Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…163164166168169…323

Comments

  • Options
    #4952
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    batgoat wrote: »
    Repeating this question, do you not see any problem with the fact that Kavanaugh categorically lied under oath to paint himself differently? He also actively opposes an investigation...

    I answered it earlier about why an innocent person would oppose an investigation.
    Have innocent people ever being found guilty of something they didn't do?

    Maybe one would change stance if one side is pushing he is a sex offender. Would you change stance if people accused you of something you didn't do, or would be some robot and not appear human? It is natural he became partisan, the Democrats assured this.


  • Options
    #4953
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,335 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    batgoat wrote: »
    Repeating this question, do you not see any problem with the fact that Kavanaugh categorically lied under oath to paint himself differently? He also actively opposes an investigation...

    Not to mention his lies about what he intends to do regarding roe v wade and women's reproductive rights after he gets onto the supreme court (but are these acceptable lies because everyone knows he's lying?)


  • Options
    #4954
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I wonder if the Democrats if they get into power any time soon, if they will change the law so it is guilty until proven innocent.

    Whether people believe Ford or Kavanaugh truly doesn't matter, there isn't a kangaroo court in the land that would convict him based on the evidence available, there's too many holes in her story.

    She can't remember the date, that's one thing I can believe and find normal. She can't remember the house or location, I find that very hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe she can't remember who drove her to the party and who drove her home, she lived more than 6 miles away. The named participants of a alleged small gathering reject her story including a life long friend who has said she's never met Kavanaugh.

    None of it adds up.


  • Options
    #4955
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,545 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I answered it earlier about why an innocent person would oppose an investigation.
    Have innocent people ever being found guilty of something they didn't do?

    Maybe one would change stance if one side is pushing he is a sex offender. Would you change stance if people accused you of something you didn't do, or would be some robot and not appear human? It is natural he became partisan, the Democrats assured this.

    So we will have a SCOTUS that doesn't believe in the legal and investigation system? Really?

    Why should a person that doesn't believe in the underlying tenents of a system be allowed into the top position?

    And where is the multiple papers I would assume he has written on the broken system and how he would go about repairing it?


  • Options
    #4956
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,335 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I answered it earlier about why an innocent person would oppose an investigation.
    Have innocent people ever being found guilty of something they didn't do?

    Maybe one would change stance if one side is pushing he is a sex offender. Would you change stance if people accused you of something you didn't do, or would be some robot and not appear human? It is natural he became partisan, the Democrats assured this.

    The democrats didn't raise the allegations, Mrs Ford did. The Democrats didn't put forward a nominee to the supreme court who had allegations of this kind hanging over his head. These allegations were first reported to both republican and democrat senators back in July this year.

    The GOP knew about these allegations, trump was urged to pick someone else, but Trump is Trump so now the craven republicans are going to put all ethics and principles and integrity aside and put (another) republican attempted rapist onto the supreme court


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4957
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    Akrasia wrote: »
    These allegations were first reported to both republican and democrat senators back in July this year.

    The GOP knew about these allegation

    You're joking right?

    Feinstein and CO sat on this for almost 2 months without informing any Republican senator until after Kavanaugh's final public hearing where it was leaked to the media.


  • Options
    #4958
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,889 ✭✭✭Christy42


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I wonder if the Democrats if they get into power any time soon, if they will change the law so it is guilty until proven innocent.
    You kind of just left this out there and left it.

    Was there a trial? It is a job interview. If I thought someone was a bank robber I would not vote to convict them without proof. I would absolutely avoid hiring them as a bank manager without complete proof though.


  • Options
    #4959
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I answered it earlier about why an innocent person would oppose an investigation.
    Have innocent people ever being found guilty of something they didn't do?

    Maybe one would change stance if one side is pushing he is a sex offender. Would you change stance if people accused you of something you didn't do, or would be some robot and not appear human? It is natural he became partisan, the Democrats assured this.

    Eh, that wasn't the question... He actively lied under oath, a lot and for the purpose of misrepresenting image. You see no problem with this? From a man who wishes to become a judge in the country's highest court...


  • Options
    #4960
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Christy42 wrote: »
    You kind of just left this out there and left it.

