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

Mahogany Gaspipe · 29-09-2018 5:52pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Because it popped up in my Twitter feed.

Ludo wrote: »

It is a fair reflection of his appearance yesterday...he was angry.

I am totally anti-trump and pretty strongly anti-republican in general but I must say I am torn over this whole thing. It is really a very tough situation all round but they do seem to finally have come to a sensible solution of a quick investigation. Even Trump is being pretty sensible about it so far (there's a thing I never thought I'd say).

As for Kavanaugh...I understand his anger yesterday and have no issue at all with that. If I was accused like that and innocent, I would probably react the same. On the other hand, he DID lie yesterday also repeatedly. Flatulence my arse!!! Drinking game? I don't think so.
I honestly don't know though if he is actually guilty of something or just liked to party (which is fine). It is a no-brainer to investigate or at least just ask the only other person who was (possibly) there.

To sum up....Lindsey Graham and Grassley are dicks. Booker and Harris are dicks. Flake seems to have character and hopefully, he sticks to his guns and gets backup.

Do either of you have any idea of the context of that particular moment?

Do you understand why those women in the audience have that upset look on their faces?

SimonTemplar · 29-09-2018 6:27pm

Mahogany Gaspipe wrote: »

Do either of you have any idea of the context of that particular moment?

Do you understand why those women in the audience have that upset look on their faces?

I posted the picture with no reference to the women or the picture's context. I simply said, "quite a photo", which it is.

looksee · 29-09-2018 7:14pm

In what sense 'quite a photo'? Its a man and a group of seated women, all looking somewhat put out. If you do not consider the context then its really rather a pointless photo.

splashuum · 29-09-2018 7:28pm

Its looking likely that Brett will be confirmed. This will be a win for humanity if true

.

mcmoustache · 29-09-2018 7:48pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.

Even worse is that this whole circus could have been avoided by putting a regular pro-gun, anti abortion conservative type in there who didn't have the baggage. Rjd has made this point before and I'm in full agreement. Remember that Gorsuch went through the process without any fratboy, rapey stuff coming out or him lying to the senate about that triangle stuff and boofing. Surely it can't be that hard to find a conservative judge without a lot of skeletons in his closet?

vetinari · 29-09-2018 8:10pm

Kavannaugh went full Trump mode for the hearing.
As someone else mentioned, it was a classic example of male privilege.
There's no way a female candidate could have acted in the same way.

His hearing should by rights be disqualifying.
A supreme court nominee should be expected to hold their composure under pressure.
He got very angry and deflected multiple questions.

Captain Obvious · 29-09-2018 8:24pm

vetinari wrote: »

Kavannaugh went full Trump mode for the hearing.
As someone else mentioned, it was a classic example of male privilege.
There's no way a female candidate could have acted in the same way.

His hearing should by rights be disqualifying.
A supreme court nominee should be expected to hold their composure under pressure.
He got very angry and deflected multiple questions.

Can you imagine if a case ever comes before him dealing with historical abuse or statute of limitations?

listermint · 29-09-2018 8:25pm

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Headshot · 29-09-2018 8:44pm

listermint wrote: »

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Made my weekend

Chuffed

Captain Obvious · 29-09-2018 8:46pm

Investigation by who?

Interesting comment under that tweet I didn't know.

On the oct. docket is Gamble vs US No 17-646. If voted by 4 other conservative judges and him the president can pardon federal crimes and states can’t take to trial.

Explains why Trump so desperate to get him through.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 9:38pm

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Can you imagine if a case ever comes before him dealing with historical abuse or statute of limitations?

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

listermint · 29-09-2018 9:41pm

[

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

He can't win because he's excuse the language. Been caught by the bollix.

It will all come out next week.

And the Russian money pouring into gop senators pockets shows all we need to know about the big horah they are causing over this.

Follow the money always follow the money.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 9:43pm

listermint wrote: »

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.[/quote/]

He can't win because he's excuse the language. Been caught by the bollix.

It will all come out next week.

And the Russian money pouring into gop senators pockets shows all we need to know about the big horah they are causing over this.

Follow the money always follow the money.

Hysterical hyper partisan nonsense.

listermint · 29-09-2018 9:44pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Hysterical hyper partisan nonsense.

Which part ?

The Russian money in good coffers it's well documented.

They will get their just returns.

Any buzzwords you want to respond with without acknowledging the discussion points again?

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 9:47pm

listermint wrote: »

Which part ?

The Russian money in good coffers it's well documented.

They will get their just returns.

Any buzzwords you want to respond with without acknowledging the discussion points again?

Look at what I wrote then look at your reply.

listermint · 29-09-2018 9:48pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Look at what I wrote then look at your reply.

You used buzzwords without commenting on the content.

Manic Moran · 29-09-2018 10:00pm

Rjd2 wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

The stupid thing is that we are now exactly where we should have been a month ago with the FBI investigation, but now we have had a circus as well.

Do you think he will be confirmed? If not do you have any preference who would replace him?

Obviously I know it will be very hard to get anyone else through before the midterms.:o

No idea. I suspect it will depend a bit on what the FBI has to say on the matter.
And, no, I do not. As long as the judge is well qualified, I’m happy enough. I’m old-school that way.

Sweetemotion · 29-09-2018 10:03pm

listermint wrote: »

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Under investigation from the FBI or under investigation from The Demcoalition?

listermint · 29-09-2018 10:03pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

No idea. I suspect it will depend a bit on what the FBI has to say on the matter.
And, no, I do not. As long as the judge is well qualified, I’m happy enough. I’m old-school that way.

Being qualified doesn't mean you should sit in a court.

Being old school doesn't mean you should drop minimum standards of being ethical not partisan as prerequisite for the job. Tbh.

Qualification doesn't cover the above it merely means they have the background and legal skills to make decisions on cases. But supreme court requires a bit more than that... The secret is in the title.

listermint · 29-09-2018 10:17pm

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Under investigation from the FBI or under investigation from The Demcoalition?

Appears to be independent presently.

For Forks Sake · 29-09-2018 10:24pm

listermint wrote: »

So Lindsey Graham is under investigation for campaign financing with ties to Russian money.

https://twitter.com/funder/status/1045765798688641024?s=20

Couldn't happen to a nicer charlatan

Please God/Allah/Ganesh/Satan/Flying Spaghetti Monster let there be some truth to this...

pixelburp · 29-09-2018 10:36pm

So apparently the FBI are only interviewing from a list of names given by the White House, which will not include the third accuser Swetnick (currently represented by Avenetti). A week never seemed a credible length of time to investigate to begin with, but with the WH dictating the scope, hard to see anything beyond a hasty whitewash in all this, and poltically convenient "yeah he seems fine".

vetinari · 29-09-2018 10:38pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

In the moment maybe,
10 days later, I'd expect a Supreme Court Justice nominee to have gathered his / her thoughts and be in control of his / her emotions.
Tbh, I'd regard what happened at the hearing as a "performance" by Kavannaugh. Doesn't mean he's innocent or guilt, just that he thought for some reason this would play well.

Rjd2 · 29-09-2018 10:46pm

listermint wrote: »

Appears to be independent presently.

He is an absolute grifter that guy, I'd have him on the same level as the Krassensteins and Candance Owens when it comes to credibility. Unsurprisingly asking for money non stop to investigate. :rolleyes:

If the Graham Russia link is there, it will be discovered by actual creditable Journos as the future. And nope not saying it won't be exposed if so in case anyone wants to bump this if confirmed.

Some reading on the wonderful Scott below.

https://splinternews.com/meet-the-anti-trump-scam-pac-getting-rich-off-the-resis-1822798967

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cash-for-coalition-against-trump-going-into-consultants-pockets-instead

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 10:50pm

vetinari wrote: »

In the moment maybe,
10 days later, I'd expect a Supreme Court Justice nominee to have gathered his / her thoughts and be in control of his / her emotions.
Tbh, I'd regard what happened at the hearing as a "performance" by Kavannaugh. Doesn't mean he's innocent or guilt, just that he thought for some reason this would play well.

Fair enough, thank you for the decent response.

I think I wouldn't be able to hold it in when Senators like Feinstein ( who many blame for this mess ) were treating the gang rapist claims by Avenetti as credible and asking him about it.

aloyisious · 29-09-2018 11:09pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

It's worth considering he's a judge and did have knowledge of how to portray one-self when under interview, esp in a court-room type setting. When he sat down in the committee room, my first thought was: where is his lawyer? Having one there would NOT indicate one is suspect or guilty. Prof Ford had one with her. Common-sense would have advised him to have one with him.

He should have had one to act as his mouthpiece as it would have avoided him losing his cool with the senators. I believe he didn't have one there as he would have been advised on his response which would have inhibited him when he chose to argue and vent in the showman way he did. He, IMO, was doing what Don had suggested to him, via the media, days earlier and go on the attack.

His opening address description of himself as a mass-attending catholic virgin schoolboy was more than slightly amazing given how his schoolmates and friends described him as having a drink digestion problem. I couldn't buy into his description of his not being an average red-blooded all-American late teenage schoolboy, esp after it came to his calendar listing of boofing etc. It was an over-the-top performance.

elli21 · 29-09-2018 11:10pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

If I accused you in public of being a gang rapist, would you get mad?

If he was quiet and portrayed no emotion he'd be accused of being cold, callous and emotionless like a sociopath.

Either way he can't win.

For me personally he could have won......when he went all alex jones and conspiracies and telling this group of octagariens that he couldn't recall that night instead of aflat denial..

I have to say to some who are willing to overlook this,

Shoe on the other foot ...would you tell those who were aboused here in Ireland...grand we will check into it ...but only for seven day's?

everlast75 · 29-09-2018 11:11pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

Fair enough, thank you for the decent response.

I think I wouldn't be able to hold it in when Senators like Feinstein ( who many blame for this mess ) were treating the gang rapist claims by Avenetti as credible and asking him about it.

*sigh*

"Many" people don't find her responsible. Republicans do.

"Avenatti" was not making the claims; his client was.

And its not up to you to determine whether the claim is credible or not. Now... if only there were a bunch of professionals who could determine that very fact.

2 Scoops · 29-09-2018 11:15pm

everlast75 wrote: »

*sigh*

"Many" people don't find her responsible. Republicans do.

"Avenatti" was not making the claims; his client was.

And its not up to you to determine whether the claim is credible or not. Now... if only there were a bunch of professionals who could determine that very fact.

My opinion is that her claims are not credible, and the NYT's stance on it leads me to believe they agree. My opinion is that Avenatti exploits vulnerable people for power and money. We're allowed to give our own opinions right, or is it only the ones which you agree with?

everlast75 · 29-09-2018 11:21pm

2 Scoops wrote: »

My opinion is that her claims are not credible, and the NYT's stance on it leads me to believe they agree. My opinion is that Avenatti exploits vulnerable people for power and money. We're allowed to give our own opinions right, or is it only the ones which you agree with?

So you accept its not Avenatti's claim then? Good stuff.

Your view on the validity of the claim, or mine, is irrelevant. The FBI should be the ones to make that call. Do you accept that?

Ask stormy Daniels how she is doing since he started representing her? She doesn't seem exploited to me.

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

Comments