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

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes, they did. I didn't think that was up for debate.

Neither did I.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein says she and her staff did not leak Christine Blasey Ford’s letter


The reporter who wrote the story confirmed it.

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/27/17912102/feinstein-christine-blasey-ford-letter-leak

aloyisious

In passing, weve the two men who reportedly said they were the two boys with Prof Ford been interviewed by either the senate committee lawyers or the FBI? Did they exist at all or was it a fake news story to muddy the waters? I'd have thought they, if they existed, would have been very important witnesses to the committee hearings and would also have been of interest to whomever advised Judge Kavanaugh on his defence against Prof Ford's claims.

I was a bit surprised to hear that two people would step forward and declare themselves to be the two boys who were in the room with the Prof, and not the Judge and Mark Judge, at the time she claimed the judge assaulted her, leaving them liable to subpoena and possible criminal investigation as neither were nominees to the USSC.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes, they did. I didn't think that was up for debate.

Do you think Trump made her the target of abuse and potential violence by mocking her at a rally?

Professor Moriarty

Trump just called Ford's testimony a hoax. I hope the GOP get hammered next month.

Captain Obvious

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Trump just called Ford's testimony a hoax. I hope the GOP get hammered next month.

But according to Trump supporters, it's not his fault. It's those nasty democrats forcing them to do it.

Quin_Dub

Slightly off topic , but this recent shambles has highlighted something to me.

Why is everything in US politics boiled down to the decisions of a tiny minority?

Senate Votes - Only 5/6 Senators votes are ever discussed the rest are almost irrelevant.

Why for example was everyone focused on how Collins,Flake, Manchin & Murkowski voted and not even giving the slightest notice to the other 96 Senators??

Was there not a single other Senator who's vote might have been open to being swayed (one way or the other) by evidence and testimony?

Is every other Senator just a blind Whip vote, and if so , what makes the ones named above so special???

It's the same for Presidential Elections - Only 5/6 States seem to really matter in the grand scheme of things.

It's just something I find very strange...

listermint

Eric Cartman wrote: »

US frat house culture has always been toxic , I'm glad it never really made its way into 'acceptable society' here and its being fought against in the US now, but as europeans who never really got it it looks pretty deplorable to us, even referencing 30 years ago, in the US most people in their 30's would have found it perfectly acceptable in college to carry on that way, however him being a member of a frat house does not guarantee he participated in this. Frat house culture in the 70s is not whats on trial here.

Well not exactly. Which is why his own fraternity was banned in 85 and permanently band a few years ago.

So I guess that puts a pin in your facts

PropJoe10

Captain Obvious wrote: »

But according to Trump supporters, it's not his fault. It's those nasty democrats forcing them to do it.

I've honestly never seen a more divided political landscape. It's absolutely amazing and disturbing to watch.

batgoat

PropJoe10 wrote: »

I've honestly never seen a more divided political landscape. It's absolutely amazing and disturbing to watch.

I honestly don't see the US ever coming back from this presidency tbh. Similar to how the UK are unlikely to regain their position after Brexit vote.

PropJoe10

batgoat wrote: »

I honestly don't see the US ever coming back from this presidency tbh. Similar to how the UK are unlikely to regain their position after Brexit vote.

Well it'll definitely take a long time to recover from this. Has the political landscape over there always been this divided? I'm genuinely interested - only really started following US politics in the runup to the 2016 election.

oscarBravo

PropJoe10 wrote: »

Has the political landscape over there always been this divided?

Nope. A refusal to compromise - on anything, for any reason, ever - really took off when Newt Gingrich decided that frustrating the Democratic agenda was the single most important policy position of the GOP at the time. Mitch McConnell took that form of political arseholery to "hold my beer" levels when he openly admitted that the only thing that mattered to him was to frustrate Obama in every possible way, and when he described stealing Obama's Supreme Court nomination as one of the proudest moments of his life.

You'll see those who try to tell you that one party is as bad as the other, but that's outright nonsense. The Democrats are a pretty awful political party, but the GOP puts them in the ha'penny place.

Duck Soup

batgoat wrote: »

I honestly don't see the US ever coming back from this presidency tbh. Similar to how the UK are unlikely to regain their position after Brexit vote.

I think you're right and I think you're moving on to a subject much bigger than Senate numbers and Supreme Court balance. Under Trump (and supported by the likes of Bannon, Bolton etc) the US has decided to withdraw from its role as the primary international power. In short, they're abdicating their influence.

Which is fine but, as my old history teacher used to say, politics abhors a vacuum. Where the United States used to be other powers will rush in. Some of it is simple numbers. Africa is going to be increasingly important and where the US sends a delegation of 4 there, China sends a delegation of 40. The Chinese are helping to build roads and bridges across the nations and they're not doing it for their health. Those roads will carry Africa's rich natural resources to the docks and bring in Chinese consumer goods. Russia's striking deals in Europe and the Middle East. Germany will probably assume the leadership role in NATO.

Now if Trump is toast in 2020 maybe it won't be too late to re-establish American primacy. But I wouldn't bank on it.

Water John

The two trains of thought about taking on the GOP and Trump is either to go full on or a more measured response.
A suggested name that could take the centre ground and also heal much of the toxicity is Senator Klobuchar.

rossie1977

NY Times reporting that Supreme court is now the most conservative it has been since 1937.

Professor Moriarty

rossie1977 wrote: »

NY Times reporting that Supreme court is now the most conservative it has been since 1937.

They elected Trump. He's doing what he said he would do. It's not his fault, it's their fault.

removed2

Trump likes Taylor Swifts music less 25% since she declared for the Democrtas
youtu.be/X2ElhBAJi3Y

removed2

removed2 wrote: »

Trump likes Taylor Swifts music less 25% since she declared for the Democrtas
youtu.be/X2ElhBAJi3Y

trump said talor swift doesnt know anything about politics

hill16bhoy

Water John wrote: »

The two trains of thought about taking on the GOP and Trump is either to go full on or a more measured response.
A suggested name that could take the centre ground and also heal much of the toxicity is Senator Klobuchar.

If you're looking at a candidate to win by taking full advantage of the Democrats' core vote on a demographic level, Kamala Harris ticks the boxes.

The black vote declined from 66.6% turnout in 2012 to 59.6% in 2016.

The Latino vote also declined slightly from 2012.

The US will be more racially diverse in 2020 than it was in 2016.

By selecting a candidate who would bring the minority vote back up to 2012 levels, the Democrats would likely push themselves over the top. A target of 69 or 70 million votes is definitely achievable, and Trump will struggle to come anywhere near that.

Obviously Harris is also a woman, and she comes without the baggage that Hillary Clinton did. She's relatively young, she's fresh, she's authoritative and photogenic - yes, it does count.

While I do think Bernie Sanders would stand a good chance of sweeping the mid-west, and probably Joe Biden too, I feel the Democrats have to be bold with their choice, both in terms of demographics but also in terms of policy, and universal healthcare needs to be part of this.

There is currently a lot of pessimism about Democrats' chances in 2020, but people need to remember that it will be an eminently winnable election. Trump is unlikely to win any state he didn't win in 2016, and will be defending wafer thin margins in seven states. These are the seven states the election will come down to.

2 Scoops

"Official" swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh is happening now.

TomOnBoard

2 Scoops wrote: »

"Official" swearing in of Brett Kavanaugh is happening now.

Not an "Official" swearing in... Its a "Ceremonial" swearing in...basically an opportunity for Trump to say "Remember Bart, you owe me biglly"

removed2

trump cancelled the irish visit because he's doing 3 rallies a week before the novembe elections

Fr Tod Umptious

hill16bhoy wrote: »

If you're looking at a candidate to win by taking full advantage of the Democrats' core vote on a demographic level, Kamala Harris ticks the boxes.

The black vote declined from 66.6% turnout in 2012 to 59.6% in 2016.

The Latino vote also declined slightly from 2012.

The US will be more racially diverse in 2020 than it was in 2016.

By selecting a candidate who would bring the minority vote back up to 2012 levels, the Democrats would likely push themselves over the top. A target of 69 or 70 million votes is definitely achievable, and Trump will struggle to come anywhere near that.

Obviously Harris is also a woman, and she comes without the baggage that Hillary Clinton did. She's relatively young, she's fresh, she's authoritative and photogenic - yes, it does count.

While I do think Bernie Sanders would stand a good chance of sweeping the mid-west, and probably Joe Biden too, I feel the Democrats have to be bold with their choice, both in terms of demographics but also in terms of policy, and universal healthcare needs to be part of this.

There is currently a lot of pessimism about Democrats' chances in 2020, but people need to remember that it will be an eminently winnable election. Trump is unlikely to win any state he didn't win in 2016, and will be defending wafer thin margins in seven states. These are the seven states the election will come down to.

