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

Professor Moriarty

batgoat wrote: »

Her lawyers were pro buono, stated it during the testimony. Also stated she received no money from dems if I recall correctly.

So his post is rubbish?

20Cent

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So his post is rubbish?

Right wingers find it hard to believe people do things for reasons other than money.

TomOnBoard

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So his post is rubbish?

I believe his post is not just rubbish... Its part of a propagandist agenda to demean Dr Ford even more, as if she hasn't been demeaned enough already. Pathetic B.S.

Professor Moriarty

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I believe his post is not just rubbish... Its part of a propagandist agenda to demean Dr Ford even more, as if she hasn't been demeaned enough already. Pathetic B.S.

I googled 'Professor Ford given money by Democrats' and all that came up was stuff about donations she made to Bernie Sanders campaign. Nothing at all about her being given money by Democrats. It always surprises me how easily people can lie.

RDM_83 again

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I googled 'Professor Ford given money by Democrats' and all that came up was stuff about donations she made to Bernie Sanders campaign. Nothing at all about her being given money by Democrats. It always surprises me how easily people can lie.

I presume the poster was referring to the gofund me and so on, which are sitting at over half a million, its hardly Republicans giving that money

TomOnBoard

And of course, the gofundme campaigns will be seen as part of a Democrat 'paying her' plot, when in fact, thousands of ordinary ppl (many of whom may well vote Democrat) made donations to help her deal with the costs of dealng with the fact that she's had to leave home etc.

Manic Moran

StringerBell wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do find it hard to understand why Trump supporters are willing to defend Kavanaugh. He is not the only person that could have been nominated, and they, any more than any of us, have no idea of the man or indeed what he is really like.

The only thing I can work out is that winning is far more important that bring right or ones principles. Even some of the responses of here, such as Bill Clinton, the DNC etc, doesn't align with the idea of MAGA.

How is reverting to the very things that one detests make anything better.

Honestly though, at this point why?

Its always one of or a combination of

A. All the winning
B. Sticking it to the "libtards"
C. Leader says good so must be good.

There is no further thought necessary. There is nothing to understand beyond that.

There is a fourth option. I personally don’t have a particular preference for Kavanaugh over anyone else who might be nominated, even if he were to be withdrawn. I certainly had no objection to him on qualification grounds: As the ABA said, he was well qualified with his educational background, with a solid string of opinions behind him, reversed by the Supreme Court even fewer times than Garland. He performed reasonably well at the nomination hearings. As far as that is concerned, I would support his appointment.

The problem, which results in “no good outcome possible” is this Ford business. I do not object to the idea of his being withdrawn and replaced by someone else without that baggage. I do, however, have a problem with a surprise release of withheld information, decades old, and unsubstantiable, for what appears to be a partisan goal (Oppose Kavanaugh with every fiber of being). I would rather see this clouded appointment go through than set a precedent that this sort of attack strategy can work for any and all future appointments. I think that going through this once has been enough, and would hope that in future, more judicious decisions are made for things like the timing of such information being brought forward. Perhaps that may suffice also to encourage proper FBI involvement or whatever as a result.

As to the temperament issue, I would assume that his temperament has been what it is for most of his life. Under this temperament, his case opinions and his conduct on the bench have raised few particular issues (resulting in the aforementioned ABA categorization). I see little evidence that his standard of judgement will change at the Supreme Court vs the Circuit Court just because he got emotional when under fire in the senate under extremely disfavourable circumstances. I doubt he will be facing such questions when in chambers.

Professor Moriarty

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I presume the poster was referring to the gofund me and so on, which are sitting at over half a million, its hardly Republicans giving that money

So why didn't he say GoFundMe instead of Democrats? Do you have to register party affiliation in order to donate to a person who has been sexually assaulted? You have no way of knowing who donated to her. None.

