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…176177179181182…323

Comments

  • Options
    #5342
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    So they will allow them in if they are married?


    It seems so.


  • Options
    #5343
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    It seems so.

    But they will allow in a partner in an unmarried heterosexual relationship but not a partner in an unmarried homosexual relationship?


  • Options
    #5344
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,486 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Hurrache wrote: »
    Nothing stopping him if he's going on a short trip, the usual visa requirements would apply.

    The what hell has sexual orientation got to do with visa requirements?


  • Options
    #5345
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,023 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    The FBI will not find anything substantive if they concentrate on proving that Kavanaugh drank in college to excess.

    That simply won't be enough to bury this nomination. Blackouts or not. To most reasonable people, it shows he was untruthful but the possible dissenters need something more.

    Those texts however, may certainly do the job.


  • Options
    #5346
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Igotadose wrote: »
    So, Leo's partner can't travel with him to the US? Nice.
    His partner would just need to file an ESTA like every other citizen of a Visa Waiver Program country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5347
    Dytalus
    Registered Users Posts: 459 ✭✭Dytalus


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    The what hell has sexual orientation got to do with visa requirements?

    My understanding is that up until now, same sex partners of UN officials and diplomats have been allowed in on diplomatic visas. In the case of heterosexual partners, they needed to be married to the official to qualify for this particular visa type.

    The exception was made to account for the fact that a lot of countries in the UN still don't allow same-sex marriage, and so same-sex couples from such countries could never avail of diplomatic visas for both individuals. The partner would have to keep getting tourist visas and (effectively) keep border-hopping for the duration of the diplomat's stay (which can be several years depending on the position).


  • Options
    #5348
    Captain Obvious
    Registered Users Posts: 4,165 ✭✭✭Captain Obvious


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    But they will allow in a partner in an unmarried heterosexual relationship but not a partner in an unmarried homosexual relationship?


    The issue is that many of these delegates will be coming form places where same sex marriage is not allowed or recognised.


  • Options
    #5349
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    The issue is that many of these delegates will be coming form places where same sex marriage is not allowed or recognised.

    Not to be grilling you, but what is their reason/excuse for this? Is it to bring protocols in line with heterosexual situations or is there new differentiation between the two situations?


  • Options
    #5350
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,140 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    To clarify, Leo's partner is presently resident in the US, working at a Chicago hospital, I think.

    Ludington was in the that bar with Kavanaugh and the basketball player. They were looking/staring at a man they thought was the lead singer of UB40. He responded verbally, dismissing them. Kavanaugh threw the contents of his glass, incl ice, (so it wasn't beer) over the man. A brawl ensued between the man and Kavanaugh. The basketball player glassed the man on the side of his head cutting his ear. Police arrived. Basketball player arrested.
    This is from Ludington himself on Cuomo, last night.
    Whilst the basketball player is most guilty, I would be saying Kavanaugh escalated a minor issue by throwing his drink over the man. Rally nice guy, Kavanaugh!!!


  • Options
    #5351
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,048 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Not to be grilling you, but what is their reason/excuse for this? Is it to bring protocols in line with heterosexual situations or is there new differentiation between the two situations?

    It's an Obama era ruling, introduced by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State .

    Think that about covers it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5352
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Kavanaugh commits the first assault there.


  • Options
    #5353
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,008 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Kavanaugh commits the first assault there.

    Good training for the SCOTUS.

    And to think, I used to cheer for one of his accomplices in the fight, Chris Dudley


  • Options
    #5354
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,150 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    This is the UB40 fight story
    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/brett-kavanaugh-bar-fight-ub40-concert-731781/
    According to the police report from the incident, Kavanaugh instigated the altercation by throwing ice at another man “for some unknown reason”


  • Options
    #5355
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    It's an Obama era ruling, introduced by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State .

    Think that about covers it.
    It's actually a part of the UN's own rules in relation to personal status in relation to entitlements. (Authority: ST/SGB/2004/13, “Personal status for purposes of United Nations entitlements”)
    Issuance of visas is governed by the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities. Some host countries may decline to issue an entry visa of the type normally granted to spouses of UN officials if the personal status is not recognized under their own laws. The Organization will do its best to assist the staff member and to obtain an appropriate visa but, ultimately, cannot guarantee that it will be possible in every case.
    ...and for the US specifically...
    The United States Mission to the UN has indicated, in a letter to the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Resources Management dated 1 March 2010, that effective 26 June 2009, the U.S. Department of State amended its Foreign Affairs Manual regulations, defining same-sex “domestic partners” of Foreign Service employees for the purposes of obtaining some benefits and allowances, so that benefits can be granted after a Foreign Service employee has signed and filed an affidavit attesting to certain criteria comprising the definition of same-sex “domestic partner.” Accordingly, the status of a same-sex “domestic partner” is legally recognized under the law of the United States for the purposes of granting some benefits and allowances. The U.S. Mission has requested that the United Nations require its American staff members requesting such recognition, to file an affidavit with the United Nations. If an American UN staff member files such an affidavit, the UN may accept that the US Mission has verified the personal status of that staff member in connection with their benefits and entitlements. In no case can the effective date of recognition of personal status be earlier than 26 June 2009, the date the above provisions in U.S. law became enacted. Note that this provision applies only to same-sex domestic partners (see attached sample Affidavit, #2).

    This of course, does not prohibit the same-sex partner of a delegate who is not deemed a "domestic parter" from simply applying for a visa on their own merit, it just doesn't give them the UN diplomat visa.

    It also obviously doesn't apply to Irish citizens.


  • Options
    #5356
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,023 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Hurrache wrote: »
    This is the UB40 fight story
    https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/brett-kavanaugh-bar-fight-ub40-concert-731781/

    I always knew I alcohol would be his undoing, specifically red red wine...


  • Options
    #5357
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    That is why the media write so many bad stories about him, because no matter what, you can count on Trump making a fool of himself at every opportunity.

    Actually, the media have been writing unbelievably nice stories about him ever since he announced he was running.

    There is no reason why they didn't run "Senile vulgar billionaire celebrity degenerate thinks he can lead free world" stories from day one.

    And if they had, he might not be there today.


  • Options
    #5358
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    everlast75 wrote: »
    Blackouts or not. To most reasonable people, it shows he was untruthful but the possible dissenters need something more.

    It shows he perjured himself to get the job. Instantly disqualifying.


  • Options
    #5359
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,023 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    It shows he perjured himself to get the job. Instantly disqualifying.

    I know that.

    You know that.

    My point is that will not be enough for the 3 or 4 reps to vote against him.


  • Options
    #5360
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,359 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    It's an Obama era ruling, introduced by Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State .

    Think that about covers it.

    Says it all.


  • Options
    #5361
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,140 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    You really are a dick if you throw your drink at a person you don't know.
    He seems to have been a real ****stirrer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5362
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,486 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Water John wrote: »
    You really are a dick if you throw your drink at a person you don't know.
    He seems to have been a real ****stirrer.

    well, that is unless you understand that the guy he threw the drink at was actually a crisis actor paid for and set up by the Clinton Foundation in order to take Trump down.


  • Options
    #5363
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    everlast75 wrote: »
    I know that.

    You know that.

    My point is that will not be enough for the 3 or 4 reps to vote against him.

    Well, then we are dealing with people who were always going to vote for him no matter what.

    There is no remedy for that except to get protests noted on the record, and then win some elections. I have always thought impeaching Trump was a waste of time, just toss him out at the next election. But the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment: start moves to impeach Kavanaugh for perjury before the Senate now.


  • Options
    #5364
    Pelvis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Pelvis


    everlast75 wrote: »
    I know that.

    You know that.

    My point is that will not be enough for the 3 or 4 reps to vote against him.

    Flake has said if it's shown that he lied then he will not vote for him.


  • Options
    #5365
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,023 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Flake has said if it's shown that he lied then he will not vote for him.

    Flake says a lot of things.....


  • Options
    #5366
    Water John
    Registered Users Posts: 21,140 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    I'd always wait for the numbers even if that is 2020. Then impeach Kavanaugh.
    Long time lesson given.
    As Kacish said last night, even if you lead, you have to give the other guy something. That is how bipartisanship works.


  • Options
    #5367
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    I can only imagine the single thing that might influence the GOP to vote down Kavaunagh is if any internal polling conducted this week shows it's going to hurt their prospects in November. Looking to Jeff Flake for a pity vote shows how desperate the scenario has become.

    Then again, putting on the tinfoil hat once more, perhaps even if the judge is toxic, they'll persist with him: not so much for the Roe Vs. Wade stuff, but because if they sense the Democrats will genuinely try to impeach Kavaunagh, it'll give the GOP the fighting advantage to immediately attack a potential Democrat Congress. That plus the inevitable downturn once Trumps financial steering finally hits the rocks means the Democrats are lined up to take a lot of the political blame here.

    When watching the GOP, I feel they're far more switched on to longer term planning than the other lot;


  • Options
    #5368
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,008 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Various sites crowing about 'replacing NAFTA.' My opinion: POTUS said he'd replace NAFTA. It's now the "USMCA trade agreement," so it's been renamed. And, within it, what's changed doesn't seem to have solved the problems attributed to NAFTA - companies can still relocate to Canada or Mexico. Nothing in it, will cause this to be less economically viable for companies.

    So, a point for Trump for getting a new agreement in place between the US, Canada and Mexico. Whether it makes any difference at all to those that voted to 'replace NAFTA' in order to improve their lives, remains to be seen. I doubt it -Trump's backed by the same interests that backed NAFTA, Democrats and Republicans aren't terribly different when it comes to trade. There is a provision about minimum wage, basically Mexico would need to pay its workers more to sell into the US (though the devil's in the details I haven't found yet). And, as I think is well known, it wasn't offshoring that did in manufacturing as much as automation, which isn't slowing down.

    Interestingly, blue-collar jobs (not so much in coal and steel industries), are up in the US. These are chiefly construction related. My guess is due to the tax cut - wealthy (stock market wealth) buying bigger/better homes, causing more jobs to be available. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/09/under-trump-jobs-boom-has-finally-reached-blue-collar-workers-will-it-last/?utm_term=.b93aed320c7a

    So, give the government some credit here - not Trump nor his underlings, but entropy due to the tax cuts is causing some positive jobs news that might have some staying power.


  • Options
    #5369
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,256 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Pelvis wrote: »
    Flake has said if it's shown that he lied then he will not vote for him.

    Question is, is Flake saying if it's shown he lied about assaulting Ford, or just if it's shown he lied about anything he said (perjuring himself).

    One is far more likely than the other (almost a certainty at this stage), but if Flake is just referring to the assault itself, then Flake will do what he was pretty much always going to do and vote to confirm, because the chances of the FBI being able to show that Kavanaugh lied about that are very slim.


  • Options
    #5370
    SimonTemplar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    My understanding is that Flake is leaving politics next month so does he have anything to loose by not following the party line here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5371
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,486 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    SimonTemplar wrote: »
    My understanding is that Flake is leaving politics next month so does he have anything to loose by not following the party line here.

    The real question is what has he got to gain?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement