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

prawnsambo · 07-09-2018 02:15PM

Celticfire wrote: »

You talk about hypocrisy.... your defending of Bookers falsehood is the very definition of same. You continually spout about how POTUS shouldn't do this or that as it demeans the office. Now a Senator lies to his peers and the public in an official confirmation hearing but that can be fobbed off with excuses. If there's proof that Kavanagh lied under oath then let it be presented. At least that would be a worthy reason to release classified material.

Well, judging by the tweet above your post, that's not entirely clear.

Leroy42 · 07-09-2018 02:27PM

I'm not defending anything, but it seems unclear as the exact sequence of events. I am asking why you seem so unmoved by the clear fact that the GOP attempted to hide documents? This is one of the greatest positions in the country, a life time appointment, an appointment that could impact each and every American for decades to come, and yet you have no issue with how the GOP are going about it.

Why not release the document in the 1st place?
Why was it considered confidential until requested by Booker?
What other documents exist that have been similarly classified yet, like those documents, incorrectly so?

But, and herein lies the key difference, if he did lie and he himself has stated that he is willing to suffer the consequences for his actions, then fine by me that he faces an inquiry. But we both know that won't happen. Not because Booker will use the apparatus of the state to get way with it, but the GOP are not going to launch an investigation into their shady dealings. The DNC would love that.

Exactly what consequences did Sessions suffer for lying under oath? What consequences has Trump suffered for his continual lying? And grand standing? And simply making up claims to try to get PR for himself?

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 02:49PM

You have to laugh at the WH.

There are literally hundreds of people who work there who could have written that article, opining that the President was unfit for office.
(What an indictment that is!)

So they are furious, talk about lie detector tests and sworn affidavits in order to lock this whole thing down.

They narrow down the suspects to 12....... and then that fact is leaked.

It would be hilarious if not so much worrying.

amandstu · 07-09-2018 02:58PM

everlast75 wrote: »

You have to laugh at the WH.

There are literally hundreds of people who work there who could have written that article, opining that the President was unfit for office.
(What an indictment that is!)

So they are furious, talk about lie detector tests and sworn affidavits in order to lock this whole thing down.

They narrow down the suspects to 12....... and then that fact is leaked.

It would be hilarious if not so much worrying.

Giuliani?(not sure if he is firing on all cylinders)

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 03:58PM

here's hoping for a decent sentence for oul George Papadopoulos "aka the coffee boy" today...

Another victim of the "Witch Hunt"!!!?

Hande hoche! · 07-09-2018 04:31PM

everlast75 wrote: »

here's hoping for a decent sentence for oul George Papadopoulos "aka the coffee boy" today...

Another victim of the "Witch Hunt"!!!?

Wouldn't have a tremendous amount of sympathy alright. Was a voluntary interview and he seemed prone to mouthing off.

Would be more curious as to the Flynn sentencing. If they ever get around to it at this rate.

26000 Elephants · 07-09-2018 05:08PM

Celticfire wrote: »

You talk about hypocrisy.... your defending of Bookers falsehood is the very definition of same. You continually spout about how POTUS shouldn't do this or that as it demeans the office. Now a Senator lies to his peers and the public in an official confirmation hearing but that can be fobbed off with excuses. If there's proof that Kavanagh lied under oath then let it be presented. At least that would be a worthy reason to release classified material.

We have to get to the root of the confidential documents ( that were not confidential at all) being released into the public domain when they were auhorised to be released in the public domain when.... err, what was the problem again?

Oh, that the Republicans have abused privilege to frustrate the proper due diligence expected in vetting SCOTUS nominations.

Dont let indignation allow you to lose sight of the real issue here.

RIGOLO · 07-09-2018 05:11PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not misunderstanding the system; I'm disagreeing with your initial assertion. Here it is again:

We're not discussing the weird mechanics of how the USA elects its President; we're literally discussing "what the country wants". I'm arguing that if more people in a country vote for A than for B, then the country wants A. You're arguing that if the electoral college translates a majority for A into a win for B, then the country wants B.

I accept that Trump won. I accept that the electoral college is designed to replace the will of the people with a best-guess approximation of the will of the states based on an assortment of interpretations of the will of the peoples of those respective states. I don't accept that it can be meaningfully described as representing what the country wants.

That this post got 14 likes tells me that alot about the anti-Trumpers on here, that they dont actually understand the fundamental structure of the United States of America.
Which is ironic, considering they live in the European Union.

currently torn between watching Obama rewrite history on the mid-terms campaign trail in illinois or getting a $40K education via Kavanaughs senate hearings. Obama is stumbling thru his rhetoric trying to balance the nonsense that got him elected with the realism of the world today. He is getting a muted response, same as when Hilary went on the road, no passion, would put you to sleep.
Senate hearing it is,

PropJoe10 · 07-09-2018 05:23PM

everlast75 wrote: »

You have to laugh at the WH.

There are literally hundreds of people who work there who could have written that article, opining that the President was unfit for office.
(What an indictment that is!)

So they are furious, talk about lie detector tests and sworn affidavits in order to lock this whole thing down.

They narrow down the suspects to 12....... and then that fact is leaked.

It would be hilarious if not so much worrying.

He's asking Sessions to look at it now. Not exactly sure what the Justice Department has to do with someone giving an opinion on the state of the Trump presidency.

Manic Moran · 07-09-2018 05:36PM

We're not discussing the weird mechanics of how the USA elects its President; we're literally discussing "what the country wants". I'm arguing that if more people in a country vote for A than for B, then the country wants A. You're arguing that if the electoral college translates a majority for A into a win for B, then the country wants B.

The difference is that you are viewing the US as a singular body politic, a position which has nothing to substantiate it in either the documentation of the legal structure, nor its history.

To a point, this is understandable. The Constitution has designed the US to act as a single body to all countries outside the US. It specifically reserves foreign relations to the federal government. To all practical effect, the US is an 'it' to Ireland. That is not, however, how the US operates internally. There is not a single federal decision in which the US can be driven by a 'nationwide' opinion. I am as subject to the laws and constitution of California as you are to the laws and Constitution of Ireland (I presume you're in Ireland), and what goes in New York affects me every bit as much as what goes in Germany affects you. Basically not at all, we're effectively separate countries under a common umbrella. The direction of that umbrella goes is determined by the States guided by their people, not the people of the umbrella.

You can't say that the "US" wants something when you mistake what the US actually is.

SimonTemplar · 07-09-2018 06:06PM

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

WinnyThePoo · 07-09-2018 06:19PM

The Kavanagh hearing was hard to watch today. Weird having such emotional testimonies followed by fluff testimonies.

What sort of man do you have to be, to have 13 year old kid testify you.

UsedToWait · 07-09-2018 06:22PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

The Kavanagh hearing was hard to watch today. Weird having such emotional testimonies followed by fluff testimonies.

What sort of man do you have to be, to have 13 year old kid testify you.

Care to expand a bit for those of us who didn't see it?

Headshot · 07-09-2018 06:26PM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

It's a such joy to listen to such a great orator.

pixelburp · 07-09-2018 06:30PM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

The first time he has referred to Trump by name as well: I imagine there'll be a corresponding Twitter storm to match. Trump's hatred for the man is irrational and has demonstrably dictated policy.

It's hard to see what a speech might do, beyond persuade any lingering centrists, independents of their better angels. Obama was such a vilified, hated figure among the GOP central any speech by him will just be condemned as interfering or whatnot.

WinnyThePoo · 07-09-2018 06:33PM

UsedToWait wrote: »

Care to expand a bit for those of us who didn't see it?

Basically a number of civilians picked from democrats and reps testified for or against Kavanagh.

So a girl who was at a school shooting( sandy hook) testified they she had to pick body parts from her hair.

This was followed by and old college buddy talking how great Kavanagh was at playing basketball and he drives his kids to school. This was followed by a 13 year old kid, who's family can't even afford to keep paying his medical bills. If obamacare is taken from him, he will die. That was followed by a former clerk of Kavanagh again just saying what a stand up guy Kavanagh is.

Now senators are talking, all the republicans are not even acknowledging the kids.

https://twitter.com/2Tall2Furious/status/1038125377321873409

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 06:42PM

Headshot wrote: »

It's a such joy to listen to such a great orator.

I think he's a good orator but not necessarily a great one. It's just that the current idiot is a blithering buffoon who loses his train of thought after four words. I'm watching the speech now and it is pretty good so far. I hope he takes the gloves off more as the yanks get closer to the election.

StringerBell · 07-09-2018 06:45PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

He gets a pass because he is a left winger. The Republicans **** up on the hourly and get hammered and so often they deserve it, but ultimately the same standards don't apply for the Dems.

Im sorry, but this is nonsense and even a cursory glance at what happens when there is a scandal concerning a Rep and one concerning a Dem would tell you this.

There certainly does appear to be a difference in standards applied but it isn't the way you think. Look into it a bit more I'd urge you.

Start with searching about paying off mistresses, Roy Moore, Al franken, Anthony Weiner, Donald Trump.

That will get you started

UsedToWait · 07-09-2018 06:49PM

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Brilliant speech there by Obama. Really rebuked the GOP.

Headshot wrote: »

It's a such joy to listen to such a great orator.

Trump:

"'I'm sorry.
I watched it.
But I fell asleep"

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/07/trump-obama-speech-response-north-dakota-sot-vpx.cnn

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 06:52PM

UsedToWait wrote: »

Trump:

"'I'm sorry.
I watched it.
But I fell asleep"

Wildean wit indeed...

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 06:57PM

StringerBell wrote: »

This is nonsense

You are correct.

Booker released some stuff that was allowed but he also released documents that he was not allowed to.

McConnell is under the impression that he broke some rules.

Washington Post wrote:

During a radio interview, McConnell characterized Booker’s actions as “unusual behavior” and said it “wouldn’t surprise me” if it draws the attention of the Ethics Committee.
“When you break the Senate rules, it’s something the Ethics Committee could take a look at,” McConnell told host Hugh Hewitt. “And that would be up to them to decide. But it’s routinely looked at by the Ethics Committee.”

BabyCheeses · 07-09-2018 06:57PM

RIGOLO wrote: »

That this post got 14 likes tells me that alot about the anti-Trumpers on here, that they dont actually understand the fundamental structure of the United States of America.
Which is ironic, considering they live in the European Union.

currently torn between watching Obama rewrite history on the mid-terms campaign trail in illinois or getting a $40K education via Kavanaughs senate hearings. Obama is stumbling thru his rhetoric trying to balance the nonsense that got him elected with the realism of the world today. He is getting a muted response, same as when Hilary went on the road, no passion, would put you to sleep.
Senate hearing it is,

Unfortunately politics generally isn't aimed at the same demographic as children's TV. It can be boring when the adults talk.

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 07:06PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think he's a good orator but not necessarily a great one. It's just that the current idiot is a blithering buffoon who loses his train of thought after four words. I'm watching the speech now and it is pretty good so far. I hope he takes the gloves off more as the yanks get closer to the election.

Responding to myself to say that this is a good speech.

It's amazing to hear a US president use complete sentences and stick to the point that they're trying to make. It's also nice to see a president who is sane and doesn't make you think "what is this weird ****?". It's a low bar, but here we are.

UsedToWait · 07-09-2018 07:18PM

Trump audio from Air Force One answering a question as to whether he'll agree to meet Meuller.

Essentially, he will if it's fair.

Started rambling then, as is his wont, to the clearly single phrase that his aides have drilled into him on any given topic.
In this case "Article 2"
Seems they are recycling this canard from Guiliani which excuses Trump of obstruction of justice in sacking Comey, due to the President's right to hire and fire at whim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/07/24/giulianis-new-mueller-theory-actually-reveals-weakness-of-trumps-position/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.370a5f7d16eb

as the head of the executive branch, he has control over all Justice Department investigations, including into himself. Therefore, there is no reason for Mueller to question him about such actions

everlast75 · 07-09-2018 07:34PM

He's had a year to meet Mueller.

He wants people to think he will, but he is scared stiff

Manic Moran · 07-09-2018 07:36PM

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Basically a number of civilians picked from democrats and reps testified for or against Kavanagh.

So a girl who was at a school shooting( sandy hook) testified they she had to pick body parts from her hair.

This was followed by and old college buddy talking how great Kavanagh was at playing basketball and he drives his kids to school. This was followed by a 13 year old kid, who's family can't even afford to keep paying his medical bills. If obamacare is taken from him, he will die. That was followed by a former clerk of Kavanagh again just saying what a stand up guy Kavanagh is.

Now senators are talking, all the republicans are not even acknowledging the kids.

https://twitter.com/2Tall2Furious/status/1038125377321873409

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.

oscarBravo · 07-09-2018 08:02PM

RIGOLO wrote: »

That this post got 14 likes tells me that alot about the anti-Trumpers on here, that they dont actually understand the fundamental structure of the United States of America.

That was probably a devastating rebuttal in your head, but it didn't actually say anything meaningful whatsoever. If you want to understand how to make reasoned and well-argued posts - albeit posts I'll largely disagree with - you should read Manic's posts carefully.

Which is ironic, considering they live in the European Union.

I have no idea what your point is.

Obama is stumbling thru his rhetoric...

Coming from a Trump fan, that's mind-numbingly ironic.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The difference is that you are viewing the US as a singular body politic, a position which has nothing to substantiate it in either the documentation of the legal structure, nor its history.

[...]

You can't say that the "US" wants something when you mistake what the US actually is.

We're still talking about your "what the country wants" concept. You're arguing that the electoral college reflects the wishes of the country. That strikes me as an article of faith, rather than being grounded in anything rational.

If you're going to argue that the US isn't a singular body politic, that's absolutely fine. I think that a logical consequence of that argument is that you can't lay any claim to what the country "wants". If you're going to anthropomorphise a political entity, I think it's disingenuous to then try to decouple it from its population.

listermint · 07-09-2018 08:09PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The difference is that you are viewing the US as a singular body politic, a position which has nothing to substantiate it in either the documentation of the legal structure, nor its history.

To a point, this is understandable. The Constitution has designed the US to act as a single body to all countries outside the US. It specifically reserves foreign relations to the federal government. To all practical effect, the US is an 'it' to Ireland. That is not, however, how the US operates internally. There is not a single federal decision in which the US can be driven by a 'nationwide' opinion. I am as subject to the laws and constitution of California as you are to the laws and Constitution of Ireland (I presume you're in Ireland), and what goes in New York affects me every bit as much as what goes in Germany affects you. Basically not at all, we're effectively separate countries under a common umbrella. The direction of that umbrella goes is determined by the States guided by their people, not the people of the umbrella.

You can't say that the "US" wants something when you mistake what the US actually is.

That would make sense of us citizens living and working abroad were not taxed back in the us or is it only California that taxes you.

To say it's a mixed up poorly functional political and governmental country would be an understatement.

mcmoustache · 07-09-2018 08:15PM

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.

There's a bit of a difference here. This is the first time since Clinton that a president has been threatened by a subpoena from a special/independent counsel.

Kavanaugh has opinions on that that are obviously helpful to a president who doesn't want to comply with one. It's also helpful to a president who might do illegal things. He seems to believe that impeachment is the only way to sanction a president.

As John Dean testified, Kavanaugh's views suggest that if a President murders someone, law enforcement cand do anything about it until he's impeached or out of office.

“Under Judge Kavanaugh’s recommendation, if a president shot somebody in cold blood on Fifth Avenue, that president could not be prosecuted while in office,” Dean, a key witness in the Watergate hearings, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday.

This leads to some rather absurd scenarios where a president could theoritically shoot all of the opposition in the head and not be guilty of a crime.

listermint · 07-09-2018 08:18PM

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.

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

Comments