Donald Trump

dinyull

Matthewfalle wrote:

question is: when he is confirmed, how much will it all kick off in the streets?

Similar to the women marches when Trump was sworn in, before quieting down.

kingstongraham

Have they said when the final vote is? They vote to advance to a vote today, then there's a gap, then they vote. But one of the Republicans is at his daughter's wedding tomorrow.

robert88

Trump opponents rejoice as US President is snubbed for Nobel peace prize in favour of campaigners against sexual violence

Along with Kim Jong-un, he had been a frontrunner to win the award among bookmakers. He had been nominated by Republican lawmakers who said he should win "in recognition of his work to end the Korean War, denuclearize the Korean peninsula, and bring peace to the region"

.

Seems unlikely to have been a snub at all. Just that the Trumpistas had crazy expectations.

Matthewfalle

Dinyull wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

question is: when he is confirmed, how much will it all kick off in the streets?

Similar to the women marches when Trump was sworn in, before quieting down.

i think, unfortunately, you are correct.

please note, however, that the protest marches - as reported by Fox News and the White House - will be fake news and smaller than the celebratory marches for Kavanaugh which in turn are smaller than Dotards election thing (which was the biggliest ever).

kingstongraham

One Republican votes against moving forward, one Democrat votes for moving forward, so 51-49 to move to a vote. It's going to be very, very close, if it gets to a vote.

imposter2.0

Robert88 wrote:

Trump opponents rejoice as US President is snubbed for Nobel peace prize in favour of campaigners against sexual violence

Along with Kim Jong-un, he had been a frontrunner to win the award among bookmakers. He had been nominated by Republican lawmakers who said he should win "in recognition of his work to end the Korean War, denuclearize the Korean peninsula, and bring peace to the region"

.

Seems unlikely to have been a snub at all. Just that the Trumpistas had crazy expectations.

Especially given that none of the NK stuff has actually been achieved yet...

Matthewfalle

KingstonGraham wrote:

One Republican votes against moving forward, one Democrat votes for moving forward, so 51-49 to move to a vote. It's going to be very, very close, if it gets to a vote.

genuinly gutted about this.

lying sexual abuser gets backing of senate. wtaf?

rjsterry

David Rivkin - a lawyer who worked for Reagan and GW Bush - pointed out that Presidents are usually disappointed by the their nominees to the SC.

Let's hope so.

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

David Rivkin - a lawyer who worked for Reagan and GW Bush - pointed out that Presidents are usually disappointed by the their nominees to the SC.

Let's hope so.

They feel they need to be seen to be independent.

rjsterry

darkhairedlord wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

David Rivkin - a lawyer who worked for Reagan and GW Bush - pointed out that Presidents are usually disappointed by the their nominees to the SC.

Let's hope so.

They feel they need to be seen to be independent.

They are right: the whole point is that it is and is seen to be independent. I guess we can take some comfort from history. the SC withstood Roosevelt's attempts to bend it to his will, and he made nine nominations.

Matthewfalle

problem is, this is unique political scenario and the sex offender has already declared that when he gets on the SC he will be acting in Republican interests.

there is no way in hell he will be independant.

robert88

Matthewfalle wrote:

..
there is no way in hell he will be independant.

Certainly not..

He is indebted to Trump and we know how Trump reacts to recalcitrants.

nickice

Robert88 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

..
there is no way in hell he will be independant.

Certainly not..

He is indebted to Trump and we know how Trump reacts to recalcitrants.

Trump can't remove a judge.

cooldad

Only death can, so hopefully the fuckheads liver explodes.

rjsterry

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

..
there is no way in hell he will be independant.

Certainly not..

He is indebted to Trump and we know how Trump reacts to recalcitrants.

Trump can't remove a judge.

But a judge can be impeached by Congress for lying under oath (what they got Clinton for). There are already plans to do this if the Democrats manage to gain the upper hand in the mid-terms.

nickice

rjsterry wrote:

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

..
there is no way in hell he will be independant.

Certainly not..

He is indebted to Trump and we know how Trump reacts to recalcitrants.

Trump can't remove a judge.

But a judge can be impeached by Congress for lying under oath (what they got Clinton for). There are already plans to do this if the Democrats manage to gain the upper hand in the mid-terms.

This matter will soon be forgotten. Impeachment will never get past the senate (just like the Clinton case). And perjury isn't as simple as lying. It would have to be material.

Matthewfalle

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

..
there is no way in hell he will be independant.

Certainly not..

He is indebted to Trump and we know how Trump reacts to recalcitrants.

Trump can't remove a judge.

and he- or any Republican president - would never have to because the sexual abusing drunk owes the party so much they have him in their pockets evermore.

anything they want he will do.

nickice

Matthewfalle wrote:

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

..
there is no way in hell he will be independant.

Certainly not..

He is indebted to Trump and we know how Trump reacts to recalcitrants.

Trump can't remove a judge.

and he- or any Republican president - would never have to because the sexual abusing drunk owes the party so much they have him in their pockets evermore.

anything they want he will do.

What are you talking about? There is scant evidence he's a sexual abuser (especially as there have been no allegations against him outwith late high-school/early college years.) and where is the evidence he's a drunk? He likes beer. Is anyone who likes beer a drunk? If he had an alcohol problem this would almost certainly have come up before.

He's certainly not in Trump's pocket. Trump can't get rid of him now. No SC Justice has ever been successfully impeached.

Matthewfalle

nickice wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

nickice wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

..
there is no way in hell he will be independant.

Certainly not..

He is indebted to Trump and we know how Trump reacts to recalcitrants.

Trump can't remove a judge.

and he- or any Republican president - would never have to because the sexual abusing drunk owes the party so much they have him in their pockets evermore.

anything they want he will do.

