Donald Trump
Comments
-
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:Slowbike wrote:
Guilty court of law is not the same as "guilty" here - obviously ...nickice wrote:There are often people are quite obviously guilty who are found not guilty (OJ Simpson, for example) but the standard of proof for the Kavanaugh accusation is so low as to basically be a kangaroo court. There is no evidence except her testimony (which wasn't always credible. Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
the questions and allegations are testing his character ... from the limited bits I've seen I wouldn't trust him - but then, I don't need to and I haven't got the time or inclination to be an Internet Judge
They're not attempting to determine his guilt or otherwise. They are determining his suitability for one of the highest possible appointments in the US. It doesn't matter whether they think he has some dark past or they just don't like his shoes; it's just a question of whether they think he is suitable for the job. There is no standard of proof required.
As for whining about the Democrats being partisan, it was a nakedly partisan nomination. Unless Kavanaugh is a complete idiot, he will have been well aware that the Democrats would oppose his appointment. And if he was any good he would have prepared so that he could answer their questions without shouting and sobbing like a moody teenager.
If no standard of proof is required any allegation can and will be made. I suggest you think a bit more deeply about what that will mean for the future of the Supreme Court.
In case you hadn't noticed, most Republicans are going to vote for him anyway. If you take the view that this is some sort of quasi-trial and not a job interview, then that would roughly equate to not guilty. The allegations aren't being accepted without question,; Dr Ford was questioned at length and in detail so that the senators could make some sort of judgement on the veracity of her claims. At least that was the idea. In reality they seem to be voting entirely on party lines and to hell with the testimony.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:Slowbike wrote:
Guilty court of law is not the same as "guilty" here - obviously ...nickice wrote:There are often people are quite obviously guilty who are found not guilty (OJ Simpson, for example) but the standard of proof for the Kavanaugh accusation is so low as to basically be a kangaroo court. There is no evidence except her testimony (which wasn't always credible. Everyone is forgetting the blatant lies about flying, for example).
the questions and allegations are testing his character ... from the limited bits I've seen I wouldn't trust him - but then, I don't need to and I haven't got the time or inclination to be an Internet Judge
They're not attempting to determine his guilt or otherwise. They are determining his suitability for one of the highest possible appointments in the US. It doesn't matter whether they think he has some dark past or they just don't like his shoes; it's just a question of whether they think he is suitable for the job. There is no standard of proof required.
As for whining about the Democrats being partisan, it was a nakedly partisan nomination. Unless Kavanaugh is a complete idiot, he will have been well aware that the Democrats would oppose his appointment. And if he was any good he would have prepared so that he could answer their questions without shouting and sobbing like a moody teenager.
If no standard of proof is required any allegation can and will be made. I suggest you think a bit more deeply about what that will mean for the future of the Supreme Court.
In case you hadn't noticed, most Republicans are going to vote for him anyway. If you take the view that this is some sort of quasi-trial and not a job interview, then that would roughly equate to not guilty. The allegations aren't being accepted without question,; Dr Ford was questioned at length.
It's not a given at all. The Republicans have a slim majority in the Senate. This has been a kangaroo court, plain and simple.0 -
It isn't any kind of court.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:And you're living in an absolute fantasy land if you think the Democrats would have voted for another nominee. They would have done everything they could do delay it.
What were the numbers for Neil Gorsuch?
Gorsuch was a much less important appointment (politically speaking)
No, he was a less objectionable appointment. All the justices are important, and after what happened to Merrick garland, they would have been expected to be mad as hell. They still tried to block him, but when he had 51 republicans, 3 democrats also voted for him.
This guy is struggling to get all the republicans, and two of those Dems have said they are no already. He's not exactly come across as a level headed impartial arbiter in this process, has he?
Sounds like it might not even be all over in the committee yet anyway.0 -
The situation harks back to Roosevelt who tried to influence the court through his appointments. He lost a huge amount of popularity through his attempts to pack the court through legislation and highlighted the need to preserve the independence of the court from political pressure. Trump's attempt to appoint Kavanaugh drives a coach and horses through such a principle and demonstrates Trump's own unfitness for office.0
-
My guess is that he is relieved at not being so premature.laurentian wrote: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?
#longwaytogoThe 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 -
The mental contortions required to tell a woman that you believe her story that she was sexually assaulted, but that she's wrong about who did it, are astounding.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Webboo wrote:
His hair is very 'Alan Partridge'....0 -
It must be a prerequisite to be a trumpite.0
-
Webboo wrote:It must be a prerequisite to be a trumpite.
i think being a bell end comes before the hair requirementPostby team47b » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:53 am
De Sisti wrote:
This is one of the silliest threads I've come across.
Recognition at last Matthew, well done!, a justified honoursmithy21 wrote:
He's right you know.0 -
FBI investigation approved - my guess is that Kavanaugh might now withdraw...0
-
-
0
-
essexian wrote:
He meant training the swamp. It's different, you get your own folks in so you can do just as you damn well like. Seems to have stalled a bit on Kavanaugh, one of the finest Trumpians he knows.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:The mental contortions required to tell a woman that you believe her story that she was sexually assaulted, but that she's wrong about who did it, are astounding.
And if he said he didn't believe her the press would have been all over him for 'not believing women'. This will go down as one of the most despicable processes in US politics. I wouldn't vote Republican but I definitely wouldn't vote Democrat either. I think they've just given the Republicans the mid-terms.0 -
Good. If they'd instructed this as soon as the allegations arose instead of trying to steamroller through the hearing the Republicans might have avoided the car crash of Kavanaugh's testimony.Imposter wrote:FBI investigation approved - my guess is that Kavanaugh might now withdraw...1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
nickice wrote:TailWindHome wrote:The mental contortions required to tell a woman that you believe her story that she was sexually assaulted, but that she's wrong about who did it, are astounding.
And if he said he didn't believe her the press would have been all over him for 'not believing women'. This will go down as one of the most despicable processes in US politics. I wouldn't vote Republican but I definitely wouldn't vote Democrat either. I think they've just given the Republicans the mid-terms.
We'll see won't we. I would say it was a disgusting display where the Republicans tried to bully a victim of sexual assault but were confounded by the honesty of her account. Plan B didn't work either. US politics have plumbed the depths for quite a while now but perhaps they can't see it themselves.0 -
Robert88 wrote:nickice wrote:TailWindHome wrote:The mental contortions required to tell a woman that you believe her story that she was sexually assaulted, but that she's wrong about who did it, are astounding.
And if he said he didn't believe her the press would have been all over him for 'not believing women'. This will go down as one of the most despicable processes in US politics. I wouldn't vote Republican but I definitely wouldn't vote Democrat either. I think they've just given the Republicans the mid-terms.
We'll see won't we. I would say it was a disgusting display where the Republicans tried to bully a victim of sexual assault but were confounded by the honesty of her account. Plan B didn't work either. US politics have plumbed the depths for quite a while now but perhaps they can't see it themselves.
Who bullied her? The Republican senators were very respectful of her. The prosecutor did a terrible job in her cross examibation. And we don't know if she's a victim of sexual assault and we don't know that even is she was, the perpetrator was Brett Kavanaugh. That's the point I'm making.0 -
rjsterry wrote:
Good. If they'd instructed this as soon as the allegations arose instead of trying to steamroller through the hearing the Republicans might have avoided the car crash of Kavanaugh's testimony.Imposter wrote:FBI investigation approved - my guess is that Kavanaugh might now withdraw...
Maybe Feinstein shouldn't have sat on the allegation. The FBI will ask exactly the same questions as the committee.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:
Good. If they'd instructed this as soon as the allegations arose instead of trying to steamroller through the hearing the Republicans might have avoided the car crash of Kavanaugh's testimony.Imposter wrote:FBI investigation approved - my guess is that Kavanaugh might now withdraw...
Maybe Feinstein shouldn't have sat on the allegation. The FBI will ask exactly the same questions as the committee.
Well as a very obvious first step (that the senators didn't do) they could interview Mark Judge, who is alleged to have been a witness and has written an autobiographical account of his and Kavanaugh's beer-fuelled school days.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Pythagorus?Matthewfalle wrote: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 -
No, but thanks anyway.0
-
Don't be so obtuse.PBlakeney wrote:
Pythagorus?Matthewfalle wrote:0 -
I thought it was an acute point to make.darkhairedlord wrote:
Don't be so obtuse.PBlakeney wrote:
Pythagorus?Matthewfalle wrote: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