Itssoeasy

I've a question for that poster who dismissed Prof Ford as an outright liar(RobertKK). Would you be so brave to say that in person to a clerical sex abuse victim ? Those men and women don't have full details and recollections of the abuse yet you presumably believe them but we all believe them because why would they lie ?

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is a fourth option. I personally don’t have a particular preference for Kavanaugh over anyone else who might be nominated, even if he were to be withdrawn. I certainly had no objection to him on qualification grounds: As the ABA said, he was well qualified with his educational background, with a solid string of opinions behind him, reversed by the Supreme Court even fewer times than Garland. He performed reasonably well at the nomination hearings. As far as that is concerned, I would support his appointment.

The problem, which results in “no good outcome possible” is this Ford business. I do not object to the idea of his being withdrawn and replaced by someone else without that baggage. I do, however, have a problem with a surprise release of withheld information, decades old, and unsubstantiable, for what appears to be a partisan goal (Oppose Kavanaugh with every fiber of being). I would rather see this clouded appointment go through than set a precedent that this sort of attack strategy can work for any and all future appointments. I think that going through this once has been enough, and would hope that in future, more judicious decisions are made for things like the timing of such information being brought forward. Perhaps that may suffice also to encourage proper FBI involvement or whatever as a result.

As to the temperament issue, I would assume that his temperament has been what it is for most of his life. Under this temperament, his case opinions and his conduct on the bench have raised few particular issues (resulting in the aforementioned ABA categorization). I see little evidence that his standard of judgement will change at the Supreme Court vs the Circuit Court just because he got emotional when under fire in the senate under extremely disfavourable circumstances. I doubt he will be facing such questions when in chambers.

Yes he certainly performed admirally in the hearings calling the democrats on the committee out as being backed by a Clinton Soros anti trump scheme which is why they didn't want him nominated.

Super admirally.

It's amazing the contortions people will twist themselves in to convince they are conservative and not just supportive of right wing ideals

listermint

Not all political cartoons capture the thinking of the time , but I think does one does

https://twitter.com/peterjukes/status/1048879369538744320?s=20

Wanderer78

listermint wrote:

Not all political cartoons capture the thinking of the time , but I think does one does

Seen it during the week, tis very good alright

Nermal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Would you be so brave to say that in person to a clerical sex abuse victim ? Those men and women don't have full details and recollections of the abuse yet you presumably believe them but we all believe them because why would they lie ?

Thankfully the criminal justice system demands a higher standard of proof than 'why would they lie?'.

Allegations where the 'victim' actually REFUSES to make a criminal complaint - see my post above - should be treated with complete skepticism.

But since you asked: how about fame and attention, material gain, maliciousness? Because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

seamus

Nermal wrote: »

Allegations where the 'victim' actually REFUSES to make a criminal complaint - see my post above - should be treated with complete skepticism.

Thankfully this isn't the 1950s anymore, we have a better understanding of psychology these days, and a refusal to make a complaint or follow through on a charge is incredibly common - not just in sexual assault charges, but in any incident where the victim has suffered a direct personal hit. Assault, mugging, scams, threats - people are very often reluctant to push forward with these, instead preferring to move on and forget about it, believing that the process of "justice" will not be worth the trouble and will not give them satisfaction.

If you really can't see why a woman wouldn't move forward with a complaint after the man she accuses has just been appointed to the highest court in the land despite her testimony, then I suspect you lack the ability to empathise on this issue.

But since you asked: how about fame and attention, material gain, maliciousness? Because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Name me some women there who've become famous or wealthy by making sexual assault claims.

Christy42

Nermal wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Would you be so brave to say that in person to a clerical sex abuse victim ? Those men and women don't have full details and recollections of the abuse yet you presumably believe them but we all believe them because why would they lie ?

Thankfully the criminal justice system demands a higher standard of proof than 'why would they lie?'.

Allegations where the 'victim' actually REFUSES to make a criminal complaint - see my post above - should be treated with complete skepticism.

