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

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

Watching the protest at the Senate door on CNN...
The fact that no one in the protest is over 16 years of age suggests that today’s events will do little to influence Democrats’ results in the November mid terms.

StringerBell

2 Scoops wrote: »

Looks like 50-48 in favour of Kavanaugh, Democracy rules the day.

So if it had gone 50-48 the other way democracy wouldn't have won the day? What a bizarre thing to say.

This is to ignore that the US Senate never has been, nor was even designed to be democratic. That doesnt matter in this context

StringerBell

Flynn Scrawny Lace wrote: »

Watching the protest at the Senate door on CNN...
The fact that no one in the protest is over 16 years of age suggests that today’s events will do little to influence Democrats’ results in the November mid terms.

I guess I'd probably just advise you to watch some more, or take a look at the numbers arrested or whatever. You may find a few that are over 16 if you try?

2 Scoops

Flynn Scrawny Lace wrote: »

Watching the protest at the Senate door on CNN...
The fact that no one in the protest is over 16 years of age suggests that today’s events will do little to influence Democrats’ results in the November mid terms.

Seem like a serious bunch alright...

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

StringerBell wrote: »

I guess I'd probably just advise you to watch some more, or take a look at the numbers arrested or whatever. You may find a few that are over 16 if you try?

It’s a paltry crowd of disaffected high school/ college students.The sense of anti climax among the CNN panel is palpable.
The vast majority of rational adults ( the silent majority) accept that there was simply no compelling evidence to back up Dr. Ford’s claim.
Due process and the presumption of innocence are pillars of any civilized society.

batgoat

Flynn Scrawny Lace wrote: »

It’s a paltry crowd of disaffected high school/ college students.The sense of anti climax among the CNN panel is palpable.
The vast majority of rational adults ( the silent majority) accept that there was simply no compelling evidence to back up Dr. Ford’s claim.
Due process and the presumption of innocence are pillars of any civilized society.

Ah the 'silent majority', we will see in about a month if it has impacted support.. What we do know is that the Clarence Thomas being put in at the time resulted in the 'Year of the Woman'.. Similar sorts of smears occurred against Anita Hill at the time.

You're also talking about due process but Trump was pretty happy to label Ford as a liar during the week..... Not concerned about him pulling his 'lock her up' style rhetoric on a woman who came out about an attempted rape? We also know that Kavenaugh lied under oath and behaved farcically to the point where he came across as Alex Jones with Clinton conspiracies being used as his defence. It's not exactly a great reflection of Kavenaugh.

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

You're also talking about due process but Trump was pretty happy to label Ford as a liar during the week.....

No he didn't, he said exactly what she said at the hearing. I don't agree with what he did, but he stated facts about her case.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

batgoat wrote: »

Ah the 'silent majority', we will see in about a month if it has impacted support.. What we do know is that the Clarence Thomas being put in at the time resulted in the 'Year of the Woman'.. Similar sorts of smears occurred against Anita Hill at the time.

You're also talking about due process but Trump was pretty happy to label Ford as a liar during the week..... Not concerned about him pulling his 'lock her up' style rhetoric on a woman who came out about an attempted rape? We also know that Kavenaugh lied under oath and behaved farcically to the point where he came across as Alex Jones with Clinton conspiracies being used as his defence. It's not exactly a great reflection of Kavenaugh.

Donald Trump’s comments in Mississippi regarding Dr.Ford were disgraceful.
Kavanaugh did not flatter himself at the hearing, but having several million scrutinize your every blink at a job interview would rattle most humans.
Neither point addresses the key fact : There was no compelling corroborating evidence to back up Dr.Ford’s claim.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

No he didn't, he said exactly what she said at the hearing. I don't agree with what he did, but he stated facts about her case.

The implication that she was lying or making it up was very much so present and he was mocking her. Do you honestly approve of that? You think it's okay for a president to mock a victim of rape? To mock the fact that victims of serious trauma tend to have memory issues?

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

The implication that she was lying or making it up was very much so present and he was mocking her. Do you honestly approve of that? You think it's okay for a president to mock a victim of rape? To mock the fact that victims of serious trauma tend to have memory issues?

When did he do that?

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

The implication that she was lying or making it up was very much so present and he was mocking her. Do you honestly approve of that? You think it's okay for a president to mock a victim of rape? To mock the fact that victims of serious trauma tend to have memory issues?

I don't think he should have done it at all, it was borderline disgraceful. I didn't approve of it at all and I still don't now.

Bolded part, that isn't proven. Yet I will repeat, he repeated what she said during the hearing.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

I don't think he should have done it at all, it was borderline disgraceful. I didn't approve of it at all and I still don't now.

Bolded part, that isn't proven. Yet I will repeat, he repeated what she said during the hearing.

Correction, that should have been a victim of attempted rape. I believe Ford, I do not believe she has any reason to make up an attempted rape. You can repeat all you want, he was taking jabs at her AND I'll repeat, he was taking jabs about memory gaps. Something that happens to anyone who experiences a serious trauma, it is not unusual.

Water John

Well, that is easily disproven, he did not say correctly what she remembered and did not recall. More lies from him.

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

Correction, that should have been a victim of attempted rape. I believe Ford, I do not believe she has any reason to make up an attempted rape. You can repeat all you want, he was taking jabs at her AND I'll repeat, he was taking jabs about memory gaps. Something that happens to anyone who experiences a serious trauma, it is not unusual.

Facts don't care about your feelings.

2 Scoops

Trump is holding a rally now..

**Mod snip**

Please don't link dump

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Statistically the amount of false rape allegations etc are incredibly low and a large proportion of rapes go unreported. So it's pretty reasonable to conclude that she didn't invent the story as statistically, it is unlikely. It's far more likely that she is one of the many who didn't report as that happens far more often.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180101025446/https://icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf

2 Scoops

batgoat wrote: »

Statistically the amount of false rape allegations etc are incredibly low and a large proportion of rapes go unreported. So it's pretty reasonable to conclude that she didn't invent the story as statistically, it is unlikely. It's far more likely that she is one of the many who didn't report as that happens far more often.

In the most fairness of terms, if she had a single person who could back her up my opinion would have been the opposite from the get go.

batgoat

2 Scoops wrote: »

In the most fairness of terms, if she had a single person who could back her up my opinion would have been the opposite from the get go.

And it's reasonable to assume that for most people decades ago, such a party would have been of little importance to them so not of particular note memory wise. So easy to simply forget.

Christy42

2 Scoops wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

The implication that she was lying or making it up was very much so present and he was mocking her. Do you honestly approve of that? You think it's okay for a president to mock a victim of rape? To mock the fact that victims of serious trauma tend to have memory issues?

I don't think he should have done it at all, it was borderline disgraceful. I didn't approve of it at all and I still don't now.

Bolded part, that isn't proven. Yet I will repeat, he repeated what she said during the hearing.

Saying it is "borderline" disgraceful is a cop out. It is actively harmful to those who have suffered sexual assault. It was absolutely horrific. Plenty of republicans and Republican supporters condemned it.

They will all happily forget and support him next week.

I said it after he ordered the kids in cages. Anyone supporting republicans needs to take a long look at themselves. Sure they may want trickle down economics or gun rights but this is what they are indirectly supporting.

Buy hey roe vs wade may get overturned so who cares who lied in front of the senate or how terrified those who have suffered from sexual abuse are of coming forward. All he had to do was keep his mouth shut and say he would follow the investigation. But no he could not resist being the bully. In giving out about the uppity woman. Anyone who can't remember every detail of their assault should be scared of coming forward because this is how they will be treated.

2 Scoops

Christy42 wrote: »

I said it after he ordered the kids in cages. Anyone supporting republicans needs to take a long look at themselves.

Selective outrage, and you know it.

Where were your concerns when the Obama administration did the same thing? Social media spread images accusing Trump of suddenly caging immigrants, they were images from the previous administration.

Sweetemotion

batgoat wrote: »

And it's reasonable to assume that for most people decades ago, such a party would have been of little importance to them so not of particular note memory wise. So easy to simply forget.

Lets just forget about witnesses, it wasn't important for them so their testimonies don't mean crap. Let's forget the accused testimony, he's a man and must be lying.

I believe the accuser because she is a woman and therefore can't lie.

6am7f9zxrsjvnb

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Lets just forget about witnesses, it wasn't important for them so their testimonies don't mean crap. Let's forget the accused testimony, he's a man and must be lying.

I believe the accuser because she is a woman and therefore can't lie.

The above comment cuts to the heart of the matter..The reason the Metoo movement is doomed to failure is that for every woman who holds up a ‘believe women’ placard, there are two women who understand that it is possible for someone to embellish/misinterpret /fabricate/misconstrue the details of a sexual encounter.

Are most accusations true? Probably.
Are some accusations false? Definitely.

The protesters today believe an accusation is all that’s required.The majority of people don’t want to live in that world.

2 Scoops

**Mod Snip**

Don't link dump please

rossie1977

StringerBell wrote: »

So if it had gone 50-48 the other way democracy wouldn't have won the day? What a bizarre thing to say.

This is to ignore that the US Senate never has been, nor was even designed to be democratic. That doesnt matter in this context

Senate is nowhere near Democratic. Two senators for every state. 2 from Wyoming which has a population of 500,000 and two from California which has 40 million.

Manic Moran

On a business trip, sorry for delayed response here.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are shifting the goalposts there Manic. People are judging this deal against the rhetoric of the POTUS himself, that the pervious deal was the worst thing ever, a sell out of the US, that he would prefer a trade war than to continue on, that he would deliver a deal that would deliver jobs and MAGA.

Hang on. Are you seriously trying to postulate that our default standard of reference for anything on Boards should be Trump?

Forgive me, but I have not yet devolved to such a state of pessimism. I did not note anything on the post I replied to indicating the use of the Trump Standard, and looked at it merely from the perspective of someone who doesn’t actually pay much attention to the man.

So, since the question has come up, which goalpost shall we use absent a specific exemption in a post?

rossie1977 wrote: »

StringerBell wrote: »

So if it had gone 50-48 the other way democracy wouldn't have won the day? What a bizarre thing to say.

This is to ignore that the US Senate never has been, nor was even designed to be democratic. That doesnt matter in this context

Senate is nowhere near Democratic. Two senators for every state. 2 from Wyoming which has a population of 500,000 and two from California which has 40 million.

Mmm... For what it does, the Senate is more democratic than the House. The House is a constituent representative body in the ‘normal’ manner. The Senate is much closer to a democracy, differentiated from one by the fact that each constituent can split their vote, and and that in many cases more than a plurality or even majority is necessary to carry a motion.

Think of it this way. The House represents the People (330 millions of them) and the Senate represents the States (50 of them). It’s really quite a clever way of compromising on the population issue and the “fifty separate and equal States” issue.

ELM327

This kavanaugh confirmation is a great victory for the Trump regime and goes a long way to securing swathes of evangelical votes for his reelection.

There's a good point to be made, which is made by the white house press office - instead of a 6-3 liberal SC under Hillary, it's now a 5-4 conservative court under Trump. Many people who were not Trump supporters and do not support his attitudes to women or mexicans or muslims voted for trump solely based on the supreme court, to ensure that there is no gun law changes and they want to overturn Roe v Wade.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/brett-kavanaugh-confirmed-to-us-supreme-court-amid-protests-1.3654423

ELM327

Flynn Scrawny Lace wrote: »

The above comment cuts to the heart of the matter..The reason the Metoo movement is doomed to failure is that for every woman who holds up a ‘believe women’ placard, there are two women who understand that it is possible for someone to embellish/misinterpret /fabricate/misconstrue the details of a sexual encounter.

Are most accusations true? Probably.
Are some accusations false? Definitely.

The protesters today believe an accusation is all that’s required.The majority of people don’t want to live in that world.

Amen to that.
A great way of describing the difference between a civilised society where allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and a mob rule where no one needs to prove anything. For those on the left that claim to be progressive - it's hard to claim to be progressive when you're leaving behind the legal system and going back to vigilante/mob rule

dr.fuzzenstein

2 Scoops wrote: »

Selective outrage, and you know it.

Where were your concerns when the Obama administration did the same thing? Social media spread images accusing Trump of suddenly caging immigrants, they were images from the previous administration.

OK, I cannot let this horseh*t go unchallenged.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/

In defending its “zero tolerance” border policy that has caused the separation of families, the Trump administration has argued that the Obama and Bush administrations did this too. That’s misleading. Experts say there were some separations under previous administrations, but no blanket policy to prosecute parents and, therefore, separate them from their children.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border

Trump made separating families a matter of standard practice. Obama did not.
It’s not that no family was ever separated at the border under the Obama administration. But former Obama administration officials specify that families were separated only in particular circumstances — for instance, if a father was carrying drugs — that went above and beyond a typical case of illegal entry.

We don’t know how often that happened, but we know it was not a widespread or standard practice.

Under the Trump administration, though, it became increasingly common. A test of “zero tolerance” along one sector of the border in summer 2017 led to an unknown number of family separations. Seven hundred families were separated between October 2017 and April 2018.

From May 7 to June 20, separating a family who had entered between ports of entry was the standard practice of the Trump administration. It was the default.

https://www.euronews.com/2018/06/20/fact-check-did-obama-administration-separate-families-n884856

Amid outcry over the "zero tolerance" immigration policy implemented by President Donald Trump's administration in April, conservative commentators and his head of Homeland Security have sought to downplay the practice of separating families who cross the border illegally as nothing new.

"The Obama administration, the Bush administration all separated families," Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told reporters at the White House on Monday. "They absolutely did. They did — their rate was less than ours, but they absolutely did do this. This is not new."

Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, made a similar point on Fox News on Friday.

"You know what's ironic?" he said. "It's the same way Barack Obama did it."

But immigration advocates and former Obama administration officials say that's just not true: The Obama administration did not have any kind of widespread practice of separating children from their parents. Trump's policy aims to prosecute every single illegal border crossing, including asylum seekers. The government separates children from their parents or legal guardians because the adults have been referred for prosecution for illegal entry into the United States.

The idea that this is simply a continuation of an Obama-era practice is "preposterous," said Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas Law School. "There were occasionally instances where you would find a separated family — maybe like one every six months to a year — and that was usually because there had been some actual individualized concern that there was a trafficking situation or that the parent wasn't actually the parent."

Once custody concerns were resolved, "there was pretty immediately reunification," Gilman told NBC News. "There were not 2,000 kids in two months — it's not the same universe," she added.

But of course you knew that, you're just leaving out this "little" detail because it gets in the way of your flag-waving for Trump.
Or you are incapable to distinguish what Obama did, compared to what Trump did, because you lack the intellectual capacity to properly compare the 2 scenarios.
One would have to be either a moron or a liar to say it is the same.

Rhineshark

ELM327 wrote: »

This kavanaugh confirmation is a great victory for the Trump regime and goes a long way to securing swathes of evangelical votes for his reelection.

There's a good point to be made, which is made by the white house press office - instead of a 6-3 liberal SC under Hillary, it's now a 5-4 conservative court under Trump. Many people who were not Trump supporters and do not support his attitudes to women or mexicans or muslims voted for trump solely based on the supreme court, to ensure that there is no gun law changes and they want to overturn Roe v Wade.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/brett-kavanaugh-confirmed-to-us-supreme-court-amid-protests-1.3654423

A 6-3 liberal court? Who was she going to murder to clear a path?

Garland would probably have gotten on, as he should have had the process when the GOP decided the first time to crap all over American governance. Kennedy wouldn't have resigned without talking to Trump as that seems to have been how it went. I doubt Clinton would have agreed to Kavanaugh.

ELM327

Rhineshark wrote: »

A 6-3 liberal court? Who was she going to murder to clear a path?

Garland would probably have gotten on, as he should have had the process when the GOP decided the first time to crap all over American governance. Kennedy wouldn't have resigned without talking to Trump as that seems to have been how it went. I doubt Clinton would have agreed to Kavanaugh.

Gorsuch wouldn't have been confirmed by a democrat administration.
Assuming this vacancy now that is gone to kavanaugh was also created during a hillary administration it's pretty safe to assume it would be another liberal judge assigned.


The liberals want to go after gun rights and the conservatives want to tackle the roe v wade issue. There has been 40 years of posturing by both sides since roe v wade.

Pkiernan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

OK, I cannot let this horseh*t go unchallenged.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/did-the-obama-administration-separate-families/



https://www.vox.com/2018/6/21/17488458/obama-immigration-policy-family-separation-border



https://www.euronews.com/2018/06/20/fact-check-did-obama-administration-separate-families-n884856



But of course you knew that, you're just leaving out this "little" detail because it gets in the way of your flag-waving for Trump.
Or you are incapable to distinguish what Obama did, compared to what Trump did, because you lack the intellectual capacity to properly compare the 2 scenarios.
One would have to be either a moron or a liar to say it is the same.

Listen to these snips from Bill and Hillary from CNN and the New York Times


Hillary:

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/1194817098972/hillary-clinton-on-immigration.html

Bill:


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DswtDFqaXy6Y&ved=2ahUKEwjJ0PrV5_PdAhXnJMAKHYrwBxYQtwIwAnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3rjZR9oGyMuW2NX6KZhgOZ


It's this hypocrisy that drove voters to President Trump

SharpshooterTom

I oppose Kavanaugh's nomination and think the guy is a massive corporate shill, but this tweet from Ariel Dumas, a writer for Stephen Colbert's show, is nothing short of shocking.

https://twitter.com/Sam_5thEstate/status/1048735482920800257

I'm sure there will be people on here who will cheer this, but the end of the day, this is disgraceful, if someone had said that about one of Obama's judges, they'd be boycotts, calls for them to be fired etc.

Trumps certainly drove politics into the gutter in the US, but his opponents aren't much better sometimes.

ancapailldorcha

To be honest, all of this just shows how poisonous and divisive US Politics has become.

RDM_83 again

BabyCheeses wrote: »

The majority of republicans wanted to confirm Kavanagh even if the accusations were proven true. You might not be Irish but in general, for this country sexually abusing people gets you in trouble. But this is also the party that nearly voted in Roy Moore.

This is the problem with republicans like you. As long as the republican wins you don't care. They can be a child rapist, a murderer, or a racist but at least they aren't a democrat. That's exactly the rot they are talking about. How can we believe anything you say when you'll defend those?

If this case had been in Ireland would we have even be able to talk about it though?the accusations are from when he would have been a juvenile under Irish law and even if he had been convicted the record would have been sealed and media records purged.
Example being the fact that the league of Ireland has someone with a gang rape conviction playing for them that occurred when they were 17.

Thepoet85

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

As much as I detest Trump I see this as a victory for common sense against the #metoo "movement".

I'm not sure I agree. How do other victims of assaults feel seeing this play out? The thing was a sham from start to finish.

If someone feels they have been assaulted or abused in any way, then they have the right to be heard.

Thepoet85

2 Scoops wrote:

No he didn't, he said exactly what she said at the hearing. I don't agree with what he did, but he stated facts about her case.

He was clearly implying it however.

SharpshooterTom

Thepoet85 wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree. How do other victims of assaults feel seeing this play out? The thing was a sham from start to finish.

If someone feels they have been assaulted or abused in any way, then they have the right to be heard.

Absolutely.

But the person accused doesn't deserve to have his/her life destroyed without a trial or any significant evidence.

And that to me is the dangers of #metoo, people are automatically assumed guilty.

SharpshooterTom

Woah at this video.

https://twitter.com/thefunnymuggle/status/1048711553967689728

If ever these crowds get their hands on him it will make Mussolini's public execution look civilized. :eek:

Thepoet85

ThomasFlynn wrote:

And that to me is the dangers of #metoo, people are automatically assumed guilty.

It's a tough one to find a common round on for sure. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't work in the real world.

weisses

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To be honest, all of this just shows how poisonous and divisive US Politics has become.

The US is turning into one of Trumps "****hole" countries ....... only with Nukes ..

weisses

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Absolutely.

But the person accused doesn't deserve to have his/her life destroyed without a trial or any significant evidence.

And that to me is the dangers of #metoo, people are automatically assumed guilty.

Did you forget what happened to Ford once her name was out in the open.

In this case the person accused was promoted to the highest court in the land without any proper investigation into the evidence.

What became apparent is that during the hearing BK showed he lacks the integrity to be on the SC

SharpshooterTom

weisses wrote: »

Did you forget what happened to Ford once her name was out in the open.

In this case the person accused was promoted to the highest court in the land without any proper investigation into the evidence.

What became apparent is that during the hearing BK showed he lacks the integrity to be on the SC

That's not been the case for the vast majority of men in the past 18 months, certainly not those who work in the media. Al Franken's, whose crimes were quite mild in comparison to BK's, also fell victim.

rossie1977

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

That's not been the case for the vast majority of men in the past 18 months, certainly not those who work in the media. Al Franken's, whose crimes were quite mild in comparison to BK's, also fell victim.

Who in the media has had their lives destroyed due to made up allegations. I can only think of Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes and they were guilty as hell as they tried paying off their accusers.

Franken was forced out by the Republicans.

weisses

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

That's not been the case for the vast majority of men in the past 18 months, certainly not those who work in the media. Al Franken's, whose crimes were quite mild in comparison to BK's, also fell victim.

Yup and one has its Political career destroyed and the other who's crimes would be more serious is promoted to the supreme court. All happening in a messed up country where a Purge would do miracles at this stage

SharpshooterTom

rossie1977 wrote: »

Who in the media has had their lives destroyed due to made up allegations. I can only think of Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes and they were guilty as hell as they tried paying off their accusers.

Franken was forced out by the Republicans.

No my point was in relation to weisses point who (I think) was suggesting men still keep getting away with it, but in the past 18 months many high profile celebrities (almost all of which are likely guilty) have lost their jobs and haven't returned.

Franken was forced out by democrats as well as republicans, the likes of Gilibrand and Harris were extremely quick to call for his resignation.

oscarBravo

2 Scoops wrote: »

I've been offline for a bit and just catching up, but I notice you never answered my question:

Do you believe that every single word that Kavanaugh said during his Senate testimony was truthful?

ELM327

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've been offline for a bit and just catching up, but I notice you never answered my question:

Do you believe that every single word that Kavanaugh said during his Senate testimony was truthful?

SC Justice Kavanaugh reacted appropriately to unfounded and uncorroborated allegations.
The questions like "do you like beer" are ridiculous.

Water John

The one thing I am sure of, as I saw it, was he didn't react appropriately.
He went on a bizarre partisan rant. That alone disqualified him.

ELM327

Water John wrote: »

The one thing I am sure of, as I saw it, was he didn't react appropriately.
He went on a bizarre partisan rant. That alone disqualified him.

Putting myself in his position, with ridiculous and absurd lines of questioning and unfounded allegations, I would react in a similar way and as such adjudicated his actions as appropriate

26000 Elephants

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

I oppose Kavanaugh's nomination and think the guy is a massive corporate shill, but this tweet from Ariel Dumas, a writer for Stephen Colbert's show, is nothing short of shocking.

I think your sarcasm detector need re-calibration. See earlier post of a smiling Brett being sworn in with the caption "His life is destroyed" to put that tweet in context.