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

Captain Obvious

If ever you needed proof the US has lost it's way.

In immigration news, a review by the state of Virginia has confirmed immigrant teenagers were strapped to chairs and had mesh bags placed over their heads while being held at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center. But the state concluded this harsh treatment did not meet the state’s legal threshold of abuse or neglect. The state review came after the Associated Press revealed in June that children as young as 14 said they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/8/14/headlines/state_of_virginia_confirms_immigrant_teenagers_were_strapped_to_chairs_with_bags_over_their_heads

Christy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

listermint wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

The idiocy of all this is that none of the above has anything to do with the law, his past application of the law, his qualifications to judtge, or his likely future intent to intepret the laws as fairly and to the best of his ability.

He dropped his kids off to school. Whoop-dee-do.

Kid had to pull body parts out of hair. Is there anything in the Constitution about that? I'm not seeing it.

He's a great guy. Fantastic. That should be the default position for anyone who's currently a senior judge. If not, why is he a judge in the first place?

As the Chicago Tribune observed, "Time was when a "well qualified" endorsement by the American Bar Association, which Judge Kavanaugh received, was enough for most senators to vote in favor of a nominee. Not in a day when politics has invaded even funerals."

Or, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-supreme-court-trump-20180709-story.html
"All of us should evaluate Kavanaugh not on how he is likely to vote on abortion rights, the Second Amendment or affirmative action, but on more fundamental characteristics. Predicting how a judge will rule on any particular question is a fool’s errand: Ask conservatives who were shocked when Chief Justice John Roberts provided the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare.

More important is weighing whether Kavanaugh will do the job in a careful, conscientious way, with a deep respect for the text of the Constitution, the language of statutes and the different responsibilities of the three branches of government. A justice who acts mainly to advance some political agenda will be wrong even if he or she votes in the way we would prefer.

Kavanaugh’s record suggests that by these standards, he’s highly qualified. In 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which deals with especially complex regulatory cases, he’s authored some 300 decisions. Taken as a body of work, they reflect a great allegiance to the words of the Constitution. By the time he faces a confirmation hearing, backers and foes of his nomination will have scrutinized his every word."

Out of over 300 opinions written, only one has been partially reversed by the Supreme Court. This seems to indicate, together with his qualifications, and the endorsement of the US legal system's professional organisation, that he's a good judge. Scalia was nominated, what, 98-0? Ginsburg, on the other side of the spectrum, 96-3, only a couple of years later. What was important was that the judge was well qualified.

Nowadays, confirmation hearings are a political theater designed not to evaluate a judge's ability or suitability for the post, but instead to appeal to voters for the next election cycle. It's an embarassment as much as a lot of other US government issues.

The constitution was written in 1798.

To pretend that it's like the gospel today is ridiculous.

It's that type of rethoric that holds up the gun lobby. It's that type of rethoric which seeks to subvert progressive thinking .

It's fine to have a constitution they are vitally important and a lynchpin in the base of constitutional law .

But it's incumbent on the judiciary to reference it but rule in the time which they live.

If and only if a candidate is proven to to that then yes they should be a shoe in. But if they are using the 1798 constitution as a beacon of how to make decisions in 2018 then that is wrong.

Like I said anti-Trump posters on here have a fundamental lack of knowledge how the United States of America works. And they continue to demonstrate it, daily. 
In this they demonstrate a common trait with the anti-Trump left in America, some of the main stream media, sjws and even some Democratic senator , they too have a lack of understanding of how the American system functions and what are its bedrocks. 

Kavanaugh hearings were superb, Democrats couldnt lay a glove on him. Kavanaugh batted them away , well worth the 4 days and to think people waste time on GOT boxsets when they could have been watching this.
Precendent on precedent, nominee precedent, Humphreys executor, ginsberg/Kagan rule, presidential records act, independant versus special counsel, thourughly entertaining and edifying.

Booker provide the comedy, 'I am spartacus', there goes his 2020 bid. The older Dems showed more respect for the process and the young Dems trying to showboat showed all thats wrong with the left these days, with their virtue signaling and picking points for the sake of it rather than doing anything substantive.
At one point they were telling the citizens of the US they should look to Zimbabwe and South Africa as examples of jurisprudence.. seriously. 

As for the demonstrators, wow, a holy show embarassment for the left. 
The Democratic party expose all their cracks over the four days, cracks that are deep and wide. 

Grassley and the senior Republicans gave a masterclass, one can see how that party is evolving and the next crop coming through are learning from the masters.

Obviously this is why the Republicans are so terrified of the midterms that they had to rush this through and mark every document they could see as confidential.

Have the Republicans decided whether or not the democrats released confidential information yet as they really can't make up their mind.

Guess that is why you are giving out about grandstanding instead of anything specific (something Trump never does obviously:p).

In the end though evey vote for the Republicans is a tacit willingness to let this farce continue. To let further incidents like the kids in cages continue. They may not agree but voting Republican only shows they care more about abortion or low taxes than stopping Trump's excesses and derangement.

I still want an investigation into Republican collusion with China. Given an official statement from the US president said they helped the Republicans it should be investigated. As should the fact that the elected US president is not really running anything anymore.

Christy42

Actually it shows a massive flaw in any binaray decision. If you want low taxes, even on a local level, then you have to assist in the worst excesses of the Trump regime (you may not agree but your low tax rep will help him - even so call mavericks are party loyalists compared historically).

You can't just vote for low taxes. You have to weigh up what you are accidentally supporting and weigh it all up in your mind (similar to high taxes and not wanting abortion I guess).

rossie1977

RIGOLO wrote: »

Kavanaugh hearings were superb, Democrats couldnt lay a glove on him. Kavanaugh batted them away , well worth the 4 days and to think people waste time on GOT boxsets when they could have been watching this.
Precendent on precedent, nominee precedent, Humphreys executor, ginsberg/Kagan rule, presidential records act, independant versus special counsel, thourughly entertaining and edifying.

Booker provide the comedy, 'I am spartacus', there goes his 2020 bid. The older Dems showed more respect for the process and the young Dems trying to showboat showed all thats wrong with the left these days, with their virtue signaling and picking points for the sake of it rather than doing anything substantive.
At one point they were telling the citizens of the US they should look to Zimbabwe and South Africa as examples of jurisprudence.. seriously.

Actually he became flustered trying to answer a number of Harris' questions. This hearing shouldn't even be taking place for a lifetime appointment with a sitting president being under investigation. If the roles were reversed and one of Obamas team had just been sentenced to jail this same week the Republicans would have gotten this hearing delayed regardless if they were in minority or not. Pretty obvious too that a deal between Kennedy and Trump was struck before election given both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch had just happened to work for him in the past.

Also Harris and Booker are not even on the left. They are both centre right and up to their ears in donor money like all of the Republican party. There are people on the left coming down the line though so that should be interesting just for the fireworks alone.

SimonTemplar

The whole concept of a lifetime appointment to such an important position decided in this way seems wrong. I think it really should be a general election with each party putting forth a nominee (president can nominate for his party). Judges in some states are elected so it seems prudent that the supreme court, which can affect the whole country, are elected too.

reece289

While I have little sympathy with the GOP they are in quite a mess.

Trump's (and Bannon's ect, possibly the tea parties also) politics have led about 25% on the GOP base into extremism. Considering the two party system over there this is a huge potential loss. So despite in only being a quarter of the base they are leading the narrative.

To ignore these, or to push back from the 75% will lead to a complete split in the party, allowing the Dems to run riot.

There answer seems to be be to hold tight, make hay where they can and hope it settles down. Personally I think it could led to the ruin of the party as it is.

Manic Moran

rossie1977 wrote: »

Also Harris and Booker are not even on the left. They are both centre right and up to their ears in donor money like all of the Republican party. There are people on the left coming down the line though so that should be interesting just for the fireworks alone.

Umm. Senator Harris is a San Francisco Democrat. Maybe not far left, but definitely not a centrist.

I suppose the whole gun ownership thing where it's in the minority and the whole NRA membership minority thing and the whole massive lobbying arm of the same groups pushing republican agendas with money.

It is a minority position people would hardly vote to keep fire arms if they don't own or are interested in them. The firearms groups force the position.

Hardly evidentiary positions. I am not in the NRA, what does that tell you on my position on firearms? I don’t own a dog, what does that tell you about my position on dog ownership rights? My wife doesn’t own a gun, what is her position on the subject. There are a number of reasons why someone who supports the right for folks to own a firearm choose not to, or are forced not to by legislation.

Perhaps a better clue would be how people vote when they get the opportunity to do so (the results of which I posted). Or take opinion polls. Even the NRA has surprising amounts of support, with normally more people supporting than disliking it over the last two decades. Presumably because they do a lot more than political lobbying. https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/owy2uwy4okasxwgzgp5fja.png
This reversed only a few months ago, though still within the margin of error. https://www.businessinsider.com/nra-poll-popularity-favorability-more-americans-dislike-2018-3

On the basic question of right to own guns, the opinion polls are matching the voting trend. It’s not even close. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c76cf627e647

60% in favor of the second amendment, 21% opposed.

There is absolutely nothing in the record saying that a Constitutional right to own guns is a minority position in the US. Your personal dislike of firearms, the firearms industry or the NRA does not change this. The quibbles in the Us are over how much regulation the amendment allows, but that 1791 opinion that everyone can have a gun is still showing overwhelmingly popular support.

[quote/]Next you'll be telling me it isn't a shady multi billion dollar industry there that wants to protect itself and will do anything and fight tooth and nail to [/quote]

Find me any multi billion dollar industry which doesn’t. This is hardly shady.

Water John

There is a long way between gun ownership and semi automatic rifles.

aloyisious

At the Montana rally some-one made a video of Don during his speech. A group titled act.tv posted a short clip from it. Just about the time he mentioned beating Crooked Hillary and said the electoral college was hard, harder to win than the popular vote, there were 3 young people behind him listening to it. One of them was saying something to the other two as he looked a bit quizzical about what Don had said. The next part of the clip showed Don talking to the rally about cutting your taxes in a major major way a woman moved in, put her hand on the quizzical young man and got him to move sideways out of sight. Don then mentioned child predators, gang members and vicious killers as a second woman moved in and got the other two young people to move out of sight. Both the women stayed behind Don and were joined by an older woman dressed in a black President Trump t-shirt. The three young people seem to have been monitored by some-one who wasn't satisfied by their lack of enthusiasm for Don and his speech and had them moved on to be replaced by the enthusiastic women.

Unfortunately I can't post the video clip link I have because it also shows my F/B page and other personal details not relevant to it or the boards site. It is fairly clear that the two clip segments shown were separate, even if closely timed, parts of the larger video showing a degree of video editing for effect.

SScope

He's being called Plaid shirt guy and has gone viral, his name is Tyler Linfesty. He was on Don Lemon last night.

Hande hoche!

The professor who seemingly introduced Papadopoulos to various Russian contacts might be dead according to the DNC. Very peculiar.

https://www.newsweek.com/joseph-mifsud-professor-who-brokered-russia-papadopoulos-meetings-may-be-dead-1112474

aloyisious

Hande hoche! wrote: »

The professor who seemingly introduced Papadopoulos to various Russian contacts might be dead according to the DNC. Very peculiar.

https://www.newsweek.com/joseph-mifsud-professor-who-brokered-russia-papadopoulos-meetings-may-be-dead-1112474

One of the "media sources" that popped up when I keyed in "Joseph Mifsud reported as being dead" alleges that the Prof was one of a trio who set up Mr Papadopoulas as part of a deep state plot. Edit. It seems the disinformation war continues between Don & Co and those who oppose him. One other source claims that Hillary is behind the mysterious deaths of 8 people incl the Prof.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/huge-development-joseph-misfud-the-man-who-deep-state-used-to-set-up-papadopoulos-is-missing-and-presumed-dead/

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Umm. Senator Harris is a San Francisco Democrat. Maybe not far left, but definitely not a centrist.



Hardly evidentiary positions. I am not in the NRA, what does that tell you on my position on firearms? I don’t own a dog, what does that tell you about my position on dog ownership rights? My wife doesn’t own a gun, what is her position on the subject. There are a number of reasons why someone who supports the right for folks to own a firearm choose not to, or are forced not to by legislation.

Perhaps a better clue would be how people vote when they get the opportunity to do so (the results of which I posted). Or take opinion polls. Even the NRA has surprising amounts of support, with normally more people supporting than disliking it over the last two decades. Presumably because they do a lot more than political lobbying. https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/owy2uwy4okasxwgzgp5fja.png
This reversed only a few months ago, though still within the margin of error. https://www.businessinsider.com/nra-poll-popularity-favorability-more-americans-dislike-2018-3

On the basic question of right to own guns, the opinion polls are matching the voting trend. It’s not even close. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c76cf627e647

60% in favor of the second amendment, 21% opposed.

