Donald Trump
Comments
-
rjsterry wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
He's also not very bright if he thinks that after hearing Ford's testimony, getting all angry about having to answer difficult questions is the way to get the job. Even Fox News thinks he's blown it.
This powerful opinion piece sums him up
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opi ... 31849628f4
He tried to turn the tables and become the victim aided and abetted by the majority or republicans, he showed what privileged do when they don’t get their own way throw a tantrum. Trumps follow up tweet totally ignored the real victim in all of this... surprised, not.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Robert88 wrote:FocusZing wrote:Robert88 wrote:FocusZing wrote:Robert88 wrote:FocusZing thinks he is going get free beer out of this. He's going to be sadly disappointed:
Scottish craft brewery BrewDog has canceled planned events with Atlanta’s Scofflaw Brewing after the latter’s marketing stunt backfired.
Scofflaw, which was set to participate in a series of events this weekend along with BrewDog, issued a press release to publications in the UK announcing that the "self confessed trailer trash brewery" would get the UK "beered up redneck style completely free of charge", The Scotsman reports. It added: "But there is a hook...you have to be a Trump supporter."
Brewdog said: Following Scofflaw's Fake News earlier, we're going to run a very real promotion today - one free beer for anyone who supports LOVE not hate.Fred Trump died 36 years ago in 1981, aged just 43 – while Donald was 35 – after a long battle with alcoholism.
And it is because of the Trans World Airline pilot’s addiction that meant his young brother has apparently never consumed alcohol to this day.
It is also the reason the president has never smoked a cigarette.
Speaks for it's self.
Indeed it does.
In effect DT recognises that he has an addictive personality like big brother.People who experience addictive personality disorders typically act on impulses and cannot deal with delayed gratification.[12] At the same time, people with this type of personality tend to believe that they do not fit into societal norms and therefore, acting on impulses, deviate from conformity to rebel.[11] People with addictive personalities are very sensitive to emotional stress. They have trouble handling situations that they deem frustrating, even if the event is for a very short duration. The combination of low self-esteem, impulsivity and low tolerance for stress causes these individuals to have frequent mood swings and often suffer from some sort of depression.[12] A coping mechanism to deal with their conflicting personality becomes their addiction and the addiction acts as something that the person can control when they find it difficult to control their personality traits.[12]
People with addictive personalities typically switch from one addiction to the next.[14] These individuals may show impulsive behavior such as excessive caffeine consumption, Internet use, eating chocolate or other sugar-laden foods, television watching, or even running.[1]
That certainly fits POTUS 45 to a tee.
Using Twitter isn't a crime. Can anybody list some positive things Trump has done during his tenure?
I never suggested that the President's personality disorder was in itself a crime. It's demonstrably not the best qualification for a powerful leader.
Like most things, on the positive side he might have a greater compulsion to doggedly sort problems out.0 -
The US is an incredibly partisan country, trump will sort problems that benefit his business and big business. The environment, women, minority groups in the US and rest of the world and the other 50+% of the US can go to hell as he is genetically incapable of caring and empathy.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0
-
FocusZing wrote:Can anybody list some positive things Trump has done during his tenure?
Isn't that your job..??0 -
FocusZing wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:Ok stop laughing and actually answer the guy.
Well apart from nepotism, cronyism and potentially other isms too numerous to list he's got a personal style that's infantile and unworthy of his position. He's tried to undermine the constitution (apparently) and there's an unstable approach to international relations. He's spent more time away from the job on his various golf courses at huge expense compared to the off duty activities of past presidents. He's tried to undermine a legitimate investigation, sacked highly capable investigators in the process and is still trying to stop it. He has a public speaking style that's immature and self aggrandizing and as a result has made himself and his position a laughing stock.
That's just off the top of my head. Would anyone else care to continue this to explain what he's done wrong rather than just make laughing emoji?
I haven't got time to read all that faux twaddle. Again what about the economy? That's what counts.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/0 -
Matthewfalle wrote:
It was such a simple question and the way he responded says that he did, but just doesn't want to say who ... his face isn't very good at covering up lies ... he needs a bit more coaching from Trump ...0 -
He has managed to improve on his image as a self centred, selfish, grandstanding cretin.FocusZing wrote:Using Twitter isn't a crime. Can anybody list some positive things Trump has done during his tenure?
He is now even more of a self centred, selfish, grandstanding cretin.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
darkhairedlord wrote:
Great, see!0 -
0
-
The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.0 -
Slowbike wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
It was such a simple question and the way he responded says that he did, but just doesn't want to say who ... his face isn't very good at covering up lies ... he needs a bit more coaching from Trump ...
The law firm she is referring to employs 350 lawyers. How could he remember either way? She should have given him the name of the employee he supposedly spoke to. If she gave him a name and he denied it it's a different matter.0 -
nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.0 -
nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
They would dream of having such a hearing for their last nominee. Or any hearing.
Of course we can't know whether he is lying about the specific allegation, but his lying is so obvious about so many things - literally his first statement as a nominee was that "no president had consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds to seek input about a supreme court nomination". Now his partisanship came straight out when he said the whole accusation was "revenge for the Clintons". This is a lifetime appointment as a judge on the highest court.0 -
nickice wrote:Slowbike wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
It was such a simple question and the way he responded says that he did, but just doesn't want to say who ... his face isn't very good at covering up lies ... he needs a bit more coaching from Trump ...
The law firm she is referring to employs 350 lawyers. How could he remember either way? She should have given him the name of the employee he supposedly spoke to. If she gave him a name and he denied it it's a different matter.
Come on he didn't just say no. Clearly he was using any technique to avoid an answer incase future evidence provides contridic evidence.0 -
nickice wrote:Slowbike wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
It was such a simple question and the way he responded says that he did, but just doesn't want to say who ... his face isn't very good at covering up lies ... he needs a bit more coaching from Trump ...
The law firm she is referring to employs 350 lawyers. How could he remember either way? She should have given him the name of the employee he supposedly spoke to. If she gave him a name and he denied it it's a different matter.
The answer is simple - either he only talked to his Judge colleagues or he talked to a wider group of people.
If he talked to a wider group of people about the case then he just needs to say that he spoke to others - who may or may not have been in the employ of the firm in question - but he can't recall who.
If he had a privileged conversation with a lawyer representing him who worked there then he can state that.
Stumbling around saying things like I talked to my judge friends but I don't know if I spoke to anyone at that firm is just weaseling - and his whole body language indicates that he did - and he knows he did - he's just worried that if he denies it, then there will be evidence to say he did.0 -
FocusZing wrote:Robert88 wrote:FocusZing wrote:Robert88 wrote:FocusZing wrote:Robert88 wrote:FocusZing thinks he is going get free beer out of this. He's going to be sadly disappointed:
Scottish craft brewery BrewDog has canceled planned events with Atlanta’s Scofflaw Brewing after the latter’s marketing stunt backfired.
Scofflaw, which was set to participate in a series of events this weekend along with BrewDog, issued a press release to publications in the UK announcing that the "self confessed trailer trash brewery" would get the UK "beered up redneck style completely free of charge", The Scotsman reports. It added: "But there is a hook...you have to be a Trump supporter."
Brewdog said: Following Scofflaw's Fake News earlier, we're going to run a very real promotion today - one free beer for anyone who supports LOVE not hate.Fred Trump died 36 years ago in 1981, aged just 43 – while Donald was 35 – after a long battle with alcoholism.
And it is because of the Trans World Airline pilot’s addiction that meant his young brother has apparently never consumed alcohol to this day.
It is also the reason the president has never smoked a cigarette.
Speaks for it's self.
Indeed it does.
In effect DT recognises that he has an addictive personality like big brother.People who experience addictive personality disorders typically act on impulses and cannot deal with delayed gratification.[12] At the same time, people with this type of personality tend to believe that they do not fit into societal norms and therefore, acting on impulses, deviate from conformity to rebel.[11] People with addictive personalities are very sensitive to emotional stress. They have trouble handling situations that they deem frustrating, even if the event is for a very short duration. The combination of low self-esteem, impulsivity and low tolerance for stress causes these individuals to have frequent mood swings and often suffer from some sort of depression.[12] A coping mechanism to deal with their conflicting personality becomes their addiction and the addiction acts as something that the person can control when they find it difficult to control their personality traits.[12]
People with addictive personalities typically switch from one addiction to the next.[14] These individuals may show impulsive behavior such as excessive caffeine consumption, Internet use, eating chocolate or other sugar-laden foods, television watching, or even running.[1]
That certainly fits POTUS 45 to a tee.
Using Twitter isn't a crime. Can anybody list some positive things Trump has done during his tenure?
I never suggested that the President's personality disorder was in itself a crime. It's demonstrably not the best qualification for a powerful leader.
Like most things, on the positive side he might have a greater compulsion to doggedly sort problems out.
Sure, but he doesn't need to be President to do that. There are professionals who could help him with his problems.0 -
Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.
The FBI has already performed six background checks on him and he has no authority to ask them to conduct the investigaion. The reason the Democrats want an FBI investigation is simply a delaying tactic so they can keep delaying the nomination until they take back control of the senate. That's why they sat on it before it was mysteriously leaked to the press when it looked like he would be nominated.
All the FBI does is report the allegations withoug making any recommendations. It's too late to investigate this. There is no date or location and no corroborating evidence. It would be instantly dismissed by any court.
As for his temperament, he was angry because he believes he's been falsely accused. Wouldn't you be? He's already been found guilty by members of the public and several politicians The hearing is not a court of law but if the standard of proof is simply one where an allegation is enough and no corroborating evidence is required, there will never be another successful SC appointment.0 -
nickice wrote:Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.
The FBI has already performed six background checks on him and he has no authority to ask them to conduct the investigaion. The reason the Democrats want an FBI investigation is simply a delaying tactic so they can keep delaying the nomination until they take back control of the senate. That's why they sat on it before it was mysteriously leaked to the press when it looked like he would be nominated.
All the FBI does is report the allegations withoug making any recommendations. It's too late to investigate this. There is no date or location and no corroborating evidence. It would be instantly dismissed by any court.
As for his temperament, he was angry because he believes he's been falsely accused. Wouldn't you be? He's already been found guilty by members of the public and several politicians The hearing is not a court of law but if the standard of proof is simply one where an allegation is enough and no corroborating evidence is required, there will never be another successful SC appointment.
Do you think lying to the senate should be disqualifying?0 -
Slowbike wrote:nickice wrote:Slowbike wrote:Matthewfalle wrote:
It was such a simple question and the way he responded says that he did, but just doesn't want to say who ... his face isn't very good at covering up lies ... he needs a bit more coaching from Trump ...
The law firm she is referring to employs 350 lawyers. How could he remember either way? She should have given him the name of the employee he supposedly spoke to. If she gave him a name and he denied it it's a different matter.
The answer is simple - either he only talked to his Judge colleagues or he talked to a wider group of people.
If he talked to a wider group of people about the case then he just needs to say that he spoke to others - who may or may not have been in the employ of the firm in question - but he can't recall who.
If he had a privileged conversation with a lawyer representing him who worked there then he can state that.
Stumbling around saying things like I talked to my judge friends but I don't know if I spoke to anyone at that firm is just weaseling - and his whole body language indicates that he did - and he knows he did - he's just worried that if he denies it, then there will be evidence to say he did.
It's incredible that people can't see what Kamala Harris was doing here. She deliberately chose a large law firm, with hundreds of employees , in the hope he would perjure himself. That's why he was reluctant to answer. He's a lawyer and a judge so he's probably spoken about it quite a lot with colleagues and acquaintances. This is exactly why he was asking for a name. Of course, she couldn't provide a name as it was just a bluff.0 -
nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
Oh, please. He was a man unaccustomed to being challenged and angry that he'd blown his job interview. If he had half the character his supporters claim he'd have responded to the questioning with the self control of his accuser.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.
The FBI has already performed six background checks on him and he has no authority to ask them to conduct the investigaion. The reason the Democrats want an FBI investigation is simply a delaying tactic so they can keep delaying the nomination until they take back control of the senate. That's why they sat on it before it was mysteriously leaked to the press when it looked like he would be nominated.
All the FBI does is report the allegations withoug making any recommendations. It's too late to investigate this. There is no date or location and no corroborating evidence. It would be instantly dismissed by any court.
As for his temperament, he was angry because he believes he's been falsely accused. Wouldn't you be? He's already been found guilty by members of the public and several politicians The hearing is not a court of law but if the standard of proof is simply one where an allegation is enough and no corroborating evidence is required, there will never be another successful SC appointment.
Do you think lying to the senate should be disqualifying?
If it can be proved that he lied to the senate (I'm assuming you're talking about those emails) then perhaps. But that approach has already been tried and failed. This unsubstantiated allegation alone should not disqualify him. Like I said, Democrats should be careful what they wish for.0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
Oh, please. He was a man unaccustomed to being challenged and angry that he'd blown his job interview. If he had half the character his supporters claim he'd have responded to the questioning with the self control of his accuser.
Most job interviews don't include historical sex-assault allegations.
You haven't actually provided any arguments. Do you think a 36-year-old, unsubstantiated allegation should be enough to disqualify someone from nomination? That's the key question.0 -
nickice wrote:It's incredible that people can't see what Kamala Harris was doing here. She deliberately chose a large law firm, with hundreds of employees , in the hope he would perjure himself. That's why he was reluctant to answer. He's a lawyer and a judge so he's probably spoken about it quite a lot with colleagues and acquaintances. This is exactly why he was asking for a name. Of course, she couldn't provide a name as it was just a bluff.
Of course, it may have been a bluff - or it may not have - eitherway - it was a straight forward question - to which there was a reasonable answer - even if he had spoken to someone about the case and he wasn't sure where they worked then he could answer to state that - but he didn't - he squirmed around the question.
This is someone who apparently has a vivid memory and ability to recall facts - yet he can't remember who he's spoken to about a significant case.
Sorry - but if he can't answer in a believable manner then he can't be trusted to answer anything truthfully.0 -
Slowbike wrote:nickice wrote:It's incredible that people can't see what Kamala Harris was doing here. She deliberately chose a large law firm, with hundreds of employees , in the hope he would perjure himself. That's why he was reluctant to answer. He's a lawyer and a judge so he's probably spoken about it quite a lot with colleagues and acquaintances. This is exactly why he was asking for a name. Of course, she couldn't provide a name as it was just a bluff.
Of course, it may have been a bluff - or it may not have - eitherway - it was a straight forward question - to which there was a reasonable answer - even if he had spoken to someone about the case and he wasn't sure where they worked then he could answer to state that - but he didn't - he squirmed around the question.
This is someone who apparently has a vivid memory and ability to recall facts - yet he can't remember who he's spoken to about a significant case.
Sorry - but if he can't answer in a believable manner then he can't be trusted to answer anything truthfully.
He saw the trap and was reluctant to enter. She had no name. Otherwise she would have released those details afterwards.0 -
It's not most job interviews. It is a lifetime appointment to the highest court. If appointed he will arguably have more influence than his nominator. It should be a difficult and searching interview. All sexual assault allegations are historical unless you think someone could make a pre-emptive accusation. Whether it was 5 days, 5 years or 40 years does not determine their validity. There may not be sufficient evidence for a conviction but I don't think it is unsubstantiated. The background circumstances that Ford described are consistent with other accounts of Kavanaugh's school days.
The Democrats are only doing what McConnell did to Obama's SC nominees and with far less justification. If they don't like it they could always find a better candidate.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:It's not most job interviews. It is a lifetime appointment to the highest court. If appointed he will arguably have more influence than his nominator. It should be a difficult and searching interview. There may not be sufficient evidence for a conviction but I don't think it is unsubstantiated. The background circumstances that Ford described are consistent with other accounts of Kavanaugh's school days.
The Democrats are only doing what McConnell did to Obama's SC nominees and with far less justification. If they don't like it they could always find a better candidate.
You can't accuse him of bad behaviour in a job interview when, like you say, it's not a regular job interview. His conduct in all the other hearings has been acceptable. I don't blame him for being angry as he will now be forever tainted.
I must admit that I laughed when you said the allegation isn't unsubstantiated. It is absolutely unsubstantiated. This would be a perfect example of unsubstantiated allegations.
And other accounts do not corroborate this allegation (the 'gang rape' one is particularly ludicorus) of sexual assault.0 -
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:The World has gone positively mad. That an allegation of a crime from thirty-six years ago with no exact date or location and no corroborating evidence can destroy a man's career and reputation is absolutely scandalous. People said Ford seemed credible but there is a reason why we require corroborating evidence. Everyone knows people who are very convinving liars and, on the flip side, people who aren't convincing even if they tell the truth. I have no idea if Ford or Kavanaugh is lying but Kavanaugh behaved exactly as I'd expect a falsely accused man to behave. Especially as very high-ranking politicians had basically already declared him guilty.
The Democrats should be careful what they wish for. For one day it will be their nominee who is the victim of a kangaroo court.
He could simply ask for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to check it our - it's what they do, hence the name. He refuses to submit to a proper process which if he is innocent should clear his name.
The essential issue is whether he is a proper character to fulfil the role of supreme court judge. His temperament and dishonesty about other matters say that he is not. He is in any case 'damaged goods'.
The FBI has already performed six background checks on him and he has no authority to ask them to conduct the investigaion. The reason the Democrats want an FBI investigation is simply a delaying tactic so they can keep delaying the nomination until they take back control of the senate. That's why they sat on it before it was mysteriously leaked to the press when it looked like he would be nominated.
All the FBI does is report the allegations withoug making any recommendations. It's too late to investigate this. There is no date or location and no corroborating evidence. It would be instantly dismissed by any court.
As for his temperament, he was angry because he believes he's been falsely accused. Wouldn't you be? He's already been found guilty by members of the public and several politicians The hearing is not a court of law but if the standard of proof is simply one where an allegation is enough and no corroborating evidence is required, there will never be another successful SC appointment.
Do you think lying to the senate should be disqualifying?
If it can be proved that he lied to the senate (I'm assuming you're talking about those emails) then perhaps. But that approach has already been tried and failed. This unsubstantiated allegation alone should not disqualify him. Like I said, Democrats should be careful what they wish for.
Why do you say it's been tried and failed? There's been no vote yet.
He lied about the emails, and surely you don't believe what he said about his drinking, and a load of stuff he didn't need to lie about on his yearbook.0 -
Quite apart from this case, is anybody else waiting for Trump's tweet on how his hours on the golf course have raised the standard of American golf to the point where USA have just won the first point in the Ryder Cup?Wilier Izoard XP0