But since you asked: how about fame and attention, material gain, maliciousness? Because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Why should she. She tried to speak out and got death threats and mocked by the head of state. You can't have that and turn around and complain that people should report these crimes. It is completely ridiculous.

She knew she did not have absolute proof but came forward when it was not a criminal trial and as such the level of proof was not as high. Same reason many people go to a civil instead of a criminal court.

I mean let us be fair here. Kavanagh was all too happy to throw out Democrat conspiracy theories without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

pixelburp

To the question of 'fame' or attention: name one woman from the Bill Cosby trial. For bonus points, how many female complainants were there in the end?

Or indeed, name some of the girls from the Larry Nassar case.

Leroy42

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is a fourth option. I personally don’t have a particular preference for Kavanaugh over anyone else who might be nominated, even if he were to be withdrawn. I certainly had no objection to him on qualification grounds: As the ABA said, he was well qualified with his educational background, with a solid string of opinions behind him, reversed by the Supreme Court even fewer times than Garland. He performed reasonably well at the nomination hearings. As far as that is concerned, I would support his appointment.

The problem, which results in “no good outcome possible” is this Ford business. I do not object to the idea of his being withdrawn and replaced by someone else without that baggage. I do, however, have a problem with a surprise release of withheld information, decades old, and unsubstantiable, for what appears to be a partisan goal (Oppose Kavanaugh with every fiber of being). I would rather see this clouded appointment go through than set a precedent that this sort of attack strategy can work for any and all future appointments. I think that going through this once has been enough, and would hope that in future, more judicious decisions are made for things like the timing of such information being brought forward. Perhaps that may suffice also to encourage proper FBI involvement or whatever as a result.

As to the temperament issue, I would assume that his temperament has been what it is for most of his life. Under this temperament, his case opinions and his conduct on the bench have raised few particular issues (resulting in the aforementioned ABA categorization). I see little evidence that his standard of judgement will change at the Supreme Court vs the Circuit Court just because he got emotional when under fire in the senate under extremely disfavourable circumstances. I doubt he will be facing such questions when in chambers.

So in reality there was no reason as to why these allegations couldn't, indeed shouldn't, have been investigated properly.

I still do not understand the rush to get this appointment through (well I do but not in a way that doesn't make the GOP, Trump and anyone that supported Kavanaugh appear to care more about the winning than the institutions of the USA).

I would have thought that given the questions around him, it would have been far better for the GOP to simply opt for someone else. There was a shortlist of 25 qualified people, is Kavanaugh so more qualified than the others that they didn't even bear consideration? Surely having someone like Gorsuch, with no baggage, is a far better way to go.

It is not like they couldn't get another person through. Remember, it was the GOP that organised all of this. This was brought about because the previous judge retired, so it wasn't a surprise. This was something completely in the control of the GOP.

They then lost control of it. Rather than accept that and look to someone else, they rammed it through, regardless of the effects it was going to have on the Senate, the voters, Trumps standing etc. The end justified the means.

You mention surprise information. It is very worrying that we have a political establishment that is completely unable to deal with anything outside of the expected. Rather than try to understand and come up with a new position, they simply try to ram home the position and blame the lateness of the intel.

The ABA have also raised concerns about his appointment. His colleagues, Yale. There are numerous calls, from very qualified people, to have his appointment delayed. Even a previous SCOTUS judge, yet all of these have been dismissed and instead we are supposed to take the view of Trump and the GOP (neither of which can claim to be experts).

So, again I fail to see any other reason for this mess than the GOP and Trump simply wanted it and were going to do anything to get it. Hence why Trump used his rally to attack Ford (whilst at the same time claim that anybody speaking for the abused were biased on paid for).

What is clear for all of this, and the many other episodes, is that America is deeply split and is no more united than the Russian Federation was. Surely even the GOP can see that at some point the DNC will get their hands on power and at that stage will simply do the exact same on their terms. So you will have nothing but extreme back and forths depending on which party wins. Either that or complete stagnation as neither side can get enough power.

At the moment, the GOP is not only running the country in terms of the policies that suit them, but actively going out of their way to destroy any semblance of bi-partisanship and cooperation. That all looks fine and dandy when they have someone like Trump who can get the votes, but what happens when he goes? Who are the GOP left with?

It is a dangerous game to try to take full control rather than look to build consensus. At this present time, the GOP is focused on full and total control and any dissenting voice is to be ignored or ridiculed.

everlast75

Found a nice video debunking this "Biden rule" trope used everytime someone challenges how McConnell denied Garland.

Enjoy.


https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1049136874541920258?s=19

Captain Obvious

drkpower wrote: »

Im neither a trump nor Kavanaugh supporter.

And I think he probably lied (about the meaning of various terms on his yearbook, and the extent of his drinking).

But here’s the thing: there isn’t any evidence of that perjury, other than the word of various school and college mates from 30 something years ago. If that is the standard of evidence you are prepared to accept, then Blasey Ford also perjured herself (given the word of her former long term boyfriend).

There is evidence of perjury. Multiple witnesses, his calendars and his year book along with his testimony.

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary said all women should be believed, but she didn't when it was too close to home. Only believe if you don't like the person...

In that video she lies.

How do you know she didn't believe the allegations against Bill?

hill16bhoy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I've a question for that poster who dismissed Prof Ford as an outright liar(RobertKK). Would you be so brave to say that in person to a clerical sex abuse victim ? Those men and women don't have full details and recollections of the abuse yet you presumably believe them but we all believe them because why would they lie ?

There's an incredible hypocrisy at play here.

If one dismisses the allegations against Kavanaugh, by definition one then also has to dismiss any allegation where an alleged historical sexual assault wasn't directly witnessed by somebody else who backs up the complainant.

That means the vast, vast majority. Sexual predators tend not to commit their crimes in public view.

It means that in order to dismiss the allegations against Kavanaugh, one has to also dismiss the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Savile, Fr. Brendan Smyth, Fr. Sean Fortune etc.

This is a rapist's charter.

Earlier I asked those who supported Kavanaugh's confirmation whether they supported the candidacy of Roy Moore. Not one could answer - because it makes no sense to have supported Kavanaugh's confirmation but not have supported Moore's candidacy.

And I bet not one pro-Kavanaugh poster here would admit to supporting Moore being the candidate. Even for people who go down bizarre rabbit holes of partisan, blinkered, illogical right-wing thinking, at least some optics have to be maintained.

demfad

Christy42 wrote: »

Why should she. She tried to speak out and got death threats and mocked by the head of state. You can't have that and turn around and complain that people should report these crimes. It is completely ridiculous.

She knew she did not have absolute proof but came forward when it was not a criminal trial and as such the level of proof was not as high. Same reason many people go to a civil instead of a criminal court.

I mean let us be fair here. Kavanagh was all too happy to throw out Democrat conspiracy theories without proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes. She still cannot move home due to 'unending death threats' according to her attorney no doubt enabled by Trump's public attacks.

Jolly Red Giant

Nermal wrote: »

Thankfully the criminal justice system demands a higher standard of proof than 'why would they lie?'.

Allegations where the 'victim' actually REFUSES to make a criminal complaint - see my post above - should be treated with complete skepticism.

But since you asked: how about fame and attention, material gain, maliciousness? Because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

Trump in 2018

It's a very scary time for young men in America

Trump in 1989

Hang 'em

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=108276575

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There's an incredible hypocrisy at play here.

If one dismisses the allegations against Kavanaugh, by definition one then also has to dismiss any allegation where an alleged historical sexual assault wasn't directly witnessed by somebody else who backs up the complainant.

That means the vast, vast majority. Sexual predators tend not to commit their crimes in public view.

It means that in order to dismiss the allegations against Kavanaugh, one has to also dismiss the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Savile, Fr. Brendan Smyth, Fr. Sean Fortune etc.

This is a rapist's charter.

Earlier I asked those who supported Kavanaugh's confirmation whether they supported the candidacy of Roy Moore. Not one could answer - because it makes no sense to have supported Kavanaugh's confirmation but not have supported Moore's candidacy.

And I bet not one pro-Kavanaugh poster here would admit to supporting Moore being the candidate. Even for people who go down bizarre rabbit holes of partisan, blinkered, illogical right-wing thinking, at least some optics have to be maintained.

Supporting Kavanaugh does not equate to supporting moore. There was a much more robust profile of evidence against Moore and corroboration of people knowing about his ways long before his nomination. Infirmly believe moore sexually assaulted those girls, I also firmly believe Kavanaugh did not.

aloyisious

Where it's accepted that sexual attack victims can be scared of their attacker returning [whether or not such a threat was made] to repeat the offence if the first offence was complained of why would any victim risk making a parent or police complaint? Adding in the fact that a defence lawyer would be going through their past history with a toothcomb and casting doubt on their character, is it little wonder that the victim would NOT, in the 1st case, report the attack to the police? Debaters here have been portraying Judge Kavanaugh himself as a victim of such trawling and character-assassination [my life is ruined] so it does undeniably exist.

We here in Ireland and in the US itself don't have to go far to find such sexual victim abuse history whereby the abuser, and powerful people, will silence the victim for anyone to try debunk such threats as unreal. It's possible that history may have coloured some of our thinking.

Most of the differencing here on the truth of Prof Ford's claim ended up on the basis whether one is a GOP or a Dem supporter, and NOT on whether Judge Kavanaugh could be proven to have done the deed. To be clear, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. Another part of the problem in this case was that the nominator of Judge Kavanaugh, the President himself, got involved in the mudslinging on the Prof with his declarations that it was all a con-job. Mud sticks when the holder of the most powerful office in the land is the chief mudslinger all because he chose the name of the nominee and it became a personal matter to him. That, IMO, is not a necessary or legitimate requirement for a person to be successfully nominated and voted on to sit on the USSC bench.

Water John

It needs a clarification Jolly Red Giant. The 2018 remark was about 'white men'
The 1989 remark was about 'black men'.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

It needs a clarification Jolly Red Giant. The 2018 remark was about 'white men'
The 1989 remark was about 'black men'.

Was the 1989 comment about the Central Park five or was it another stupid quote of his from the time ?

hill16bhoy

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Supporting Kavanaugh does not equate to supporting moore. There was a much more robust profile of evidence against Moore and corroboration of people knowing about his ways long before his nomination. Infirmly believe moore sexually assaulted those girls, I also firmly believe Kavanaugh did not.

This is nonsense.

Three accusers came forward in public against Kavanaugh. The sham FBI investigation couldn't even do two of them the courtesy of interviewing them, as well as scores of other corroborating witnesses.

You and others have been shouting about "what happened to the presumption of innocence?"

So if you claim that applies to Kavanaugh, why do not claim it applies to Moore, given that Moore has not been found guilty of anything in a court of law?

It's totally illogical and hypocritical.

Nermal

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It means that in order to dismiss the allegations against Kavanaugh, one has to also dismiss the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Savile, Fr. Brendan Smyth, Fr. Sean Fortune etc.

Disgusting, just disgusting. Most of the people on your list were convicted, or died before they could be convicted. Comparing them to Kavanaugh is libellous, well done.

Water John

The point is, they were at allegation stage prior to conviction. None perpetrated their crimes in front of witnesses. That is the very nature of sexual assault.
Same as Moore.

robinph

Nermal wrote: »

Disgusting, just disgusting. Most of the people on your list were convicted, or died before they could be convicted. Comparing them to Kavanaugh is libellous, well done.

Until they were convicted there was only allegations against them though.