There is absolutely nothing in the record saying that a Constitutional right to own guns is a minority position in the US. Your personal dislike of firearms, the firearms industry or the NRA does not change this. The quibbles in the Us are over how much regulation the amendment allows, but that 1791 opinion that everyone can have a gun is still showing overwhelmingly popular support.

[quote/]Next you'll be telling me it isn't a shady multi billion dollar industry there that wants to protect itself and will do anything and fight tooth and nail to

Find me any multi billion dollar industry which doesn’t. This is hardly shady.[/quote]

It's interesting that you can say this when a true vote on gun ownership has never been put to the electorate.

It's combatted heavily at all levels by an NRA and arms industry backed republican party.

Interesting.

Igotadose

Well the adults in the room apparently prevented Trump from going to war with Venezuela: https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0909/992568-us-met-venezuelan-military-about-ousting-maduro/

(This story's been around the last few months, which is an eternity in Trumpworld.)

NYT original story: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/americas/venezuela-coup-plot-maduro.html

aloyisious

reece289 wrote: »

Really?

It was a four years old response. Makes it look like he can't handle anything longer than a tv ad.

He used some-one else's four-year old quote? Edit. OK, got it now. :-)

Rhineshark

aloyisious wrote: »

He used some-one else's four-year old quote?

I think the poster was saying it was the response of a four year old.

Captain Obvious

aloyisious wrote: »

At the Montana rally some-one made a video of Don during his speech. A group titled act.tv posted a short clip from it. Just about the time he mentioned beating Crooked Hillary and said the electoral college was hard, harder to win than the popular vote, there were 3 young people behind him listening to it. One of them was saying something to the other two as he looked a bit quizzical about what Don had said. The next part of the clip showed Don talking to the rally about cutting your taxes in a major major way a woman moved in, put her hand on the quizzical young man and got him to move sideways out of sight. Don then mentioned child predators, gang members and vicious killers as a second woman moved in and got the other two young people to move out of sight. Both the women stayed behind Don and were joined by an older woman dressed in a black President Trump t-shirt. The three young people seem to have been monitored by some-one who wasn't satisfied by their lack of enthusiasm for Don and his speech and had them moved on to be replaced by the enthusiastic women.

Unfortunately I can't post the video clip link I have because it also shows my F/B page and other personal details not relevant to it or the boards site. It is fairly clear that the two clip segments shown were separate, even if closely timed, parts of the larger video showing a degree of video editing for effect.

Secret Service detained him for a while then removed him from the venue and told him not to come back. That is what happens if you don't show the proper enthusiasm for Dear Leader. This is straight out of 1984.

It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called.

prawnsambo

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Secret Service detained him for a while then removed him from the venue and told him not to come back. That is what happens if you don't show the proper enthusiasm for Dear Leader. This is straight out of 1984.

'Plaid shirt guy' was all over my twitter feed yesterday. He did a double take to something the glorious leader said and said something to his companion just before the thought police moved in. A search for the aforementioned guy on twitter should turn up the video.

Edit: to save you the trouble, here he is on CNN with all the video clips.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFnF3jAvpTw

Leroy42

"Plaid shirt guy", Its funny, and embarrassing, but come on, we know it happens all the time just this time it was caught on camera.

All these things are staged managed. Get a few women, blacks, Hispanics and plenty of I love Trump t-shirts. Same with everybody, ever party, every candidate.

The issue, as always with Trump and those around him, is that they seem so unable to do anything with any degree of professionalism.

pixelburp

Yeah, I would caution overselling this; every modern campaign on either side fills that stage with plants, interns, sycophants or whatever. Hell I always assumed they couldn't hear the speeches and just had "please cheer" prompts. I suppose if you did want to extend commentary into something Trump related, it could speak to their continual disorganisation but that's literally it. Latching onto something accepted to be bipartisan may come off a little disingenuous.

MadYaker

Just watching Obama's speech where he takes aim at Trump and the GOP. It's over an hour but it's a good one. He sounds pissed, almost everything he says is fairly spot on.

Water John

Well all Ex-Presidents know the burden of office and so they have an affinity with one another. This burden seems to have never fallen on Trump's shoulders.

Nate--IRL--

MadYaker wrote: »

Just watching Obama's speech where he takes aim at Trump and the GOP. It's over an hour but it's a good one. He sounds pissed, almost everything he says is fairly spot on.

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHAkDTlv8fA

Nate

VonZan

listermint wrote: »

Find me any multi billion dollar industry which doesn’t. This is hardly shady.

It's interesting that you can say this when a true vote on gun ownership has never been put to the electorate.

It's combatted heavily at all levels by an NRA and arms industry backed republican party.

Interesting.[/quote]

That's true but only in the last few decades the will to change gun laws has grown and become more mainstream. The biggest problem for the gun control lobby is that neither party can afford to take up gun control as a collective. The Democrats say they want gun control but they did nothing when they had control of Congress. Obviously The Republicans rely more on corporate donations from the gun lobby and have no interest in banning the sale of assault rifles etc.

You can't just blame the GOP for a lack of gun control. Democrats in Pennsylvania wouldn't agree with Democrats in California on gun control.

MadYaker

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHAkDTlv8fA

Nate

Yeah thats the one.

VonZan wrote: »

It's interesting that you can say this when a true vote on gun ownership has never been put to the electorate.

It's combatted heavily at all levels by an NRA and arms industry backed republican party.

Interesting.

That's true but only in the last few decades the will to change gun laws has grown and become more mainstream. The biggest problem for the gun control lobby is that neither party can afford to take up gun control as a collective. The Democrats say they want gun control but they did nothing when they had control of Congress. Obviously The Republicans rely more on corporate donations from the gun lobby and have no interest in banning the sale of assault rifles etc.

You can't just blame the GOP for a lack of gun control. Democrats in Pennsylvania wouldn't agree with Democrats in California on gun control.[/QUOTE]

Id imagine most dems from rural states would be in favour of tighter gun control. I'm fairly sure Sanders wasn't massively in favour of it as gun ownership is high in his state

everlast75

MadYaker wrote: »

Yeah thats the one.



That's true but only in the last few decades the will to change gun laws has grown and become more mainstream. The biggest problem for the gun control lobby is that neither party can afford to take up gun control as a collective. The Democrats say they want gun control but they did nothing when they had control of Congress. Obviously The Republicans rely more on corporate donations from the gun lobby and have no interest in banning the sale of assault rifles etc.

You can't just blame the GOP for a lack of gun control. Democrats in Pennsylvania wouldn't agree with Democrats in California on gun control.

Id imagine most dems from rural states would be in favour of tighter gun control. I'm fairly sure Sanders wasn't massively in favour of it as gun ownership is high in his state[/quote]

The Dems did try change things on gun control. The reps fought it tooth and nail.

Also, look at the contribution to each party from the NRA. Dems are negligible compared to Reps

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

All these things are staged managed. Get a few women, blacks, Hispanics and plenty of I love Trump t-shirts. Same with everybody, ever party, every candidate.

Speaking of which, is the Blacks for Trump guy still around? I used to see him in the background pretty often but I don't think I've seen him in a while.

jobbridge4life

mcmoustache wrote: »

Speaking of which, is the Blacks for Trump guy still around? I used to see him in the background pretty often but I don't think I've seen him in a while.

Paris Dennard?

He has had a #metoo scandal https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/23/media/paris-dennard-allegations-cnn/index.html

I have to say I always assumed Dennard was gay.

mcmoustache

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Paris Dennard?

He has had a #metoo scandal https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/23/media/paris-dennard-allegations-cnn/index.html

I have to say I always assumed Dennard was gay.

Not him, the other black guy. I had a look on the google and it's this guy- Michael the Black Man.

He's a bit bonkers. He seems to still be around, just not as visible.

Captain Obvious

A new one for the veterans to be proud of.

Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman shared a new recording with MSNBC on Monday, which features President Donald Trump discussing the attacks on U.S. troops in Niger.

“They were laughing because he’s like, making light of the situation,” Manigault-Newman told MSNBC. “He’s saying, I wouldn’t want to be a terrorist and then you hear the laughter and he continues on to talk about ‘I don’t want to be in that business’ — but it is not a laughing matter. We lost four American soldiers and four of our allies.”

The troops were killed in ambush on a joint patrol in southwest Niger in October 2017. Trump faced criticism last year after telling the widow of one of the fallen soldiers that “he knew what he signed up for.”

Hard to see how any service man can support Trump.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/new-omarosa-tape-shows-trump-joking-terrorists-killing-us-troops-niger/