That would be the racism for you, black people only voting because there is a black candidate.

It was mentioned a few years back on a thread here that if Romney had won a small percentage more of the white vote he would have won the 2012 election.

The reality is it's not the minority vote that matters but the majority, and the majority still happen to be white, christian and straight.

batgoat

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That would be the racism for you, black people only voting because there is a black candidate.

It was mentioned a few years back on a thread here that if Romney had won a small percentage more of the white vote he would have won the 2012 election.

The reality is it's not the minority vote that matters but the majority, and the majority still happen to be white, christian and straight.

If it doesn't matter, pretty odd that the Republicans still pursue the southern strategy and voter id laws even though voter fraud isn't an issue.

Fr Tod Umptious

batgoat wrote: »

If it doesn't matter, pretty odd that the Republicans still pursue the southern strategy and voter id laws even though voter fraud isn't an issue.

It's not that it doesn't matter at all, it just holds less weight than people think.

Pickings a minority candidate just to get the the minority vote is not the best strategy.

Pick the best candidate instead.

batgoat

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's not that it doesn't matter at all, it just holds less weight than people think.

Pickings a minority candidate just to get the the minority vote is not the best strategy.

Pick the best candidate instead.

I would say that Harris is a good candidate if she were to run, nothing to do with being a minority background. She's always been considered a potentially very good candidate alongside the likes of Booker. My bigger concern is that they could veer away from a candidate because they are a minority tbh.

Fr Tod Umptious

batgoat wrote: »

I would say that Harris is a good candidate if she were to run, nothing to do with being a minority background. She's always been considered a potentially very good candidate alongside the likes of Booker. My bigger concern is that they could veer away from a candidate because they are a minority tbh.

Yes, Democrats have to choose wisely for 2020, unlike they did for 2016.

ancapailldorcha

removed2 wrote: »

Trump likes Taylor Swifts music less 25% since she declared for the Democrtas
youtu.be/X2ElhBAJi3Y

removed2 wrote: »

trump said talor swift doesnt know anything about politics

removed2 wrote: »

trump cancelled the irish visit because he's doing 3 rallies a week before the novembe elections

Mod: Less of the short posts please. Please read the charter before posting again.

Nermal

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/08/brett-kavanaugh-swearing-in-donald-trump

This may be the saltiest article I have ever seen. It's almost comical how Trump goads the Guardian into editorialising.

"The judge was found neither guilty nor innocent of allegations" is particularly eye-popping. Am I 'neither guilty nor innocent' of any crime anyone may choose to accuse me of? No: I am innocent, until I am criminally convicted.

Penn

Nermal wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/08/brett-kavanaugh-swearing-in-donald-trump

This may be the saltiest article I have ever seen. It's almost comical how Trump goads the Guardian into editorialising.

"The judge was found neither guilty nor innocent of allegations" is particularly eye-popping. Am I 'neither guilty nor innocent' of any crime anyone may choose to accuse me of? No: I am innocent, until I am criminally convicted.

If you punch someone in the face, you're guilty of punching someone in the face. Not in a legal sense, but if you did do it you are guilty of it without being convicted of it.

People have been guilty of doing things but without there being enough evidence to convict them of it, have been found not guilty (and it's why the courts use Not Guilty rather than Innocent). Likewise, people have been innocent of committing a crime, but because of how evidence was presented in a trial may have been found guilty.

Innocent until proven guilty relates to how a trial must begin with the presumption that the defendant is innocent, and the Judge, Jury and Prosecutors must all start from the position that the defendant is innocent. It's up to the prosecutors in the trial to present evidence as to why they believe the defendant is guilty, and it must be enough to prove same to the jury.

It does not mean that people outside of the court cannot hold an opinion as to whether or not someone is guilty or innocent.

What the Guardian is saying when they say "The judge was found neither guilty nor innocent of allegations" is that the investigation didn't yield any results which either proved he did it, or proved he didn't do it.

Igotadose

Penn wrote: »

What the Guardian is saying when they say "The judge was found neither guilty nor innocent of allegations" is that the investigation didn't yield any results which either proved he did it, or proved he didn't do it.

And, there was never a trial as a result. There was a job interview/fitness hearing is all. The (neutered, meddled with, too short) investigation by the FBI came up with nothing further.

FWIW I'm encouraging every GOPer I know to push Kavanaugh to sue Ford. That'd make for such a great discovery process and lots of good depositions, and an in-depth extensive investigation.

Sadly, I think they're wising up it might not be in their best interests.