Donald Trump
Comments
-
You'll be scalene the walls looking for more examples.PBlakeney wrote:
I thought it was an acute point to make.darkhairedlord wrote:
Don't be so obtuse.PBlakeney wrote:
Pythagorus?Matthewfalle wrote:0 -
This seems to be going off on a tangent. I'm trying to think of something to say, but can't find the right angle. Maybe I'll find it in a Devil's triangle.darkhairedlord wrote:
You'll be scalene the walls looking for more examples.PBlakeney wrote:
I thought it was an acute point to make.darkhairedlord wrote:
Don't be so obtuse.PBlakeney wrote:
Pythagorus?Matthewfalle wrote:0 -
briantrumpet wrote:
This seems to be going off on a tangent. I'm trying to think of something to say, but can't find the right angle. Maybe I'll find it in a Devil's triangle.darkhairedlord wrote:
You'll be scalene the walls looking for more examples.PBlakeney wrote:
I thought it was an acute point to make.darkhairedlord wrote:
Don't be so obtuse.PBlakeney wrote:
Pythagorus?Matthewfalle wrote:
Thats greatness! That's a propper gradient.0 -
It's a photoshop job (I say photoshop - hardly that sophisticated!). Two clues:
1. phototropism dictates that blades of grass are parallel to the vertical axis of the picture, not 45 degrees.
2. gravity - Trump's gut would be bulging over his belt.
no, 3 clues,
3. hands are too big.0 -
Robert88 wrote:It's a photoshop job (I say photoshop - hardly that sophisticated!). Two clues:
1. phototropism dictates that blades of grass are parallel to the vertical axis of the picture, not 45 degrees.
2. gravity - Trump's gut would be bulging over his belt.
no, 3 clues,
3. hands are too big.
See! It's this kind of abuse Trump has to put up with.0 -
FocusZing wrote:Robert88 wrote:It's a photoshop job (I say photoshop - hardly that sophisticated!). Two clues:
1. phototropism dictates that blades of grass are parallel to the vertical axis of the picture, not 45 degrees.
2. gravity - Trump's gut would be bulging over his belt.
no, 3 clues,
3. hands are too big.
See! It's this kind of abuse Trump has to put up with.
Sure. Time you got used to it because I'm not to give him the creepy reverence you do.0 -
Robert88 wrote:FocusZing wrote:Robert88 wrote:It's a photoshop job (I say photoshop - hardly that sophisticated!). Two clues:
1. phototropism dictates that blades of grass are parallel to the vertical axis of the picture, not 45 degrees.
2. gravity - Trump's gut would be bulging over his belt.
no, 3 clues,
3. hands are too big.
See! It's this kind of abuse Trump has to put up with.
Sure. Time you got used to it because I'm not to give him the creepy reverence you do.
Francesco Molinari 5/5 amazing!0 -
dotard fell in love with mad kim.
you honestly couldn't make it up.Postby 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 -
Matthewfalle wrote:dotard fell in love with mad kim.
you honestly couldn't make it up.
Bizarrely, I think he actually did. Read my post way, way back when apropos of the summit I said Trump was camp. Or could be it's part of his Roy Cohn impressionist act.0 -
i am the first on this thread to say that kavanaugh seems to be a right khunt?Postby 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 -
Matt Damon0
-
At the very least he seems comfortable with lying under oath. The idea that he was completely unaware that his mate Alex Kozinski was well known to be sex pest is pretty hard to swallow.Matthewfalle wrote:i am the first on this thread to say that kavanaugh seems to be a right khunt?
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/20/ale ... h-circuit/1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Good article:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying
The fact that he hasn't been dumped is evidence of how worried the White House is about November. You don't have to decide (or even suspect) that he is guilty of what he is accused of to conclude that he is not really top quality judge material.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Good article:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying
The fact that he hasn't been dumped is evidence of how worried the White House is about November. You don't have to decide (or even suspect) that he is guilty of what he is accused of to conclude that he is not really top quality judge material.
Nathan J Robinson made some good, fair points in that article . I disagree with his conclusions and some of the evidence he provided was disingenuous at best. He spent a long time discussing the difference between denial of the event and having no recollection, for example. Furthermore (I roughly checked his map on google maps) and Brett Kavanaugh lived at least three miles from the country club. It's entirely subjective to judge this as near or not whereas Robinson implied he was lying about it. I'd like to have seen him look at Ford's story as that has more holes. And don't forget that he's a far-leftist so wouldn't want to see Kavanaugh on the SC no matter what.
As for the lies, I don't care. They were asking him questions that really they had no business asking about his high school yearbook etc. At one point he asked a senator if she had ever blacked out. He was then accused of asking her if she had a drinking problem. His point was clearly that almost everyone has, at some time or another, drunk too much. Is it really a shock that a young man like drinking? It's a far cry from sexual assault.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:Good article:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying
The fact that he hasn't been dumped is evidence of how worried the White House is about November. You don't have to decide (or even suspect) that he is guilty of what he is accused of to conclude that he is not really top quality judge material.
..and he could be in that position for decades, altho' he could be impeached later.0 -
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Good article:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying
The fact that he hasn't been dumped is evidence of how worried the White House is about November. You don't have to decide (or even suspect) that he is guilty of what he is accused of to conclude that he is not really top quality judge material.
Nathan J Robinson made some good, fair points in that article . I disagree with his conclusions and some of the evidence he provided was disingenuous at best. He spent a long time discussing the difference between denial of the event and having no recollection, for example. Furthermore (I roughly checked his map on google maps) and Brett Kavanaugh lived at least three miles from the country club. It's entirely subjective to judge this as near or not whereas Robinson implied he was lying about it. I'd like to have seen him look at Ford's story as that has more holes. And don't forget that he's a far-leftist so wouldn't want to see Kavanaugh on the SC no matter what.
As for the lies, I don't care. They were asking him questions that really they had no business asking about his high school yearbook etc. At one point he asked a senator if she had ever blacked out. He was then accused of asking her if she had a drinking problem. His point was clearly that almost everyone has, at some time or another, drunk too much. Is it really a shock that a young man like drinking? It's a far cry from sexual assault.
Well that's the nub of it - should the senators care about someone lying to the senate? You say no, I'd say yes. He's the one who is up for a job on the highest court.
Also, I'd say the difference between denial and lack of recollection is quite important for a judge to get.
That's all before you consider the incandescent partisan rage which doesn't seem very "judgey".0 -
Robert88 wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Good article:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying
The fact that he hasn't been dumped is evidence of how worried the White House is about November. You don't have to decide (or even suspect) that he is guilty of what he is accused of to conclude that he is not really top quality judge material.
..and he could be in that position for decades, altho' he could be impeached later.
Impeachment would entail a vote in the house, and removal would need 67 out of 100 votes in the senate. Rightly a very high bar, so would need many Republicans to vote for his removal.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Good article:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying
The fact that he hasn't been dumped is evidence of how worried the White House is about November. You don't have to decide (or even suspect) that he is guilty of what he is accused of to conclude that he is not really top quality judge material.
Nathan J Robinson made some good, fair points in that article . I disagree with his conclusions and some of the evidence he provided was disingenuous at best. He spent a long time discussing the difference between denial of the event and having no recollection, for example. Furthermore (I roughly checked his map on google maps) and Brett Kavanaugh lived at least three miles from the country club. It's entirely subjective to judge this as near or not whereas Robinson implied he was lying about it. I'd like to have seen him look at Ford's story as that has more holes. And don't forget that he's a far-leftist so wouldn't want to see Kavanaugh on the SC no matter what.
As for the lies, I don't care. They were asking him questions that really they had no business asking about his high school yearbook etc. At one point he asked a senator if she had ever blacked out. He was then accused of asking her if she had a drinking problem. His point was clearly that almost everyone has, at some time or another, drunk too much. Is it really a shock that a young man like drinking? It's a far cry from sexual assault.
Well that's the nub of it - should the senators care about someone lying to the senate? You say no, I'd say yes. He's the one who is up for a job on the highest court.
Also, I'd say the difference between denial and lack of recollection is quite important for a judge to get.
That's all before you consider the incandescent partisan rage which doesn't seem very "judgey".
Well denial would be kind of difficult considering Ford couldn't name a time or a place. And it was 36 years ago. Ask me if I was at a specific party when I was 15 and the best I could give you would be 'no recollection'. Ask me if I was at a party yesterday and I'll be able to confirm or deny it. Robinson is playing with semantics and he knows it.
And the rage might be because he'd already been declared guilty by several Democrats and most of the media. I'd have been even angrier than he was. You don't see judges angry like that because they don't rule upon cases they are involved in or connected to.0 -
nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:KingstonGraham wrote:Good article:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/ ... h-is-lying
The fact that he hasn't been dumped is evidence of how worried the White House is about November. You don't have to decide (or even suspect) that he is guilty of what he is accused of to conclude that he is not really top quality judge material.