What are you talking about? There is scant evidence he's a sexual abuser (especially as there have been no allegations against him outwith late high-school/early college years.) and where is the evidence he's a drunk? He likes beer. Is anyone who likes beer a drunk? If he had an alcohol problem this would almost certainly have come up before.

He's certainly not in Trump's pocket. Trump can't get rid of him now. No SC Justice has ever been successfully impeached.

seriously? you honestly believe what you have posted? like seriously?

Matthewfalle

of vourse he is in trump and the Rep party's pocket. he's been groomed for the past 20 years for this moment.

he will do everything in his power to overturn roe vs wade, obamacare, vetrrans and workers rights.

puppet appointment.

nickice

Matthewfalle wrote:

of vourse he is in trump and the Rep party's pocket. he's been groomed for the past 20 years for this moment.

he will do everything in his power to overturn roe vs wade, obamacare, vetrrans and workers rights.

puppet appointment.

Being on the Supreme Court is about the constitution and whether another branh of government (or a state) is violating the constitution. Roe v Wade, for example, is bad law as there is not constitutional right to abortion. If it's overruled, power to regulate (or ban) abortion will return to the states (as its a state issue). If anything, the supreme court has been subject to the political and social views of liberal judges for years.

briantrumpet

nickice wrote:

And perjury isn't as simple as lying. It would have to be material.

Would lying about his finances be material?

Matthewfalle

briantrumpet wrote:

nickice wrote:

And perjury isn't as simple as lying. It would have to be material.

Would lying about his finances be material?

would lying about his drinking, sexual abuse of at least 3 women, morals, intents, backing and beliefs be material?

not to mention the hundreds of thousands of documents that werr hidden from review before his appointment.

farcical puppet appointment.

Matthewfalle

nickice wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

of vourse he is in trump and the Rep party's pocket. he's been groomed for the past 20 years for this moment.

he will do everything in his power to overturn roe vs wade, obamacare, vetrrans and workers rights.

puppet appointment.

Being on the Supreme Court is about the constitution and whether another branh of government (or a state) is violating the constitution. Roe v Wade, for example, is bad law as there is not constitutional right to abortion. If it's overruled, power to regulate (or ban) abortion will return to the states (as its a state issue). If anything, the supreme court has been subject to the political and social views of liberal judges for years.

being onbthe dupreme court slso sllows a person's personal beliefs - of which the sexual abuser drunk has made his clear - to affect past and future policy.

its an appalling decison to have him anywhere near any type of court.

nickice

Matthewfalle wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

nickice wrote:

And perjury isn't as simple as lying. It would have to be material.

Would lying about his finances be material?

would lying about his drinking, sexual abuse of at least 3 women, morals, intents, backing and beliefs be material?

not to mention the hundreds of thousands of documents that werr hidden from review before his appointment.

farcical puppet appointment.

There is no evidence he's lying. None of the allegations (one of which is ludicrous and has been widely discredited) have any corroborating evidence.

nickice

Matthewfalle wrote:

nickice wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

of vourse he is in trump and the Rep party's pocket. he's been groomed for the past 20 years for this moment.

he will do everything in his power to overturn roe vs wade, obamacare, vetrrans and workers rights.

puppet appointment.

Being on the Supreme Court is about the constitution and whether another branh of government (or a state) is violating the constitution. Roe v Wade, for example, is bad law as there is not constitutional right to abortion. If it's overruled, power to regulate (or ban) abortion will return to the states (as its a state issue). If anything, the supreme court has been subject to the political and social views of liberal judges for years.

being onbthe dupreme court slso sllows a person's personal beliefs - of which the sexual abuser drunk has made his clear - to affect past and future policy.

its an appalling decison to have him anywhere near any type of court.

Yet he has been on the second most important court in the USA for years. Judicial activism allows the injection of your own personal beliefs into a case. Kavanaugh is not known for this.

Matthewfalle

until he has now received this backing.

there is always a time to pay back your debts and now will be it, notwithstanding tge fact he is morally bankrupt.

briantrumpet

Matthewfalle wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

nickice wrote:

And perjury isn't as simple as lying. It would have to be material.

Would lying about his finances be material?

would lying about his drinking, sexual abuse of at least 3 women, morals, intents, backing and beliefs be material?

not to mention the hundreds of thousands of documents that werr hidden from review before his appointment.

farcical puppet appointment.

I mentioned the finances in particular, because, quite apart from the lying, if it could be shown that he was hiding sources of funding, then those providing the funding would have undeclared leverage over someone whose decisions should not be swayed by outside influence: those influences could range from a general tendency to favour those who have provided hidden funds, right through to blackmail (since they would know that BK had lied to get the job).

As they always say: follow the money. It's the surest way to nail lying bastards.

Matthewfalle

briantrumpet wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

nickice wrote:

And perjury isn't as simple as lying. It would have to be material.

Would lying about his finances be material?

would lying about his drinking, sexual abuse of at least 3 women, morals, intents, backing and beliefs be material?

not to mention the hundreds of thousands of documents that werr hidden from review before his appointment.

farcical puppet appointment.

I mentioned the finances in particular, because, quite apart from the lying, if it could be shown that he was hiding sources of funding, then those providing the funding would have undeclared leverage over someone whose decisions should not be swayed by outside influence: those influences could range from a general tendency to favour those who have provided hidden funds, right through to blackmail (since they would know that BK had lied to get the job).

As they always say: follow the money. It's the surest way to nail lying bastards.

i agree.

it would be quite interesting to know who paid his country club fees, the season tickets, the million buck house downpayment, etc.

nickice

briantrumpet wrote:

nickice wrote:

And perjury isn't as simple as lying. It would have to be material.

Would lying about his finances be material?

What lies? A guy like him could make ten times what he does in private practice. If money were his aim, that's what he'd have done.