    Was there a trial? It is a job interview. If I thought someone was a bank robber I would not vote to convict them without proof. I would absolutely avoid hiring them as a bank manager without complete proof though.

    'I believe her' a soundbite and targeting voters by the Democrats.

    So their mantra is, if a woman makes an allegation during a job interview, it doesn't need a court case, it is open and shut and the person in the job interview is guilty.
    It is public character assassination by the Democrats who say they believe her - no trial gives them no reason to act like judges.


  • Options
    #4961
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Remember folks, Ford brought her allegations about Kavanagh before he was even nominated.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4962
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,682 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    You're joking right?

    Feinstein and CO sat on this for almost 2 months without informing any Republican senator until after Kavanaugh's final public hearing where it was leaked to the media.

    Are you being intentionally dense ? It was said several times yesterday that Dr Ford asked senator Feinstein to keep her letter and info confidential. So would you like US senators to go against the wishes of an alleged sexual victim ?


  • Options
    #4963
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,889 ✭✭✭Christy42


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Christy42 wrote: »
    You kind of just left this out there and left it.

    Was there a trial? It is a job interview. If I thought someone was a bank robber I would not vote to convict them without proof. I would absolutely avoid hiring them as a bank manager without complete proof though.

    'I believe her' a soundbite and targeting voters by the Democrats.

    So their mantra is, if a woman makes an allegation during a job interview, it doesn't need a court case, it is open and shut and the person in the job interview is guilty.
    It is public character assassination by the Democrats who say they believe her - no trial gives them no reason to act like judges.


    You honestly think you would get a trial if the hiring manager thought you were a bank robber? You simply would not get the job. It certainly would not mean you were guilty but you still don't get the job.

    Remember only side opposed an investigation into all of this. You keep complaining about a lack of absolute proof but that is damn difficult without an investigation for any crime. If you want proof beyond reasonable doubt you need an investigation.


  • Options
    #4964
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Are you being intentionally dense ? It was said several times yesterday that Dr Ford asked senator Feinstein to keep her letter and info confidential. So would you like US senators to go against the wishes of an alleged sexual victim ?

    Are you?

    He said the letter was given to both Republicans and Democrats and that Trump and GOP were aware of the allegations but pushed his nomination forward regardless.

    That is categorically false.

    Who leaked the letter to the press? It was either Ford's lawyers, or the Democrats. I know who my money is on.


  • Options
    #4965
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,682 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    RobertKK wrote: »
    'I believe her' a soundbite and targeting voters by the Democrats.

    So their mantra is, if a woman makes an allegation during a job interview, it doesn't need a court case, it is open and shut and the person in the job interview is guilty.
    It is public character assassination by the Democrats who say they believe her - no trial gives them no reason to act like judges.

    Robert as a poster who I like due to your posting in the weather forum and excellent contributions to that forum you are really letting yourself down with this horrible point of view. I know this will keep your up at night.


  • Options
    #4966
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,272 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I wonder how that will play out in the mid terms, in my opinion neither party has showered themselves in glory here. I think a lot of GOP supporters will see this as pure political manouvering by the dems and it could help mobilize their voters.

    This, with a caveat.

    I have no doubt that lots of folks on both sides of the spectrum are mobilised to come out. But the elections in November are not a national tally. The same Senate seats are up for re-election after this hearing as they were before, and only ten of them are really competitive. And most of those are held by Democrats in States where Trump won fairly well. So even if every one of the millions of left-leaning California voters is mobilised as a result of this to come out and vote for Feinstein or DeLeon, that doesn't help the problem that Manchin has keeping his seat in West, by God, Virginia, where partisan mobilisation will do him (and Democrats) no favours at all. There's a reason that -both- sides are crying "roll on, elections in November!". Both sides see reason to be bullish.

    batgoat wrote: »
    Repeating this question, do you not see any problem with the fact that Kavanaugh categorically lied under oath to paint himself differently?

    So, here's the thing. I've seen this a few times on here, and not having watched the whole thing, I'm kindof reliant on external assessments (Most of which I'm actually getting from here). Yet if I go to the major news sites, and look at their analysis, I would have thought that categorically lying under oath would be enough to get a couple of decent mentions.