Nathan J Robinson made some good, fair points in that article . I disagree with his conclusions and some of the evidence he provided was disingenuous at best. He spent a long time discussing the difference between denial of the event and having no recollection, for example. Furthermore (I roughly checked his map on google maps) and Brett Kavanaugh lived at least three miles from the country club. It's entirely subjective to judge this as near or not whereas Robinson implied he was lying about it. I'd like to have seen him look at Ford's story as that has more holes. And don't forget that he's a far-leftist so wouldn't want to see Kavanaugh on the SC no matter what.
As for the lies, I don't care. They were asking him questions that really they had no business asking about his high school yearbook etc. At one point he asked a senator if she had ever blacked out. He was then accused of asking her if she had a drinking problem. His point was clearly that almost everyone has, at some time or another, drunk too much. Is it really a shock that a young man like drinking? It's a far cry from sexual assault.
Well that's the nub of it - should the senators care about someone lying to the senate? You say no, I'd say yes. He's the one who is up for a job on the highest court.
Also, I'd say the difference between denial and lack of recollection is quite important for a judge to get.
That's all before you consider the incandescent partisan rage which doesn't seem very "judgey".
Well denial would be kind of difficult considering Ford couldn't name a time or a place. And it was 36 years ago. Ask me if I was at a specific party when I was 15 and the best I could give you would be 'no recollection'. Ask me if I was at a party yesterday and I'll be able to confirm or deny it. Robinson is playing with semantics and he knows it.
EXACTLY!!!!!!! Except it isn't Robinson playing with semantics, it's Kavanaugh deliberately misinterpreting. Which isn't a good thing for a judge to do.0 -
Like I said, it's semantics.0
-
Aren't semantics important in understanding the letter of the law? I thought that's part of the vetting process he's going through in confirmation hearings. If he gets semantics wrong what other aspects of law can he get wrong?
Personally I think he'd be good at the job except I believe he's too partisan. I think he's got the intellect and understanding of the law. Although there was a thing about being accused of plagiarising work at Oxford University.0 -
nickice wrote:Like I said, it's semantics.
Semantics being what words mean.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Aren't semantics important in understanding the letter of the law? I thought that's part of the vetting process he's going through in confirmation hearings. If he gets semantics wrong what other aspects of law can he get wrong?
Personally I think he'd be good at the job except I believe he's too partisan. I think he's got the intellect and understanding of the law. Although there was a thing about being accused of plagiarising work at Oxford University.
You'd be surprised how many law students I have caught for plagiarism.
I think to all intents and purposes, what they said amounted to a denial. Nathan J Robinson is reading too much into it. Judge did actually deny it in any case - 'I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr Ford described". That's really the denial that matters. Her friend also said she doesn't know Kavanaugh. Denying she knew him is basically a denial of being at a small party with him. But like I said, I don't think this part of his testimony is a big deal.
The prosecutor has now released a memo. regarding the accusations. Ford doesn't come off well.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Like I said, it's semantics.
Semantics being what words mean.
Like I said, you're reading too much into it.0 -
nickice wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:Aren't semantics important in understanding the letter of the law? I thought that's part of the vetting process he's going through in confirmation hearings. If he gets semantics wrong what other aspects of law can he get wrong?
Personally I think he'd be good at the job except I believe he's too partisan. I think he's got the intellect and understanding of the law. Although there was a thing about being accused of plagiarising work at Oxford University.
You'd be surprised how many law students I have caught for plagiarism.
I think to all intents and purposes, what they said amounted to a denial. Nathan J Robinson is reading too much into it. Judge did actually deny it in any case - 'I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr Ford described". That's really the denial that matters. Her friend also said she doesn't know Kavanaugh. Denying she knew him is basically a denial of being at a small party with him. But like I said, I don't think this part of his testimony is a big deal.
The prosecutor has now released a memo. regarding the accusations. Ford doesn't come off well.
That's no surprise. Has she released any findings on Kavanaugh's testimony?
It does seem quite simple for them - if you think he should be confirmed, you'll overlook all sorts of things. If you think he shouldn't, you won't. It seems a terrible way to choose judges for lifetime appointment to the supreme court.
I'll be honest and say I don't know how ours are selected here and whether it's better or worse.0 -
Would a better option be the court appoints the replacement? That includes the person leaving if they're still alive. It might over time remove the partisan element of the court.
In the UK I believe the appointment of judges is by the Lord Chancellor. Who is appointed by the Queen under the advisement of the prime minister. Officially he out ranks the prime minister BTW. So effectively judges are appointed by a political appointee. One degree of separation from politics you could say but still political.0 -
KingstonGraham wrote:nickice wrote:Tangled Metal wrote:Aren't semantics important in understanding the letter of the law? I thought that's part of the vetting process he's going through in confirmation hearings. If he gets semantics wrong what other aspects of law can he get wrong?
Personally I think he'd be good at the job except I believe he's too partisan. I think he's got the intellect and understanding of the law. Although there was a thing about being accused of plagiarising work at Oxford University.
You'd be surprised how many law students I have caught for plagiarism.
I think to all intents and purposes, what they said amounted to a denial. Nathan J Robinson is reading too much into it. Judge did actually deny it in any case - 'I never saw Brett act in the manner Dr Ford described". That's really the denial that matters. Her friend also said she doesn't know Kavanaugh. Denying she knew him is basically a denial of being at a small party with him. But like I said, I don't think this part of his testimony is a big deal.
The prosecutor has now released a memo. regarding the accusations. Ford doesn't come off well.
That's no surprise. Has she released any findings on Kavanaugh's testimony?
It does seem quite simple for them - if you think he should be confirmed, you'll overlook all sorts of things. If you think he shouldn't, you won't. It seems a terrible way to choose judges for lifetime appointment to the supreme court.
I'll be honest and say I don't know how ours are selected here and whether it's better or worse.
No because Kavanaugh wasn't the one making the accusation. She stated (as expected) that no prosecutor would bring a criminal case and it wouldn't even meet the standard of proof for a civil case (no surprises there). She said it was actually less credible than a he said/she said situation.
Frankly, I didn't care if Brett Kavanaugh was or wasn't confirmed before this What bothers me is his not being confirmed on the basis of this unsubstantiated allegation (and be sure that would be the reason why he isn't confirmed). He's basically had his reputation destroyed. In the UK he's be well within his rights to sue for defamation (that includes many journalists and Democratic senators who made statements outside the chamber so not protected) but I don't think it's the same in the USA. It's become a witch hunt (as has much of the #metoo movement) and they never end well. Mob justice is no justice at all.0 -
Tangled Metal wrote:Would a better option be the court appoints the replacement? That includes the person leaving if they're still alive. It might over time remove the partisan element of the court.
In the UK I believe the appointment of judges is by the Lord Chancellor. Who is appointed by the Queen under the advisement of the prime minister. Officially he out ranks the prime minister BTW. So effectively judges are appointed by a political appointee. One degree of separation from politics you could say but still political.
I think any system is going to be subject to bias. And it could end up with a system where you have a very Republican bench (as judges will tend to appoint others with similar views) and a very Democratic government. And that could last for forty years.
Having said that, watching people like Corey Booker and Kamala Harris grandstanding was pretty sickening.0 -
But if the bench was balanced to begin with (which was the case before this last spot came up since the incumbent being replaced was not partisan) then the court would need to agree. Consensus on a hung vote often leads to more moderate results. Perhaps it eventually becomes non-partisan.
So speculative since politicians never like to give up any power they hold.
Incidentally I don't think the current confirmation is any more sickening than past ones. It's always going to be the same with a partisan, political system confirming and advising on the chosen appointee.0 -
nickice wrote:Frankly, I didn't care if Brett Kavanaugh was or wasn't confirmed before this What bothers me is his not being confirmed on the basis of this unsubstantiated allegation (and be sure that would be the reason why he isn't confirmed). He's basically had his reputation destroyed. In the UK he's be well within his rights to sue for defamation (that includes many journalists and Democratic senators who made statements outside the chamber so not protected) but I don't think it's the same in the USA. It's become a witch hunt (as has much of the #metoo movement) and they never end well. Mob justice is no justice at all.
This is what the Republicans want the US public to think.
He was already on a knife edge before the hearings, because of his conservative views and the 51-49 split in the Senate. If he is not confirmed, it will be because of him, not because of her. It only takes one reason to object to him - that could be his views on abortion, could be the withholding of the documents, could be his lying to the Senate in 2003 or 2006, could be his lying this year, could be his temperament, could be his partisanship, could be his wilful misinterpretation of evidence in this case. For any one of those, if two R senators decide he's not the right guy, he doesn't get confirmed.
There is a reason Mitch McConnell didn't want him to be the nominee.0
