Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

everlast75

And here we go again with the apologists.

They decree that the man involved didn't do anything wrong yet balk at those who claim he is guilty without seeing the hypocrisy.

No one knows until the facts are discovered.

The point is and always was that a proper investigation was stymied deliberately by the Reps in order to get another SC judge through, and sure if a little salt can be rubbed in the wounds of the libs afterwards then all the better.

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

And here we go again with the apologists.

They decree that the mam involved didn't do anything wrong yet balk at those who claim he is guilty without seeing the hypocrisy.

No one knows until the facts are discovered.

The point is and always was that a proper investigation was stymied deliberately by the Reps in order to get another SC judge through, and sure if a little salt can be rubbed in the wounds of the libs afterwards then all the better.

I dont think its apologism, this weaponisation of sexual assault allegations has done serious damage to real allegations. Its become so common now that when the next time the republicans nominate somebody for something or appoint somebody happens , they could actually be a full on alleyway knifepoint rapist and id still probably think the democrats made it up.

You can't keep blowing the same trumpet every time someone you don't like shows up and expect it to be believed.

Professor Moriarty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh give it a rest. At that age at drinking parties stuff like that will happen. Only last week whilst going down Harcourt St on the Luas just after 11 or so two girls lifted their tops and pushed their boobs up against the window. Seen loads of teens moon in or around town in recent years too. So it's not a generation thing either, what I experienced at 17/18 at parties, in the likes of the Zoo Bar, still goes on today... and that's stuff I see out in public. Dorm parties and drinking games are always gonna result in the odd bit of risque behavior.

To then suggest, as you are, that this kind of thing supports the kind of allegations that Ford made? Are you for real?

Disgusting sanctimonious crap is all it is. We're talking about drunk teens ffs. Maybe you never experienced such shenanigans, but not all of us led such a sheltered sanitized life.

"...had his pants down at a different college party, where his friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."

This is sexual assault. This is a crime in Ireland.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont think its apologism, this weaponisation of sexual assault allegations has done serious damage to real allegations. Its become so common now that when the next time the republicans nominate somebody for something or appoint somebody happens , they could actually be a full on alleyway knifepoint rapist and id still probably think the democrats made it up.

You can't keep blowing the same trumpet every time someone you don't like shows up and expect it to be believed.

More nonsense.

No one has anything to fear from a proper investigation.

BTW - It's not a good look stopping one.

Hande hoche!

Is it Kavanaugh or his friends? The mechanics of the alleged deed seems puzzling. Still suppose we will get more details when the book is released.

Outlaw Pete

everlast75 wrote: »

No one knows until the facts are discovered.

Look, Deborah Ramirez's story has been around for almost a year, if not more. It's been rehashed now that everything else that's been thrown at the Trump Administration hasn't made a dent. This is desperation, nothing more.

Sure, no one knows until the facts are discovered, and that's the point, but yet people are still calling for the man to be removed from his job on the back of all this crap. Only last week Ford's allegations were shown to possibly have had nefarious motives but the MSM largely ignored it, as of course they are not interested in allegations which make anyone look bad other than those in their crosshairs.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/04/blasey-ford-attorney-admits-abortion-supported-motivated-anti-kavanaugh-accusations/

Oh and worth pointing out that even after over 35 years Ms. Ramirez was unsure about Brett even being the guy, but became "sure" with a little extra reflection, the previous 35 years not being enough I guess:

Ms. Ramirez initially told friends she had memory gaps and was not certain that Judge Kavanaugh was the person who exposed himself, as she related to Mr. Roche and some other old classmates last week. But, after six days of assessing her memories, The New Yorker reported, she said she was confident that Judge Kavanaugh was the man who had humiliated her.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Look, Deborah Ramirez's story has been around for almost a year, if not more. It's been rehashed now that everything else that's been thrown at the Trump Administration hasn't made a dent. This is desperation, nothing more.

Sure, no one knows until the facts are discovered, and that's the point, but yet people are still calling for the man to be removed from his job on the back of all this crap. Only last week Ford's allegations were shown to possibly have had nefarious motives but the MSM largely ignored it, as of course they are not interested in allegations which make anyone look bad other than those in their crosshairs.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/04/blasey-ford-attorney-admits-abortion-supported-motivated-anti-kavanaugh-accusations/

Oh and worth pointing out that even after over 35 years Ms. Ramirez was unsure about Brett even being the guy, but became "sure" with a little extra reflection. the previous 35 years not being enough I guess:

Again. Nonsense.

25 people were put forward as witnesses and they were not interviewed.

This is not due diligence.

He could be completely innocent. 100% possible. But it was ridiculous to place a time limitation on his appointment when there was no urgency. It was also ridiculous to limit the amount of people to be interviewed.

That's a fact and until a proper investigation is conducted there's a cloud over his tenure.

No right minded person would want that, so that alone is suspect at best.

duploelabs

Ok, aside from the 'morality' of behaving like you're in Animal House, here's a picture that needs to be painted on why Kavanaugh shouldn't be appointed.

What happens when he has to adjudicate on a case where something similar happens? And that moment when the accused places his c0ck in a girls hand and it leads to something worse, wouldn't that certainly be a moment that threatens Kavanaugh's ability to precide in that case?

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

Ok, aside from the 'morality' of behaving like you're in Animal House, here's a picture that needs to be painted on why Kavanaugh shouldn't be appointed.

What are you on about? He's already been appointed to the Supreme Court.

There are calls from those in congress to have him removed.

Eric Cartman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"...had his pants down at a different college party, where his friends pushed his penis into the hand of a female student."

This is sexual assault. This is a crime in Ireland.

would this have made it to criminal trial in 80s Ireland ?
Id agree if the incident happened then it is assault but yet again, different times, if it did even occur.

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

would this have made it to criminal trial in 80s Ireland ?
Id agree if the incident happened then it is assault but yet again, different times, if it did even occur.

There's multiple sources that back it up.... So yep with witnesses, that would in all likelihood end up in court here.

Professor Moriarty

Eric Cartman wrote: »

would this have made it to criminal trial in 80s Ireland ?
Id agree if the incident happened then it is assault but yet again, different times, if it did even occur.

It would have been a crime in the 80s. No doubt there were far fewer charges, but I know of one case where a man was convicted for a less serious sexual assault than Kavanaugh is accused of.

listermint

Weaponisation of sex crimes.


Ha. Yee lads have a con job name for everything. Hilarious.

borderlinemeath

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh give it a rest. At that age at drinking parties stuff like that will happen. Only last week whilst going down Harcourt St on the Luas just after 11 or so two girls lifted their tops and pushed their boobs up against the window. Seen loads of teens moon in or around town in recent years too. So it's not a generation thing either, what I experienced at 17/18 at parties, in the likes of the Zoo Bar, still goes on today... and that's stuff I see out in public. Dorm parties and drinking games are always gonna result in the odd bit of risque behavior.

To then suggest, as you are, that this kind of thing supports the kind of allegations that Ford made? Are you for real?

Disgusting sanctimonious crap is all it is. We're talking about drunk teens ffs. Maybe you never experienced such shenanigans, but not all of us led such a sheltered sanitized life.

So in your mind Pete, flashing your bits now equates to sexual assault of another person? I've been flashed at many times and sexually assaulted once. Guess which one affected me, my family, my relationships for decades after the fact?



You think it's just "drunk teens" and it's all just a bit of college craic? Fcuking men like you make me sick.

spacecoyote

It's also bull to suggest that it wouldn't matter who the Reps put forward that someone would "come up with an allegation".

Nothing controversial came out during the Gorsuch nomination process that I can remember?

Kermit.de.frog

Itssoeasy wrote: »

The light bulbs make his look orange ? You see in normal times you'd think that was a funny joke and you'd laugh or ignore it. The problem with trump is you're not exactly sure if he's joking or not. For all we know he may 100 % believe that these new lightbulbs make him look orange. The only problem is he looks orange whether near lightbulbs or not.

Mike Pounce, great guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Kj-Idjw8g

He does not even know the name of his own VP.

abff

Probably a Freudian slip. He knows that Mike is waiting to pounce when he finally gets caught.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh give it a rest. At that age at drinking parties stuff like that will happen.... Dorm parties and drinking games are always gonna result in the odd bit of risque behavior.

So you find the allegation credible?

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I dont think its apologism, this weaponisation of sexual assault allegations has done serious damage to real allegations.

How do you know it did not happen?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its become so common now

As common as... sexual assault? 'Cause that's prolific!

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that when the next time the republicans nominate somebody for something or appoint somebody happens , they could actually be a full on alleyway knifepoint rapist and i'd still probably think the democrats made it up.

That's called confirmation bias. You'd want to get that looked at.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You can't keep blowing the same trumpet every time someone you don't like shows up and expect it to be believed.

Every rape allegation deserves to be investigated. To think otherwise is barbaric and disgusting.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What are you on about? He's already been appointed to the Supreme Court.

There are calls from those in congress to have him removed.

Well done you got me on a typo, now can you address the question I raised?

peddlelies

Honestly, it's an absolute disgrace what the Democrats are trying to do to Brett Kavanaugh. Max Stier, a man who defended Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal and is allies with the like of Sidney Blumental is the witness, and the alleged victim doesn't have any recollection of the incident.

Someone shouldn't have their flawless decades long entire professional career ruined because they partied in college and did some drunken fueled things. If that was the case most of us wouldn't have a job. Kavanaugh isn't some sexual predator, and I'm not the surprised the activists at the NYT's would print such a story when the witness doesn't remember any such incident. There's journalism malpractice at best.

Outlaw Pete

listermint wrote: »

Weaponisation of sex crimes.

Ha. Yee lads have a con job name for everything. Hilarious.

Nothing hilarious about it. That's exactly what it is. It's why Ford wasn't told that she didn't have to appear in front of congress. Democrats used her to try and damage the Trump Administration and that's all this crap is about also. It's what every weekly whinge is about. From Russiagate to Sharipegate.

duploelabs wrote: »

Well done you got me on a typo, now can you address the question I raised?

Yeah, course I did. You didn't raise a question worth addressing.

The man has a crystal clean record in his adult life and such pathetic allegations don't warrant him being impeached. I'm all for due process though but I believe the accused in such cases should have anonymity and so we would only really hear of them if a guilty verdict is reached. Then the conversation might be worth having but it sure doesn't justify the pearl clutching and fake worry being expressed by liberals over the last few days, that's for damn sure.

Oh, and the NY Times have added this to their pretentious article:

abff

From reading this thread, it seems that the more allegations that are made against Trump and his appointees, the more his supporters see this as proof that there is a left wing media driven campaign of lies aimed at discrediting him. The mantra of his supporters seems to be "don't make any allegations until they have been proved beyond doubt in a court of law". If we adopted this approach, nobody would be allowed to make any allegations against anybody and nothing would ever get to court.

Having said this, false allegations do happen, and it's likely that not everything bad that's said about Trump and his appointees is true. But it's also extremely unlikely that none of it is true. And the main defence offered is to keep trumpeting "fake news" and hope that your supporters are blinkered enough to go along with the charade.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Outlaw Pete

abff wrote: »

The mantra of his supporters seems to be "don't make any allegations until they have been proved beyond doubt in a court of law". If we adopted this approach, nobody would be allowed to make any allegations against anybody and nothing would ever get to court.

We have anonymity for serious sexual crimes in Ireland. Many people go to court. Your assertion is false. Besides, it's one thing reporting on alleged allegations and quite another to be calling for impeachment on the back of them. The latter is clearly using such allegations as a political tool.

... it's also extremely unlikely that none of it is true. And the main defence offered is to keep trumpeting "fake news" and hope that your supporters are blinkered enough to go along with the charade.

No, the main defense has been to show how what's been claimed has zero truth to it. As was the case with Russiagate and all the other crap that Trump administration has had thrown at it. The notion that the only response has been to cry fake news and hope it goes a way is laughable. Almost every allegation has had to be disproven.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Indeed.

https://twitter.com/GrassleyPress/status/1173367605824016387

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

Someone shouldn't have their flawless decades long entire professional career ruined because they partied in college and did some drunken fueled things. If that was the case most of us wouldn't have a job. Kavanaugh isn't some sexual predator, and I'm not the surprised the activists at the NYT's would print such a story when the witness doesn't remember any such incident. There's journalism malpractice at best.

flawless decades long entire professional career - Nope! His career while in the White House was not properly assessed during the Senate hearings, as the Republicans limited access to White House documents. These documents have now been requested under the Presidential records Act. Also, dozens of complaints which had been lodged against Kavanaugh's judicial record under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act were dismissed (with no investigation) in December, following his appointment to the SCOTUS, as that Act does not apply to Supreme Court Justices.

If that was the case most of us wouldn't have a job - This 'job' is one of only 9 people who act (for life) as the final arbiters of all law and justice matters in the US. The issue here is not only that he may have engaged in doubtful and possibly criminal behaviour in College, but that he has lied repeatedly about it. If one of the 9 people has a dirty background, including lying and criminal behaviour, they simply are not worthy of having the blind faith and trust of 300+ million people invested in them.

Kavanaugh isn't some sexual predator. You cannot say that with any degree of confidence.Credible allegations were made about him having attempted rape of Blasey Ford, and assault of other girls. These allegations were NOT properly investigated, and the FBI was used (one of its darkest and most partisan actions of decades) to whitewash Kavanaugh and provide cover to Republican Senators who had to hold their nose(s) while voting for him. I believe that, based on all I read and saw at the time, Blasey Ford was credible and Kavanaugh was indeed a bad 'un.

There's journalism malpractice at best- Nope! This is yet another incidence of ongoing attempts to undermine the power of the Media to do their jobs. You can't just throw out allegations of journalism malpractice, just because you don't like the result. By all means, critically assess the evidence and refute the conclusions; however, continued undermining of media reporting efforts, fostered and practiced by powerful people to hide their transgressions since forever, must be resisted! Without credible reporting, based on proper standards of journalistic integrity, 'We The people" would have our rights and lives destroyed by power- hungry individuals whose only interest is self- enrichment and self- aggrandizement.

abff

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about this specific allegation, which appears to be unprovable, to say the least. I'm talking about the long litany of alleged wrongdoing and to dismiss most of this (such as Russiagate) as fake news is self serving (to say the least).

It's totally incorrect to say that Trump has been cleared of all wrongdoing in relation to Russia's involvement in the election and that he has been exonerated in any way. But let's put that to one side for the moment and let me ask you a question.

Do you believe that Russia interfered in the election in any way? Yes or no?

Leroy42

abff wrote: »

From reading this thread, it seems that the more allegations that are made against Trump and his appointees, the more his supporters see this as proof that there is a left wing media driven campaign of lies aimed at discrediting him. The mantra of his supporters seems to be "don't make any allegations until they have been proved beyond doubt in a court of law". If we adopted this approach, nobody would be allowed to make any allegations against anybody and nothing would ever get to court.

Having said this, false allegations do happen, and it's likely that not everything bad that's said about Trump and his appointees is true. But it's also extremely unlikely that none of it is true. And the main defence offered is to keep trumpeting "fake news" and hope that your supporters are blinkered enough to go along with the charade.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

And of course it is complete hypocrisy. What laws has HC every been convicted of? Yet Trump called her a crook.

He has continually called James Comey and others as corrupt without any trial. But it seems when it come to those that Trump supporters deem useful to their cause then it is all a left wing conspiracy and people should simply be left alone until such time as they are convicted.

And therein lies the real problem. I don't disagree with the position that Brett has been convicted of nothing and as such this is all just political (as I simply don't know the truth) but you can't hold that position and then also stand by when Trump calls out others on the exact same basis.

marno21

Anyone else think that the way Kavanaugh conducted himself during the confirmation hearings is more than enough of a red flag for him without taking into account the allegations?

Given the job involved, the temperament, refusing to answer questions, refusal to back an investigation and all that emotional outbursting and blubbering was appalling to watch

But it’s all so partisan now that any proper vetting of a nominee will be attacked as politically motivated by the “far left”. McConnells tweets yesterday are immediate proof of this

peddlelies

Leroy42 wrote: »

And of course it is complete hypocrisy. What laws has HC every been convicted of? Yet Trump called her a crook.

What's your definition of crook? She certainly sold out the state department during her time in office and has been involved in several scandals during her Political career involving money.

HE has continually called James Comey and others as corrupt without any trial. But it seems when it come to those that Trump supporters deem usual to their cause then it is all a left wing conspiracy and people should simply be left alone until such time as they are convicted.

Comey acted in unprecedented ways during his tenure as FBI director. He recommended not filing charges against Clinton when the FBI has no precedent to make such recommendations. McCabe is currently being charged and other higher ups like Strzok were kicked out so they are not above scrutiny, not at all. You don't have to be a "Trump supporter" to come to that conclusion. Same applies for other Government institutions like the CIA.

And therein lies the real problem. I don't disagree with the position that Brett has been convicted of nothing and as such this is all just political (as I simply don't know the truth) but you can't hold that position and then also stand by when Trump calls out others on the exact same basis.

Obviously I agree with the above sentiment. Trump is a crook but seemingly so far even though he's cheated people out of money and has questionable financing he's done it in ways that he holds no actual legal accountability. A clever crook, if you will.

everlast75

peddlelies wrote: »

What's your definition of crook? She certainly sold out the state department during her time in office and has been involved in several scandals during her Political career involving money.

Well, surely she fulfilled Trump's definition of a crook - "lock her up?". How's that going?

peddlelies wrote: »

Obviously I agree with the above sentiment. Trump is a crook but seemingly so far even though he's cheated people out of money and has questionable financing he's done it in ways that he holds no actual legal accountability. A clever crook, if you will.

JFC - are you actually serious?