    The closest BBC comes is a comment on the drinking age in Maryland, but spends more time interviewing women who went to DC (on both sides). CNN has a whole article on whether it's OK for men to cry, or another on the clash with Senator Klobuchar about who drinks too much. RTE is fairly dispassionate about the whole thing, but also doesn't mention lies.

    Obviously right-leaning sites don't mention it either, but if I go to some slightly more left-leaning sites, such as MSNBC's Maddow section, or Slate, lying under oath does get mentioned.

    The take-away from this for me seems to be that if there were lies, they obviously weren't considered particularly significant enough in the big scheme of things for the major news networks to spend much time on, or that there is a confirmation bias going on.


  • Options
    #4967
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,682 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Are you?

    He said the letter was given to both Republicans and Democrats and that Trump and GOP were aware of the allegations but pushed his nomination forward regardless.

    That is categorically false.

    No I'm not I was referring to your comment about senator Feinstein sitting on the letter knowingly when you've been told the reason why she did it.


  • Options
    #4968
    Rhineshark
    Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Whether people believe Ford or Kavanaugh truly doesn't matter, there isn't a kangaroo court in the land that would convict him based on the evidence available, there's too many holes in her story.

    She can't remember the date, that's one thing I can believe and find normal. She can't remember the house or location, I find that very hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe she can't remember who drove her to the party and who drove her home, she lived more than 6 miles away. The named participants of a alleged small gathering reject her story including a life long friend who has said she's never met Kavanaugh.

    None of it adds up.

    Especially the oft-repeated lie at the bottom. Her friend said she herself was not there but that she believes Blasey Ford.

    It's amazing how that lie is repeated over and over and over.

    Less amazing that the same people who keep repeating it carefully elide around that Mark Judge won't testify to his friend's innocence under oath. That apparently means nothing in comparison to Blasey Ford's friend not being there. That is somehow positive proof she is lying. That Judge won't testify means...oh, it's a partisan witch hunt. Or something.


  • Options
    #4969
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,457 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    RobertKK wrote: »
    'I believe her' a soundbite and targeting voters by the Democrats.

    So their mantra is, if a woman makes an allegation during a job interview, it doesn't need a court case, it is open and shut and the person in the job interview is guilty.
    It is public character assassination by the Democrats who say they believe her - no trial gives them no reason to act like judges.

    Simple question for You

    You have to hire someone to work the tills in a business

    You hear that the person is suspected of multiple offences for theft of cash.

    Would you hire that person because "innocent until proven guilty"?


  • Options
    #4970
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    No I'm not I was referring to your comment about senator Feinstein sitting on the letter knowingly when you've been told the reason why she did it.

    They could have handled and properly investigated the accusation behind closed doors in a bipartisan manner. Instead it was leaked to the press at the last minute, it wasn't the Republicans who leaked it.


  • Options
    #4971
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Whether people believe Ford or Kavanaugh truly doesn't matter, there isn't a kangaroo court in the land that would convict him based on the evidence available, there's too many holes in her story.

    She can't remember the date, that's one thing I can believe and find normal. She can't remember the house or location, I find that very hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe she can't remember who drove her to the party and who drove her home, she lived more than 6 miles away. The named participants of a alleged small gathering reject her story including a life long friend who has said she's never met Kavanaugh.

    None of it adds up.


    Her friend said she believes her, she just doesn't remember the party. But when 4 older boys ply two fifteen year olds with drink that's not exactly surprising is it? The only person who said it didn't happen was Kavanaugh. Everyone else said they don't remember the party in question. Again, not surprising if they didn't know anything happened there. Judge is the only one who was supposed to have witnessed it and he doesn't want to give evidence because of anxiety issues caused by his alcoholism.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4972
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,545 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    They could have handled and properly investigated the accusation behind closed doors in a bipartisan manner. Instead it was leaked to the press at the last minute, it wasn't the Republicans who leaked it.

    You think the GOP would have gone through a proper investigation had the story not come out?

    really? Even when presented with the testimony they don't want to start an investigation.

    You can't be this naive


  • Options
    #4973
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    Rhineshark wrote: »
    Especially the oft-repeated lie at the bottom. Her friend said she herself was not there but that she believes Blasey Ford.

    It's amazing how that lie is repeated over and over and over.

    What lie?

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/leland-ingham-keyser-pj-smyth-who-christine-blasey-ford-says-was-at-party-kavanaugh-judge-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

    "Ford recalled that her friend, Leland Keyser (maiden name Ingham), was downstairs at the party during the alleged incident, but that she did not discuss it with Keyser after it happened.

    Keyser, a long-time friend of Ford's, denied having attended such a party like the one Ford described after being contacted by staff for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," her attorney Howard Walsh wrote in a statement sent to the committee."


  • Options
    #4974
    Rhineshark
    Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    They could have handled and properly investigated the accusation behind closed doors in a bipartisan manner. Instead it was leaked to the press at the last minute, it wasn't the Republicans who leaked it.

    Nor was it Feinstein. It was leaked after it was given to the FBI and put onto Kavanaugh's background. It was leaked from there.

    And yes, although I would argue that a non-partisan investigation by qualified people (like, say, the FBI) would be more appropriate.

    Funny how the women were all willing to testify and wanted the investigation, as did the democrats but the republicans didn't.


  • Options
    #4975
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,682 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    They could have handled and properly investigated the accusation behind closed doors in a bipartisan manner. Instead it was leaked to the press at the last minute, it wasn't the Republicans who leaked it.

    The woman in question wasn't even sure she wanted to go public with it so she asked for her name or any info not to be released. It was leaked(not that it was good it leaked) after her name was known so it was inevitable that it was going to come out after her name was out there. Yesterday showed how broken a system the USA has for a national parliament. Both sides aren't clean in the way things have gone in general and not just yesterday.


  • Options
    #4976
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,682 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    What lie?

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/leland-ingham-keyser-pj-smyth-who-christine-blasey-ford-says-was-at-party-kavanaugh-judge-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

    "Ford recalled that her friend, Leland Keyser (maiden name Ingham), was downstairs at the party during the alleged incident, but that she did not discuss it with Keyser after it happened.

    Keyser, a long-time friend of Ford's, denied having attended such a party like the one Ford described after being contacted by staff for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," her attorney Howard Walsh wrote in a statement sent to the committee."

    Well then Ms. Keyser is not being forth coming as judge Kavanagh was asked did he know ms keyser and he said not well but he knew her.


  • Options
    #4977
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    The media outlet who first published this accusation have stated that it was not Feinstein or her staff who leaked it.


  • Options
    #4978
    2 Scoops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    Rhineshark wrote: »
    Nor was it Feinstein. It was leaked after it was given to the FBI and put onto Kavanaugh's background. It was leaked from there.

    Oh right, that's news to me. When did the FBI receive the letter from Feinstein?


  • Options
    #4979
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I answered it earlier about why an innocent person would oppose an investigation.
    Have innocent people ever being found guilty of something they didn't do?

    Just so I'm clear: your argument is that a candidate for Supreme Court Justice - a sitting Federal Appeals Court Judge - opposes the idea of being investigated by the FBI because he's worried they'll somehow, what? frame him? screw up the investigation?

    You're arguing that a nominee for the Supreme Court is justified in not trusting the FBI?


  • Options
    #4980
    Rhineshark
    Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Oh right, that's news to me. When did the FBI receive the letter from Feinstein?

    12 Sept I seem to recall, but I would have to check that again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4981
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    What lie?

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/leland-ingham-keyser-pj-smyth-who-christine-blasey-ford-says-was-at-party-kavanaugh-judge-2018-9?r=US&IR=T

    "Ford recalled that her friend, Leland Keyser (maiden name Ingham), was downstairs at the party during the alleged incident, but that she did not discuss it with Keyser after it happened.

    Keyser, a long-time friend of Ford's, denied having attended such a party like the one Ford described after being contacted by staff for the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    "Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," her attorney Howard Walsh wrote in a statement sent to the committee."


    How do you rate the reliability of a statement saying you were not at a party with someone when you don't know them.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement