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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

1102103105107108194

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    everlast75 wrote: »
    You're saying there are no facts to back up the claim, and have formed that view without the claim being investigated. If you can't see the lack of sense in that statement i can't help you.

    You're fine with the FBI investigating. On that we can agree. However, that's not what you were insinuating earlier.

    What do you think all the written statements under penalty of perjury are for?

    I'm not insinuating anything other than that I don't find the accusations at this moment in time to be credible and I suspect some of them at least are politically or financially motivated, let's see in a week after the FBI are done.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    What do you think all the written statements under penalty of perjury are for?

    I'm not insinuating anything other than that I don't find the accusations at this moment in time to be credible and I suspect some of them at least are politically or financially motivated, let's see in a week after the FBI are done.

    Again. We can agree to disagree but making a statement and being questioned are two entirely different things.

    Let's take this back up next week


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    aloyisious wrote: »

    Just as a matter of interest, where did the milage distance [6+ miles to/from] the alleged party house come from. if she didn't know where that house is?

    She claims to know the general area, but not the house in question.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kavanaugh-hearing-live-updates-terrified-emotional-christine-blasey/story?id=58107237

    Displaying a map of the distance between her parents' home and the Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, Md., Mitchell asked: “We calculated the distance from the closest point to your house from a mile radius of the country club, and then the farthest point. You can see it's 6.2 and of course 8.2 miles. And you've described this as being near the country club, wherever this house was. Is that right?”

    “I would describe it as somewhere between my house and the country club in that vicinity that's shown in your picture.”

    After confirming that it would be “fair to say” that someone drove her to or from the party, as Mitchell put it, Ford admitted that no one came forward as the person who drove her.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 915 ✭✭✭2 Scoops


    Trump holding a rally live now, will be interesting to see what he says on the Kavanaugh situation



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,286 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    In July when Feinstein got the letter about the alleged assault from Ford she should have made the judicial committee aware of it at that time instead of sitting on it. At that time she should have also informed Ford that she had two choices, either she went public with it there and then and let an investigation happen, or else she kept quiet about it. The statute of lmitations has kicked in so it's not as if she can press charges. Her keeping quiet about it until after the guy's hearing and then raising it is pure political BS imo and it's hasn't done Ford any favours either. Last I heard she's received death threats and has to be protected by police. Both the dems utilisation of this and the GOPs response have been a total disgrace.

    I think it always pays to be cynical especially in politics and imo the only reason they didn't go public with this back in July is because it would have given Trump ample time to vet and choose someone else. Bringing it out now is a last ditch effort to try and stall the nomination until after mid terms when maybe the dems could block it altogether. There's an awful lot at stake here. Trump is replacing a swing vote in the supreme court with a safe conservative vote potentially altering the balance for decades.


  • Registered Users Posts: 364 ✭✭qwerty ui op


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    The people she claimed were there all say they have no recollection of the party,

    You have no problem getting this right, yet the nominee for the supreme court in the most important hearing of his life fails to do this. Time and time again he says "the witnesses who were there said it didn't happen"
    At one point Booker corrects him and points out what Ms Kaiser actually said and reminds him that she(Kaiser) believes Dr. Ford. Kavanaugh seems to take this on board but moments later reverts back to the false talking point and states again "all four witnesses say it didn't happen"
    Apart from all the lies at the hearing, he showed very poor judgement going for the full choirboy image in the Fox news interview. He came across detatched from the real world trying to pull that off. How dump does he actually think regular folk are.
    I thought Ms Mitchell was getting somewhere with her questioning and I think the R senators did too, thats why they changed tack and Graham came in with his big outburst. Kavanaugh was actually answering her questions whereas it was all filibuster and lies for the Dems.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,260 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Are people still under the impression Ford did not name Kavanaugh before he was the nominee?

    Or is it just a tactic to paint her as a political operative in some way? She named him before he was picked, it's not like if another guy on the list had been picked she could have changed her story to say that guy had assaulted her.

    Also the performance of Kavanaugh the other day and his repeated lies under oath are enough to disqualify someone from the highest seat of integrity in the land. At least they should be given the guidelines, obviously we are in a new normal these days where it's just about winning. Getting your guy on at all costs.

    Neither sure comes out of this will in terms of the politics but surely all can see this man has neither the temperment or the integrity to be worthy of a seat. He has shown himself already to be extremely partisan, how can he pretend to rule justly and impartially when he has raved about conspiracy theories in front of the Senate! His arrogance eminated from the screen. Throw partisan nature of the man is yet another disqualifying feature

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Site Banned Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭RIGOLO


    Been a riveting couple of weeks , but Im still looking forward to 2020, with the potential for Brett Kavanuagh Supreme Court Justice to swear in Donald J Trump for his second term, now that would be something.

    This is another seismic moment in the evolution of the USA, another occasion where America is confronted by two paths, by a schism of ideology and is being given an opportunity to decide which direction to go. The USA has a long history of power struggles between fundamental ideological beliefs going all the way back to the founding fathers Hamilton (the Federalist) and Jefferson (The Republican) and their opposing viewpoints . This one is playing out in front of the electorate eyes and I welcome that.

    Id disagree on the whole ‘circus’ analogy , whilst there have been moments of ‘clownish’ behaviour (Spartucus Booker leaving the room) for the most part the importance of how these events are playing out cannot be over stated. This is not really about Ford V Kavanaugh, it never was, lets face it the plot lines and real adversaries on this are far bigger than that. This current crop of Democrats are expounding how the US will look under their Totalitarian regime whilst the GOP are fighting to retain whats left and true to the founding fathers principles. And for that Lindsay Grahams speech alone was worth going through this whole process, and represented a rallying call.

    Whats most important about this event is its showing the electorate what things will be like if this current crop of Dems get back into power. And that is turning off more voters than its wining.
    Just like the Senate judiciary committee where the 10 Dems were never going to vote for Kavanaugh and had said so prior, little has changed but at the same time so much has changed.
    Elections are not about winning your own party supporters votes, elections are about winning the middle of the road voter, and this episode has done more for the GOP on that front.

    Like I said Diane Feinstein is the gift that keeps giving , shes a train wreck and the longer shes at the helm the lower the Democratic party will go. I suppose that’s something to be grateful for to the more than 5 million Californians who want a 90 year old representing them in the Senate, yes a 90 year old their own California Democratic Party didn’t endorse will best represent the state of California.

    Main stream media has been caught out once again as the paid shill for the left. Theres been so many of their stories that have been backtracked or pulled its hard to keep track. But I guess if Avenatti is what appeals to the left these days, then the MSM have to trot him out to his fans every so often for a soundbite and some clickbait and to keep the advertising revenue ticking over.

    The FBI investigation will rubber stamp the selection of Kavanaugh, but post that 1week investigation there will be further investigations and prosecutions against leftist activists who have attempted to pervert the course of justice.
    The cleanup by the Trump Administration of the 8 years of Democratic politicisation of the FBI will pay dividends. There will be no agents running their own personal agendas during this investigation, they all know they cannot get away with that behaviour with the current administration. This investigation will be by the book and given all the evidence and testimony that has been revealed so far I strongly expect it will clear Judge Kavanaughs name.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Yeah.

    How's North Korea going at the moment?

    A few weeks ago, it was a done deal.

    Any comment?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,064 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    As expected, the FBI's limited in what they can investigate, per WH direction: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

    Can't investigate the other allegations (Swetnick, Ramirez), can't ask Judge everything they want, etc etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    Even if Kavanaugh is cleared by this FBI investigation (and he probably will be, given the lapsed time since the events in question), he is damaged goods.

    There are credible, if unprovable, accusations against him which will remain in the public mind, and his demeanor during the past weeks has been unbecoming of the position for which he is nominated.

    Ah well, time for the next mess to emerge.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,168 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    dudara wrote: »
    Even if Kavanaugh is cleared by this FBI investigation (and he probably will be, given the lapsed time since the events in question), he is damaged goods.

    There are credible, if unprovable, accusations against him which will remain in the public mind, and his demeanor during the past weeks has been unbecoming of the position for which he is nominated.

    Ah well, time for the next mess to emerge.

    But the state of Maryland has no such limitations. Just for clarity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    listermint wrote: »
    But the state of Maryland has no such limitations. Just for clarity.

    Interesting. But even putting statute of limitations aside, there would still need to be enough evidence to convict him. And given the years that have passed, I don’t believe that will be possible.

    It’s a he said / she said situation. She is far more credible than he is, and the other accusations lend her further credence, but it still isn’t a smoking gun against him. That’s why I believe he will be cleared.

    But the damage is done. For instance, how can he ever rule on a case involving sexual assault or rape in the future, and not have his judgement questioned?


  • Site Banned Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭RIGOLO


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Yeah.

    How's North Korea going at the moment?

    A few weeks ago, it was a done deal.

    Any comment?

    Be so kind as to post up where I ever said it was a 'done deal '

    Like all geo-political process of this nature, its a long process with ups and downs, 2 steps forward 1 step back, but always moving forward positively, which it is. Ive been consistent on stating that, check my posts.

    The only major update is my NK-USA Summit Commemorative coin arrived the other day whilst I was at the Ryder Cup. And the quotation on it represents the current status.

    NEW ERA - NEW LEADERSHIP - NEW DIRECTION - NEW HOPE

    NK_USA.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,410 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    The way i see it is the FBI investigation is a little nuetered, but if i were given the option of him being nominated on Friday or a week long investigation such as it is, I woukd have taken the second option.

    You have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the Reps. They literally screamed at the dems in rage at their suggestion that there should be an investigation and now there is one, they are saying its absolutely fine about it. Which is it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    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.


    I would probably be saddened more than mad. But I'd hope that if I was looking at a nomination to one of the most important judicial roles in the world I'd be able to compose myself. I'd hope I'd know that lying under oath was not a good defence strategy and not a good thing for a USSC nominee to engage in. I'd hope I'd be above blaming this accusation on some Clinton revenge conspiracy. I'd hope I'd be able to show some kind of neutrality, considering the role I'd be taking up.

    2 Scoops wrote: »
    Nope. FBI don't draw conclusions or give recommendations, ignoring James Comey.


    This keeps getting said but nobody has said the FBI will make conclusions. They investigate and present facts. They investigate exculpatory and corroborating evidence. What struck me as unusual from Kavanaugh's answers on Friday is that he kept acting like an investigation wasn't needed because he was there to answer questions right now. I would expect a judge to know that an investigation goes beyong hearing from the accuser and accused.


    It's pretty telling, but not surprising, when you look at the restrictions imposed. The most serious accusation with the most evidence is not being investigated. Remember, Mark Judges's ex has said he confessed to her about queueing up to have sex with a drunk girl. So for Kavanaugh to call this accusation "a joke" is extremely telling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 502 ✭✭✭derb12


    Igotadose wrote: »
    As expected, the FBI's limited in what they can investigate, per WH direction: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/white-house-limits-scope-fbi-s-investigation-allegations-against-brett-n915061

    Can't investigate the other allegations (Swetnick, Ramirez), can't ask Judge everything they want, etc etc.

    Not according to the man himself


    https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1046230634103025664

    “NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!”

    It’ll be interesting to see what the week brings!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So Trump has said that he is in love with Kim, that the letters that Kim sent him were beautiful.

    The greatest negotiator in the world ever has just accepted that he is on the same team as Kim, you want the best for those you love afterall.

    If you are NK, imagine seeing that. Their plan has worked perfectly. They are now the great friend of the US and at the same time the US are pushing heavily against China. They have simply swapped one global power being willing to protect them for another (whilst not losing the first).

    And back to the Kavanaugh issue. People are giving the WH kudos for finally agreeing to the FBI having an investigation (although the details appear to be much less than people thought at first). So yet again, Trump has been forced to backtrack on his decisions.

    The jailing of minors at the border. Steadfastly refused to budge as it was the right thing....until he caved.
    Obamacare..Repeal and Replace on Day 1...until he completely gave up and forgot about it.
    Kavanaugh..No need for an investigation, ots a witch hunt and Brett has been though enough and I (Trump) 100% stand by him and believe him.....oh this is serious lets get the FBI to look into it.

    There are so many examples of this POTUS being totally wrong and having to backtrack. Coupled with his continuous lying, how can anyone have any faith in him at all.

    Whatever about anything else he may or not be, the man has a terrible intuition and a total inability to get things done.

    And on the hearing itself, I have asked a number of times but 2 Scoops and others have never answered.

    Imagine if the performances were the other way around . That Brett had come out solid, open to questions, laying out the facts, not hiding the facts he didn't know and that Dr Ford had come out screaming and shouting and blaming right wing conspiracies. Giving smartalec responses to the GOP senators. What would you're reaction have been? What you have simply accepted that she was angry, under pressure?

    No way. You would have written her off as unhinged, a left wing loon. And its that double standard that is the real issue. We can argue all day over what really happened 36 years ago, and what the outcome should be. But there really is no point in any discussion when you are so clearly biased in favour of one side.

    Even Trump accepts that after the hearing things have changed, even Trump can see that Dr Ford gave a very credible account and that Brett offered nothing. It is the only explanation as to why he has had the sudden change of heart to allow and FBI investigation, something he was against only 24 hours earlier.

    So if Trump can see it, and accept it, why can't you. The fact that Trump is handling this, belatedly, better than some posters here is shameful for those posters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭Rhineshark


    Trump isn't particularly handling it better really. The WH made a serious effort to limit the scope as much as possible. Looks like Trump has either bowed to the backlash or had it pointed out that it doesn't work like that and the FBI cannot ignore crimes.

    The statute of limitations does exist - I know someone said there wasn't one - (who was It? Kavanaugh?) But it is/was 1 year and in 1982 assault or attempted rape was a misdemeneour. Source - Maryland police dept who released a statement saying they would like to and will investigate any accusations but bear in mind that..etc statute.

    Basically what it'd go back to if they can get K on the bench and a suitable case to come up.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,808 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    When a poster says he doesn't find Dr. Ford's testimony credible it becomes incredible, considering all the GOP Senators did.
    My understanding a day ago is that Ramirez would be included but Swetnick would not. This despite Flake believing all three valid complaints would be.
    Maybe Trump didn't want to give Avenattii anything?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    dudara wrote: »
    Interesting. But even putting statute of limitations aside, there would still need to be enough evidence to convict him. And given the years that have passed, I don’t believe that will be possible.

    It’s a he said / she said situation. She is far more credible than he is, and the other accusations lend her further credence, but it still isn’t a smoking gun against him. That’s why I believe he will be cleared.

    But the damage is done. For instance, how can he ever rule on a case involving sexual assault or rape in the future, and not have his judgement questioned?

    Seems he lied to the House Committee about getting into Yale all on his own work - his grandfather was a Yale alumnus too, so doesn't that make him a legacy student? It certainly makes his statement that he had no connections with Yale a bit odd. To say the least.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/29/1800114/-Kavanaugh-lied-about-getting-into-Yale-by-merit-His-grandfather-was-an-alumn

    Seriously, how can someone who lies through their teeth like that be a suitable Supreme Court judge?

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,620 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    I think some people post about Trump with their left hand...

    edit:

    Some more of the man himself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    Water John wrote: »
    When a poster says he doesn't find Dr. Ford's testimony credible it becomes incredible, considering all the GOP Senators did.
    My understanding a day ago is that Ramirez would be included but Swetnick would not. This despite Flake believing all three valid complaints would be.
    Maybe Trump didn't want to give Avenattii anything?

    I suspect that Swetnick's claims could well end up being investigated - there are growing claims emerging from girls who were students in the DC area prep-schools that Swetnick's claims are accurate. Furthermore, it seems that these claims were also investigated in the 1980s (at least investigated by the local media at the time) - so there will be a paper trail if that is the case.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Seems he lied to the House Committee about getting into Yale all on his own work - his grandfather was a Yale alumnus too, so doesn't that make him a legacy student? It certainly makes his statement that he had no connections with Yale a bit odd. To say the least.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/29/1800114/-Kavanaugh-lied-about-getting-into-Yale-by-merit-His-grandfather-was-an-alumn

    Seriously, how can someone who lies through their teeth like that be a suitable Supreme Court judge?

    Kavanaugh can't help himself - it's the spoilt brat attitude of the Washington elites


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    MadYaker wrote: »
    In July when Feinstein got the letter about the alleged assault from Ford she should have made the judicial committee aware of it at that time instead of sitting on it.
    I will preface this by saying that I regard the GOP and the Democrats as two cheeks of the same a*se.

    Ford wanted to remain anonymous - the claim that Feinstein was hoping that Kavanaugh would be rejected without the letter becoming public is plausible
    MadYaker wrote: »
    At that time she should have also informed Ford that she had two choices, either she went public with it there and then and let an investigation happen, or else she kept quiet about it.
    Not an appropriate way to treat an alleged victim of sexual assault.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    The statute of lmitations has kicked in so it's not as if she can press charges.
    Not the case - there is no statute of limitation on felony sexual assault in the state of Maryland
    MadYaker wrote: »
    Her keeping quiet about it until after the guy's hearing and then raising it is pure political BS imo and it's hasn't done Ford any favours either.
    Feinstein sent the letter to the FBI with the agreement of Ford.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    Last I heard she's received death threats and has to be protected by police.
    Actually Ford has had to move house and hire private security.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    Both the dems utilisation of this and the GOPs response have been a total disgrace.
    I agree - but that does not mean that the allegation should have been buried.

    The issue could actually have been dealt with if the GOP didn't block the FBI from investigating Ford's allegation. Either the case would have warranted further investigation (in which case Kavanaugh was toast) or they would have reported that they couldn't find anything.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    I think it always pays to be cynical especially in politics and imo the only reason they didn't go public with this back in July is because it would have given Trump ample time to vet and choose someone else. Bringing it out now is a last ditch effort to try and stall the nomination until after mid terms when maybe the dems could block it altogether. There's an awful lot at stake here. Trump is replacing a swing vote in the supreme court with a safe conservative vote potentially altering the balance for decades.

    Of course both sides are playing politics - the US Supreme court is one of the most political bodies in the world. The US political system is deeply flawed and utterly dysfunctional - and what is going on is just one more manifestation of this.

    Specifically in terms of Kavanaugh - what is at stake is whether the GOP want to put a lying toe-rag (with major question marks over his temperament, his drinking, his gambling and his treatment of women - along with a whole host of other issues) onto the Supreme court, purely for political reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    North Korea is playing Trump like a violin. They sent him a "beautiful letter", no doubt praising him and feeding his narcissism by saying how great he is, and now Trump says he's in love with Kim.

    It's absolutely crazy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,286 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    I agree that Kavanaugh is clearly unsuitable. I don’t think the accusation should have been buried, I think it should have been raised with the judicial committee back in July and an investigation should have happened then. Do we know why Ford supposedly didn’t want to go public with it back then and instead chose to bring it up now, when this guy is on the verge of being confirmed? I suspect (without any proof) that she was pressured into doing so by Feinstein and the other dems on the committee. From Fords POV this would have been a much less turbulent process for her if it had taken place back in July as opposed to now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    North Korea is playing Trump like a violin. They sent him a "beautiful letter", no doubt praising him and feeding his narcissism by saying how great he is, and now Trump says he's in love with Kim.

    It's absolutely crazy.

    They have him exactly where they want him. NK is a continuous claim of success by Trump and his supporters. Hence, he can't really be seen to have it fail at this stage. Therefore NK can afford to hold out on the basis that Trump will pretty much agree to anything to get a deal.

    The fact that Trump claims to be in love with Kim is not exactly a tough negotiating position to come from.

    Like the 1st summit, Trump will make a 'deal' with NK which will have the GOP and Fox and Trump supporters praising him and calling for Nobel prize etc, yet it will amount to nothing other than a massive climbdown by the US.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    For all those saying that Feinstein should have made it public months ago, simply look at how the GOP have tried to bury it. Had this been a few months ago, they would have simply laughed it off, he isnt even the nominee etc.

    THe fault isn't the timing, that has just made it more uncomfortable for the GOP. IT needs to be stressed, the GOP themselves do not think that SCOTUS appointments need to be rushed, hence why they stalled on Obama's pick. So the only problem with timing is totally, 100% down to the GOP trying to rush this through prior to the mid-terms.

    It is the DNC job to vet the candidates, it is not their job to make things easier for the GOP. The GOP could easily, when they learnt of the allegation, putting the process on hold to investigate. This may have cleared the air around Brett and not forced him into basically prostituting himself at the feet of Trump at the Senate committee. The man lost all dignity. A strong career, reduced to crying and pleading. The man talked about his daughters, how will explain that performance to his daughters when he gets home!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,434 ✭✭✭Jolly Red Giant


    MadYaker wrote: »
    Do we know why Ford supposedly didn’t want to go public with it back then
    Doh - look what has happened to her since she went public. She is an alleged victim of sexual assault - no victim of sexual assault wants their name in national headlines.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    and instead chose to bring it up now, when this guy is on the verge of being confirmed?
    She went public because journalists appeared on her doorstep.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    I suspect (without any proof) that she was pressured into doing so by Feinstein and the other dems on the committee.
    Ford complemented Feinstein on how she handled the matter and attempted to protect her anonymity last Thursday.
    MadYaker wrote: »
    From Fords POV this would have been a much less turbulent process for her if it had taken place back in July as opposed to now.
    No guarantee of that - more likely that not the GOP would have tried to bury it just like they tried to bury it when it actually came out.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,152 ✭✭✭26000 Elephants


    Rhineshark wrote: »
    Trump isn't particularly handling it better really. The WH made a serious effort to limit the scope as much as possible. Looks like Trump has either bowed to the backlash or had it pointed out that it doesn't work like that and the FBI cannot ignore crimes.

    The statute of limitations does exist - I know someone said there wasn't one - (who was It? Kavanaugh?) But it is/was 1 year and in 1982 assault or attempted rape was a misdemeneour. Source - Maryland police dept who released a statement saying they would like to and will investigate any accusations but bear in mind that..etc statute.

    Basically what it'd go back to if they can get K on the bench and a suitable case to come up.

    The investigation is a damp squib: Limited scope and not enough time. Anyway, its only being allowed as a means to take the focus from Kavanaugh: He came across very badly at the hearing, very 'unjuducial'. I had an open mind about the accusations at first: the timing was suspect. But he should have simply shown humility without admitting any direct culpability. That would have worked. Instead, he choose the boorish, Trumpian tactic of blustering his way through it, attacking those who's responsibility it is to give these things fair coverage and making an unnecessarily partisan opening statement.. For a guy seeking a SC nomination, thats pretty ironic.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    2 Scoops wrote: »
    What can she remember exactly?

    Being violently sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. But, by all means, keep talking about the things she can't remember, because that's more important.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    volchitsa wrote: »
    dudara wrote: »
    Interesting. But even putting statute of limitations aside, there would still need to be enough evidence to convict him. And given the years that have passed, I don’t believe that will be possible.

    It’s a he said / she said situation. She is far more credible than he is, and the other accusations lend her further credence, but it still isn’t a smoking gun against him. That’s why I believe he will be cleared.

    But the damage is done. For instance, how can he ever rule on a case involving sexual assault or rape in the future, and not have his judgement questioned?

    Seems he lied to the House Committee about getting into Yale all on his own work - his grandfather was a Yale alumnus too, so doesn't that make him a legacy student? It certainly makes his statement that he had no connections with Yale a bit odd. To say the least.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/29/1800114/-Kavanaugh-lied-about-getting-into-Yale-by-merit-His-grandfather-was-an-alumn

    Seriously, how can someone who lies through their teeth like that be a suitable Supreme Court judge?

    Doing some quick research, it appears that for Yale, legacy applications only apply in the case of parents, not grandparents (and you still have to be good, the vast majority of applicants still don’t make it). Does the Daily Kos provide any indication that either the policy has been restricted since Kavanaugh time or that his application was weaker than that of the typical student?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,064 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Doing some quick research, it appears that for Yale, legacy applications only apply in the case of parents, not grandparents (and you still have to be good, the vast majority of applicants still don’t make it). Does the Daily Kos provide any indication that either the policy has been restricted since Kavanaugh time or that his application was weaker than that of the typical student?

    I think the gist of the complaint is Kavanaugh said something about having no ties or whatever to Yale. His grandfather went there. That doesn't get you in to Yale. I think it's a small issue if any at all with what Kavanaugh said, but this is today's hyper-stimulated world we live in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Igotadose wrote: »
    I think the gist of the complaint is Kavanaugh said something about having no ties or whatever to Yale. His grandfather went there. That doesn't get you in to Yale. I think it's a small issue if any at all with what Kavanaugh said, but this is today's hyper-stimulated world we live in.


    It's just another lie he told.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    I was reading an article on CNN today and I think it gets to the heart of the matter. If the assault did occur, it is unlikely Kavanagh is actually lying about it. More likely is that he simply has no memory of it due to drunkenness, and deep down, he probably knows this is at least a possibility, hence his reluctance to advocate for a FBI investigation.

    And his "little white lies" about never blacking out while drinking or not drinking without memory loss or not drinking on weekdays all try to support his own hope that the assault didn't occur outside of what he can remember.

    The fact that Dr. Ford mentioned in her testimony that he was already fairly drunk when they arrived at the party adds credence to this theory.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    If it was all simply made up, why would Ford bring a third person into it?

    Why would she, the DNC and the Clintons (per Brett) not simply leave it at her and Brett? It would be really simple, and allowing a non-controllable element into the issue for no gain, to simply claim that it was just those two.

    It makes no sense to invent a story and give the Kavanaugh side such an advantage. If Judge would state that nothing happened the issue would be pretty much over.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    If it was all simply made up, why would Ford bring a third person into it?

    Why would she, the DNC and the Clintons (per Brett) not simply leave it at her and Brett? It would be really simple, and allowing a non-controllable element into the issue for no gain, to simply claim that it was just those two.

    It makes no sense to invent a story and give the Kavanaugh side such an advantage. If Judge would state that nothing happened the issue would be pretty much over.


    If the assault didn't happen, I don't believe for a second that the accusation was "revenge on behalf of the Clintons" as Kavanagh mentions. That kind of Alex Jones-esque conspiracy theory peddling alone should raise serious concerns about his suitability for such an important and distinguished lifetime appointment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    BTW, I don't know if anyone noticed this but it caught my attention during the broadcast. Look at the photographer behind Dr. Ford's shoulder. He seems pretty stressed out especially when she sits back down, even putting his head in his hands. Looks like he didn't get the shot he wanted:

    https://youtu.be/5-N08HKKbno?t=39m41s


  • Site Banned Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭RIGOLO


    Another success for the Trump administration.
    Trudeau has had to eat crow and come to the table, at the last minute. Trump played a game of chicken with him and Canada blinked first .

    Bye bye NAFTA , hello the new USMCA trade deal, United States Mexcio Canada Agreement. It will cap Canadaian car imports to the US and will give better access to US Dairy farmers to Canadian market.

    Another election promise delivered by Trump .

    Canada and US reach deal to replace NAFTA

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/us-canada-nafta-trade-talks.html


    Add this to the new deal signed last week during the UN meeting with South Korea , bilateral movement on a new US-Japan trade deal , and further EU support for the US position on China... the Trump administration were certainly both busy and effective while the main stream media were lapping up Avenatti and the like.

    And all this ontop of 4.2% GDP growth.
    And the DOW, S&P and NASDAQ Futures are all up pre-market this morning...US may have lost the Ryder Cup but the TRump administration is winning on every other front.

    Roll on November mid-terms, this message will be sure to deliver some votes. And to think some posters think he has lost the Trade war.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,784 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Doing some quick research, it appears that for Yale, legacy applications only apply in the case of parents, not grandparents (and you still have to be good, the vast majority of applicants still don’t make it). Does the Daily Kos provide any indication that either the policy has been restricted since Kavanaugh time or that his application was weaker than that of the typical student?

    He said "I had no connections with Yale" which was not true. It just seems to exemplify his readiness to be economical with the truth the minute it might avoid any awkwardness for him no matter how slight. Not great for the reputation of SCOTUS,,their judges having so little regard for truth and accuracy.

    EDIT: I can't find anywhere that clearly says that grandparents don't count for Yale, and as recently as 2016 College Confidential had questions that seemed to suggest that a grandparent might be enough. Like this one:
    zxcvbnm1216
    zxcvbnm1216
    Registered User
    Posts: 246
    Junior Member
    12-22-2016 at 1:02 am in Yale University
    How come on the Yale common app it only lists "Have any of your grandparents ever attended Yale University?" and never asks about parents. I thought this was rather odd. Luckily my grandfather attended there but I thought parent legacy was much more valuable.

    (The reply FWIW is that where parents went is asked elsewhere. But why would they ask about grandparents if it's not relevant to anything?)

    Reem Alsalem UNSR Violence Against Women and Girls: "Very concerned about statements by the IOC at Paris2024 (M)ultiple international treaties and national constitutions specifically refer to women & their fundamental rights, so the world (understands) what women -and men- are. (H)ow can one assess fairness and justice if we do not know who we are being fair and just to?"



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,524 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    volchitsa wrote: »
    He said "I had no connections with Yale" which was not true. It just seems to exemplify his readiness to be economical with the truth the minute it might avoid any awkwardness for him no matter how slight. Not great for the reputation of SCOTUS,,their judges having so little regard for truth and accuracy.

    EDIT: I can't find anywhere that clearly says that grandparents don't count for Yale, and as recently as 2016 College Confidential had questions that seemed to suggest that a grandparent might be enough. Like this one:

    (The reply FWIW is that where parents went is asked elsewhere. But why would they ask about grandparents if it's not relevant to anything?)

    My dad went to UCD before I did. I hardly would go about claiming a connection to UCD. Part of the problem is that as a private institution, Yale doesn't need to tell anyone anything. Bearing in mind it's impossible to prove a negative, let alone a secretive one. However, we do have some indicators.

    https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/09/14/krok-abolish-legacy-admissions/
    Yale gives explicit preference to children of its alumni
    It would be a bit odd to explicitly state one, but not the other.

    This contains an interview with a Yale admissions chap, who references parent, but not grandparent.
    https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2005/02/16/legacies-still-maintain-edge-in-admissions/

    https://blog.prepscholar.com/what-is-a-college-legacy
    goes through a list of the major colleges.

    It varies. "We get two pieces of information here. First, at Penn, having a grandparent who is an alum will grant you legacy status, where Harvard seems to only care if your parents went there."

    Carnegie Mellon is a definite "Grandparents are legacy" and Brown is a "We might give you a second look, but it's not important". Yale doesn't say a thing about it.

    However, most any site I can find seems to indicate that in most colleges, even those that state granparental legacy, having a grandparent alumnus doesn't count for a heck of a lot, and any successful applicant would still have to 'work their tail off' in order to be admitted.

    This is assuming that Mr Kavanaugh even mentioned it in his admissions process.

    To answer your question, I don't know. I will note that the Common Application is... well.. common to 812 universities, including Carnegie Mellon and Brown which, as above, clearly accept grandparental influence. Is it possible they simply do a pro-forma question and replace the name of the college in each one? https://www.commonapp.org/search-colleges .

    Honestly, it's been a quarter-century since I applied for Yale... Back in the old-school days of paper and essays. I can't recall the questions, though....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The point is that it is all irrelevant to the issue. What is he trying to achieve by saying he worked his tail off? Yeah, so what, that is what everybody has to do. It doesn't give you bonus points of special privileges.

    Great that he worked hard, he was a go getter and made his own way. Good for him. Has nothing to do about whether he should be on the SCOTUS or not or indeed whether is acted in the way that Dr Ford claims.

    But what it does do, yet again, is show that he is willing to be economical with the truth. He could just as easily have said that he wanted to go to Yale as it was the No1 law school in the country and to go where his Granddad had gone, but he got no special treatment.

    That he didn't, to me anyway, makes no difference really, but I certainly think it adds to the impression that this is a man that feels he is owed this.

    One other thing, despite nearluy everyone stating that Dr Ford was a credible witness, many have used the line that it probably happened but it wasn't Brett. Surely the GOP, Kavanaugh etc would want to be doing all they can to help this clearly effected woman to find closure. To track down what happened and help her deal with it.

    Yet, and I might have missed it, I haven't heard anyone calling for that. It all centres on how this will effect Brett and how stressed he must be.


  • Site Banned Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭RIGOLO


    4.2 % GDP
    a new Trade deal with Canada and Mexico
    new trade deal with South korea
    joint US-EU statements on Chinese trade practices
    North Korea and South Korea commence removing landmines from their joint border
    Market futures are heading once again into record territory
    Chinese manufacturing index is down
    new US-SINO trade deals in the offing
    Record US consumer confidence index

    and the best the anti-Trumpers can come up with to land a blow on the administration is the YALE Admissions policy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    RIGOLO wrote: »
    and the best the anti-Trumpers can come up with to land a blow on the administration is the YALE Admissions policy.

    Yes, that is the only thing anybody has every brought up!

    Here is a quick list for Obama

    Stopping the biggest recession in history
    Shoring up the auto manufacturers and thus savings 100's of 1000's of manufacturing jobs.
    Getting Osama Bin Laden, which the GOP led WH failed to do.
    Returning growth to the ecomony
    Increasing US standing in the rest of the world.
    Placing sanctions on Russia
    Holding NK to task and not simply letting them off because he liked Kim


    And yet I bet you have not got much to say positive about Obama.

    The point being that you are taking a very biased view of everything. To you it all seems very black and white, either you are winning or losing. Society, running a country, is far more nuanced than that.

    The economy superficially appears to be doing well, but a lot of that is timing, a follow on from Obama, good exchange rates, and of course a massive tax break. 4.2% is being lauded as this amazing result when in fact it was the minimum promised during the debate about the massive tax break. So it is not really anything special, it is being paid for by the citizens. How much is the tax break planned to cost in CT, and what were the growth rates promised to cover for that? CT was cut from 35% to 21%, so almost half, yet growth has only gone to 4.2%?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 36,711 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    As with any country, it's how one treats the weakest, poorest, most vulnerable in society that you get a true sense of a place's value:

    Migrant Children Moved Under Cover of Darkness to a Texas Tent City:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/migrant-children-tent-city-texas.html
    Until now, most undocumented children being held by federal immigration authorities had been housed in private foster homes or shelters, sleeping two or three to a room. They received formal schooling and regular visits with legal representatives assigned to their immigration cases.

    But in the rows of sand-colored tents in Tornillo, Tex., children in groups of 20, separated by gender, sleep lined up in bunks. There is no school: The children are given workbooks that they have no obligation to complete. Access to legal services is limited.

    The length of time children spend in detention has doubled over the last year, with the numbers of migrant children totalling 15,000 (no mention in the NY if that's including or excluding the 'lost' thousands). And while the original holding facilities were a pox, they provided basic support and schooling; however as these tent cities are complete unregulated, schooling is not required there. So I guess the 3,000 children that have disappeared off the books are the lucky ones? Speaking to anonymous workers, here's a cheery line from the NY article to get you going on a Monday morning:
    "In order to avoid escape attempts, the moves are carried out late at night because children will be less likely to try to run away. "

    MAGA!


  • Site Banned Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭RIGOLO


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Yes, that is the only thing anybody has every brought up!

    Here is a quick list for Obama

    Stopping the biggest recession in history
    Shoring up the auto manufacturers and thus savings 100's of 1000's of manufacturing jobs.
    Getting Osama Bin Laden, which the GOP led WH failed to do.
    Returning growth to the ecomony
    Increasing US standing in the rest of the world.
    Placing sanctions on Russia
    Holding NK to task and not simply letting them off because he liked Kim


    And yet I bet you have not got much to say positive about Obama.

    The point being that you are taking a very biased view of everything. To you it all seems very black and white, either you are winning or losing. Society, running a country, is far more nuanced than that.

    The economy superficially appears to be doing well, but a lot of that is timing, a follow on from Obama, good exchange rates, and of course a massive tax break. 4.2% is being lauded as this amazing result when in fact it was the minimum promised during the debate about the massive tax break. So it is not really anything special, it is being paid for by the citizens. How much is the tax break planned to cost in CT, and what were the growth rates promised to cover for that? CT was cut from 35% to 21%, so almost half, yet growth has only gone to 4.2%?

    Can you put that in the OBAMA Thread .. this is the Donald Trump thread .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,836 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    It wasn't meant as a post about Obama, it was a comparison to your list, as well you know.

    But even ignored that, your first point is about 4.2%. Yet you must accept that this being paid for out of the CT cut, Trump himself promised as much. SO why are you lauding it as a success? It is the absolute minimum requirement. The GOP basically went against all their previous fiscal positions to get it through, 4.2% is nothing recorded breaking in the context of the massive tax giveaway.

    Coupled with the reductions in regulations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,030 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    A Yale classmate of Judge Kavanaugh's, Chad Ludington, has waded into the nomination debate with his observations of the judge's drinking behaviour as a Yale student by issuing a statement on what he saw.

    He says Judge Kavanaugh wasn't telling the truth when he said he never drank excessively, frequently drank too much (and not just beer), and drank so much one night that he ended up in a fight with a friend who landed himself in jail.

    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-friend-yale-university-charles-chad-ludington-letter-released-2018-09-30/


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


    I think it's fairly telling that a Trump supporter will celebrate a deal before any details of the deal are released. The mere fact that the Trump administration can make a deal is cause for celebration. It doesn't actually matter if the deal is good or not. That's how use to his incompetence Trump supporters are.

    I mean, it's great that companies and their shareholders are doing well. You can ignore the escalating hate crimes, the children in cages, the people dying because they can't afford medication, education and law enforcement being privatised, the elimination of internet freedom. As long as that dow is going up you can trick people into believing they are better off.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement