anything to do with he said/she said but anyway. Those others are a bit more he said/ loads of others said nope btw.


This is for a lifetime job. I see no issue with a thorough investigation.

I'm not quite sure what your point is. The point is that in this politically charged atmosphere, there is a excess of he said/she said. None of it is evidence. You just want to believe some of it, but not others. That is simply arbitrary.

Whether the job is for a lifetime or not is irrelevant. A SC justice can be impeached and a proven sexual assault is certainly grounds. The question is what kind of investigation is required NOW. The senate has investigated. The FBI has done a limited investigation of these allegations, on top of various detailed general background checks over the past few decades. No corroborative evidence whatsoever has been found.

I literally gave examples that were not he said/she said and yet you ignore them. He misquoted people saying they had refuted and allegation when they did not.

He misrepresented his job. There are emails proving this.

StringerBell

drkpower wrote: »

How does drinking on weekdays, drinking (heavily) in college, puking from drink (boofing), engaging in a threesome (devils triangle), or even being a bit of a dick in college (which appears to be the case) pertain to any of the allegations against him in respect of sexual assault and rape?

We're any of those matters pertinent to those alllegations, many people would be in the dock right now.

The outright, repeated lies lay bare a character not fit for the office.

This is supposed to matter, it isn't a court of law.

His performance, his rhetoric, his temperment is enough to say you know what, we could do better for a pick.

FatherTed

I was on the fence about Kavanaugh because of he said/she said. But really his performance last week alone leads me to think he is not suited for the SC or indeed any court. Totally unhinged, delussional, no composure for a judge, blasting the Dems and even saying it was due to the Clintons. If someone in his courtroom said that stuff he'd kick them out.
So lets say he does get voted in and there is a Bush V Gore situation in a few years, he certainly showed his true colours last week and would not be impartial?

TomOnBoard

Montana Republican Senator Daines has said he will not be able to vote on Saturday as his daughter is getting married. Clearly, that may impact on a decision on whether Mc Connell will persist with a vote on Saturday at all, depending on where Flake, Collins, Murkowski and Manchin will stand. Of course, Trump will gladly make his plane available to get him back for a vote if necessary..

Its the controversy that keeps on giving...

Mind you, I would have thought that McConnell would have known that Daines would not be available on Saturday, when he moved for Cloture last evening. Every extra day makes a confirmation a bit more difficult IMO.

SScope

He sat and wrote that opening statement. He had time to go over it and revise it. It wasn't off the cuff, in the heat of the moment stuff.

As a judge he is supposed to be impartial and clinical. There was none of that on show. If you want to see how a person really is, what they are about, it's when the pressure is on. Not when they are being giving "that's a boy".

He is unfit for the role but then so is Trump.

FatherTed

SScope wrote: »

He sat and wrote that opening statement. He had time to go over it and revise it. It wasn't off the cuff, in the heat of the moment stuff.

As a judge he is supposed to be impartial and clinical. There was none of that on show. If you want to see how a person really is, what they are about, it's when the pressure is on. Not when they are being giving "that's a boy".

He is unfit for the role but then so is Trump.

Not just what he said but how he said it. He was in a total rage/melt down drinking gallons of water/sweating. A judge needs composure and to be cool as fck.

SScope

FatherTed wrote:

Not just what he said but how he said it. He was in a total rage/melt down drinking gallons of water/sweating. A judge needs composure and to be cool as fck.

Yeah, all off the above should disqualify him. Then add in the lying, his sarcastic and aggressive responses to Senators

Hazys

Mod: No more Twitter dumps please.

RIGOLO

Thargor wrote: »

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/409760-attorneys-for-kavanaugh-accuser-fbi-will-receive-therapy-notes-if-it-agrees

They'll hand them over when she's being interviewed, do you think they're bluffing and they dont exist? Funny that the Washington Post reviewed them and confirmed they're real then isnt it...:rolleyes:

Actually during the hearing she said , she couldnt recall if she showed them her 'physical notes' or just recounted them to her. That was pretty well publicised.

They may be real.

But saying the Washington Post reviewed them... well contradicts her own statement.

The demonstrations in the coming days are going to be a disaster for the Democrats. 4 weeks out from the mid-terms and the left liberal anti-Trumpers are not going to help win any votes as they create mayhem in Washington.
300 People already arrested. The middle of the road voter is being turned away from Democrat candidates.
Great to see everyone exercising their First Amendment rights.

Igotadose

SScope wrote: »

He is unfit for the role but then so is Trump.

However, Trump's job isn't lifetime. Kavanaugh's would be. Big difference. Trump is elected and can be removed and there's some precedent there. Not so much (once in 1805) for the SC. Kavanaugh being impeached has zero chance imo once he gets in, and he can wreak all kinds of havoc until then anyway, kind of like Trump is.

dr.fuzzenstein

Hazys wrote: »

If a video could sum up this presidency

Deleted.

What's telling about this, is that nobody told him.
When he falls, there will be a line 17 miles long of people willing to stab him in the back who were to cowardly to do it now.
That's the price you pay when you achieve everything by bullying, cajoling, alienating and pissing off people.

Captain Obvious

RobertKK wrote: »

I remember people here who were confident last week that the FBI would turn up stuff, now they are dismissing the FBI since it didn't come back with what they expected and some are prepared to believe every word a Democrat says.
Yet nothing to stop Brett Kavanaugh becoming a Supreme Court judge.

People are dismissing the FBI probe because it didn't probe much of anything.

Hazys wrote: »

If a video could sum up this presidency

Deleted.

Does he have a toilet in the car?

everlast75

So Kavanaugh writes a piece to try and explain away his awful performance before the Senate.

You'll note
A) he feels because it was so awfully received, he'd best try and polish a turd
he doesn't apologise
C) he effectively says "you made me do it"

and C) do not show emotional maturity, nevermind judicial temperament.

and C) sounds like someone with or who had a drinking problem

Igotadose

NY AG seeking to dissolve criminal Trump Foundation: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410026-new-york-ag-trump-foundation-engaged-in-persistent-illegality

While they're at it, confiscate the resources of same, too. Enough with this crime family.

MrMusician18

FatherTed wrote: »

I was on the fence about Kavanaugh because of he said/she said. But really his performance last week alone leads me to think he is not suited for the SC or indeed any court. Totally unhinged, delussional, no composure for a judge, blasting the Dems and even saying it was due to the Clintons. If someone in his courtroom said that stuff he'd kick them out.
So lets say he does get voted in and there is a Bush V Gore situation in a few years, he certainly showed his true colours last week and would not be impartial?

If he is totally unsuited to be a judge, that doesn't explain how he's risen to be sitting on the bench of the second highest court.

Isn't the real problem here is that he will swing the court to being a conservative one?

Captain Obvious

everlast75 wrote: »

So Kavanaugh writes a piece to try and explain away his awful performance before the Senate.

You'll note
A) he feels because it was so awfully received, he'd best try and polish a turd
he doesn't apologise
C) he effectively says "you made me do it"

and C) do not show emotional maturity, nevermind judicial temperament.

and C) sounds like someone with or who had a drinking problem

Saunders used the same excuse. It wouldn't have happened if the Dems had done things correctly.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If he is totally unsuited to be a judge, that doesn't explain how he's risen to be sitting on the bench of the second highest court.

It completely explains it. It's pretty clear that judges are being chosen by political leaning rather than competence or suitability. If someone like Kavanaugh can get the top job you can only imagine what kind of people have gotten the lower jobs through politics only.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Isn't the real problem here is that he will swing the court to being a conservative one?

The issue is how far he will swing it and how he will be used to protect Trump and his co-conspirators from justice.

aloyisious

2 Scoops wrote: »

Devils triangle is some of secret society where they'd go around drugging and raping Women and FFFFFFF is a secret occult code. In reality the triangle thing is a drinking game and the FFFFFF was them making fun of their friends lisp.

Kavanaugh downplayed his drinking during his college years, that's the big bombshell they're clinging to.

Well I guess other people's experience and belief of what the Devils Triangle is will differ with what you say is your understanding of what it is. Putting it simply, it's a 2 male & 1 female threesome engaging in sex. The title is enough of a giveaway in so far as it's a practice any clean living ethical religious person [such as the judge himself claimed to be] would not get involved in: sexual trysts contrary to his stated religion's ethics and teaching. As for it really being a secret giant piss-up laughing about some-one with a lisp, what's your next Secret of Fatima revelation going to be?

Captain Obvious

aloyisious wrote: »

Well I guess other people's experience and belief of what the Devils Triangle is will differ with what you say is your understanding of what it is. Putting it simply, it's a 2 male & 1 female threesome engaging in sex. The title is enough of a giveaway in so far as it's a practice any clean living ethical religious person [such as the judge himself claimed to be] would not get involved in: sexual trysts contrary to his stated religion's ethics and teaching. As for it really being a secret giant piss-up laughing about some-one with a lisp, what's your next Secret of Fatima revelation going to be?

Anyone who claims the devil's triangle is anything but a sex position in the context used by Kavanaugh or that "Renate Alumnus" was a term of endearment is just flat out lying and simply pushing propaganda.

Penn

aloyisious wrote: »

Well I guess other people's experience and belief of what the Devils Triangle is will differ with what you say is your understanding of what it is. Putting it simply, it's a 2 male & 1 female threesome engaging in sex. The title is enough of a giveaway in so far as it's a practice any clean living ethical religious person [such as the judge himself claimed to be] would not get involved in: sexual trysts contrary to his stated religion's ethics and teaching. As for it really being a secret giant piss-up laughing about some-one with a lisp, what's your next Secret of Fatima revelation going to be?

"Missionary Position" is where you and Tobin just pray really, really hard after working out.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

The issue is how far he will swing it and how he will be used to protect Trump and his co-conspirators from justice.

Yeah Conservative or not, the fact it was Kavanaugh who was selected given his previous opinions about whether a sitting President can be indicted, plus the upcoming decisions to be made regarding Federal-State pardons, I'd put that as the current biggest concern in terms of what having him on the SC may result in. I nearly can't see them touching Roe V Wade, at least not in its entirety.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If he is totally unsuited to be a judge, that doesn't explain how he's risen to be sitting on the bench of the second highest court.

He was never a judge through the traditional channels. He was hired by Bush 43 in 2000 who nominated him to the DC US Court of Appeals - and recall even that confirmation took 3 years due to questions about his qualification to be a judge and his extreme partisanship. My recollection was that they weren't able to get him confirmed until there was a shift in the Senate.

Leroy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

I said Juanita Broadrick had witnesses and credible corroboration that Bill Clinton raped her. Some of the same Democrat senators cascading Kavanaugh without credible evidence ignored her back in 1999. That's where the double standard comes in.

So your answer to my question about how you can have double standards is that other people have double standards!

Really. That is all you have got. You openly admit that you are completely biased and not interested in the facts on the basis that your feel that years ago the DNC didn't act the way you approve.

Yet you can't see that you are acting exactly like that now. And have no issue with it.

MAGA by going back to the time that you hated. Not sure that is what it was supposed to mean

MrMusician18

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

He was never a judge through the traditional channels. He was hired by Bush 43 in 2000 who nominated him to the DC US Court of Appeals - and recall even that confirmation took 3 years due to questions about his qualification to be a judge and his extreme partisanship. My recollection was that they weren't able to get him confirmed until there was a shift in the Senate.

Isn't the partisanship the real problem some people have with him - that he tips the court conservative for years if not decades to come. Any conservative being put forward would see attacks as he is replacing a swing seat with a solid conservative.

It just feels like everything is being thrown at him in order to delay confirmation after mid term when the Dems will be likely able to block the appointment.

aloyisious

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If he is totally unsuited to be a judge, that doesn't explain how he's risen to be sitting on the bench of the second highest court.

Isn't the real problem here is that he will swing the court to being a conservative one?

Corruption within the system is the explanation, something Don allegedly wanted to drain away but can't in this case as it's a GOP person involved, better to keep to tradition and kick the problem upstairs when it won't go away. The thing is that all the judge's vetting, promotions and job changes occurred when both parties were running the show in/from Washington.

As for the conservative angle being claimed as a reason for the hoo-hah of trying to deny him a USSC seat, the notion that anyone could realistically employ that given the allegations against the judge of being a failed sexual assaulter. The prime motivator behind any sexual assault being sexual desire, a pregnancy would have been an awkward fact solvable by following a certain medical procedure, making the rank hypocrisy outstanding.

More so it's more about getting a judge reckoned to be a perjurer, some-one bought and paid for, to serve in the USSC court where the honesty of witnesses is ascertained by getting them to swear on the bible that they will tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

Edit: it's more probably now a damage limitation exercise by both parties now though they cant say so. It'd be a good outcome were Don to recognize that and for him to pull the plug on the proposed promotion, move the judge elsewhere with the message that he'd be better off keeping his mouth shut. I can't ever see the system, as it's currently established, doing the right thing by the Prof.