Thread: American Politics during the Trump Presidency

+ Submit Report
Page 11 of 35 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 21 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 520
This blog is moderated by Admin
  1. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBob  [View Original Post]
    Bromvich and Katz each have long histories as Democrat partisans, they were recommended by Feinstein, they are being funded through GoFundMe sites, which is just redirecting the payments from Democrat money bags. It may be hard to trace the finances of Blasey's lawyers, however certainly not pro bono lawyers helping the poor out of civic duty: Blasey didn't file any papers in court to get free counsel due to being indigent. Blasey didn't even know who paid for her lawyers or polygraph which seems absurd she very well knew it was funded by unnamed Democrat supporters and was not pro bono. As for lying, her lawyers were dishonest about her "fear of flying" and about telling her that the committee had agreed to fly out to California. Of course the bar is against Kavanaugh, so an ethics complaint that would go through the bar might not accomplish much.
    Dinner in BsAs right now costs under $5 so that is not really worth much
    Actually at least one of the supporters was named. Phil Lesh gave $10k. Jim Bob, you have revealed yourself as not being a Deadhead or you would have found the information in your Google feed. LOL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqhemmeAZAA.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Big Boss Man For This Post:


  3. #369
    Winner 2017 Noob of the year


    Posts: 162
    Bromvich and Katz each have long histories as Democrat partisans, they were recommended by Feinstein, they are being funded through GoFundMe sites, which is just redirecting the payments from Democrat money bags. It may be hard to trace the finances of Blasey's lawyers, however certainly not pro bono lawyers helping the poor out of civic duty: Blasey didn't file any papers in court to get free counsel due to being indigent. Blasey didn't even know who paid for her lawyers or polygraph which seems absurd she very well knew it was funded by unnamed Democrat supporters and was not pro bono. As for lying, her lawyers were dishonest about her "fear of flying" and about telling her that the committee had agreed to fly out to California. Of course the bar is against Kavanaugh, so an ethics complaint that would go through the bar might not accomplish much.
    Dinner in BsAs right now costs under $5 so that is not really worth much
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveC  [View Original Post]
    Whether passionate or hysterical is a subjective opinion, but I'd bet you an expensive dinner next time we're both in BsAs that those lawyers told the truth and won't be found guilty about lying about being pro-bono. The Republicans will say or do anything to get this nomination through.

  4. #368
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBob  [View Original Post]
    Just because he's going to be on the supreme court doesn't mean he has to lay down while people walk over him. He has a right to be upset about false claims levelled at him. You know if he had not been passionate about his own defense someone would have said he seems guilty because he just sat there without reacting. His outburst was hardly hysterical though, it was merely passionate, and probably planned in advance. Those lawyers most certainly are not pro-bono, they are hired guns of the Dimocrats. Pretty sure they will be the targets of ethics complaints for lying about that.
    Whether passionate or hysterical is a subjective opinion, but I'd bet you an expensive dinner next time we're both in BsAs that those lawyers told the truth and won't be found guilty about lying about being pro-bono. The Republicans will say or do anything to get this nomination through.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to SteveC For This Post:


  6. #367
    Winner 2017 Noob of the year


    Posts: 162
    Just because he's going to be on the supreme court doesn't mean he has to lay down while people walk over him. He has a right to be upset about false claims levelled at him. You know if he had not been passionate about his own defense someone would have said he seems guilty because he just sat there without reacting. His outburst was hardly hysterical though, it was merely passionate, and probably planned in advance. Those lawyers most certainly are not pro-bono, they are hired guns of the Dimocrats. Pretty sure they will be the targets of ethics complaints for lying about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveC  [View Original Post]
    Apart from the several alleged sexual assaults, I'd say the main reason he's unsuitable for this office is his blatant political partisanship displayed to full effect during the hearing. Plus his near hysterical behaviour and references to the Democrats funding her legal expenses (her lawyers had already said that they were working pro bono). He'd be an embarrassment to the court and to the country.

  7. #366
    Apart from the several alleged sexual assaults, I'd say the main reason he's unsuitable for this office is his blatant political partisanship displayed to full effect during the hearing. Plus his near hysterical behaviour and references to the Democrats funding her legal expenses (her lawyers had already said that they were working pro bono). He'd be an embarrassment to the court and to the country.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to SteveC For This Post:


  9. #365
    Quote Originally Posted by Retired66  [View Original Post]
    It's good to see a lively conversation about she said he said.

    What IF the Judge kid tells the FBI that it was him instead of Kavanaugh that juped the Ford girl.......goes like this.

    Kavanaugh and judge go up the stairs, Kavanaugh says he has to take a shit down the hallway, judge waits upstairs (drunk like a 17 year old) she comes up the stairs and one thing leads to another and he goes for it and pushes her into the bedroom on the bed, he jumps on and they eventually roll off the bed and she screams. Kavanaugh comes out of the bathroom and hears a scream and enters the bedroom and see judge on top of her. Kavanaugh grabs him from behind and they leave the bedroom and they go downstairs. Assuming boys will be boys (after all, nobody got brutally raped) they forgot about. Kavanaugh would have never known to this day who the girl was.
    There was a report that two men had made statements to the committee, stating that they were the two men who had been involved with the Ford incident. It popped up on buzzfed, drudge and a couple other sites on Thrus/fri and then disappeared. I suspect that she had an encounter like the one she described in the late '80s (her first story) and morphed it to fit the narrative that it was Kavanaugh.

    As for lively political debate on this site...well, I have been on sabbatical...

  10. #364
    Quote Originally Posted by Tres3  [View Original Post]
    I do not oppose Judge Kavenaugh because of something that might have occurred when he was a teenager. I oppose the nomination to a judgeship of any lawyer who does not have trial experience. Lawyers specialize in many aspects of the law. A good litigator specializes in trying cases in a courtroom. How is someone going to be a good judge, if that person has never been in a courtroom facing a judge? It does not matter whether or not that judge is a justice of the peace, or a Supreme Court Justice. An attorney must start somewhere. Kavenaugh, and others, are political appointments who should have never donned a judge's robes because they had no trial experience. No one should be surprised that the nomination has become a partisan political circus. Experience is a prerequisite for virtually every profession extant.
    I could not disagree more. However, I respect your right to your opinion and will fight to the death for your right to express it...provided that you are an American citizen.

  11. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBob  [View Original Post]
    Maybe Kavanaugh should say he is gay and it was him and Judge that were making out. It would destroy Blasey's story, and the left would be pleased as punch to have a gay judge.


    lol@ drunk like a 17 year old. Maybe I should run for supreme court judge. Because I never saw excitement like this in my high school. To be honest I simply can't believe these guys were running a gang rape chain.
    Gay boys, the dems would say it's racist if it was 2 white guys.

    Yeah, the swetnick chick is a fucking complete nut job.

    Metoo.... I went to a Catholic high school, we had a handful of drunk/stoners guys. Not sure if there were any guys molested, most of the whispers were related to priests banging the nuns. I remember a couple nuns taking a sabbatical to South America and looking thinner when they returned. Back then Christian orphanages came in handy.

  12. #362
    Winner 2017 Noob of the year


    Posts: 162
    Maybe Kavanaugh should say he is gay and it was him and Judge that were making out. It would destroy Blasey's story, and the left would be pleased as punch to have a gay judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Retired66  [View Original Post]
    ...drunk like a 17 year old...
    lol@ drunk like a 17 year old. Maybe I should run for supreme court judge. Because I never saw excitement like this in my high school. To be honest I simply can't believe these guys were running a gang rape chain.

  13. #361
    Quote Originally Posted by JimBob  [View Original Post]
    There are plenty of trial judges who don't know jack about the law, and spend their whole careers never learning, because in fact the lawyers educate the judge on the specific law pertaining to individual cases, because one lawyer cant know everything, and laws change with time. Graduation from law school is not even a requirement to be a judge in many jurisdictions. They are political appointees chosen by voters or chosen by representatives who were chosen by voters because it is we the people (not the law schools) who govern the country through our elected officials. Your argument is based solely in opinion not fact. You be a good judge by doing the things which cause the people who put you in your job to keep you there. The judge's legal clerk and the parties' lawyers must scurry around figuring out the law.

    .
    It's good to see a lively conversation about she said he said.

    What IF the Judge kid tells the FBI that it was him instead of Kavanaugh that juped the Ford girl.......goes like this.

    Kavanaugh and judge go up the stairs, Kavanaugh says he has to take a shit down the hallway, judge waits upstairs (drunk like a 17 year old) she comes up the stairs and one thing leads to another and he goes for it and pushes her into the bedroom on the bed, he jumps on and they eventually roll off the bed and she screams. Kavanaugh comes out of the bathroom and hears a scream and enters the bedroom and see judge on top of her. Kavanaugh grabs him from behind and they leave the bedroom and they go downstairs. Assuming boys will be boys (after all, nobody got brutally raped) they forgot about. Kavanaugh would have never known to this day who the girl was.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Retired 66 For This Post:


  15. #360
    Winner 2017 Noob of the year


    Posts: 162
    There are plenty of trial judges who don't know jack about the law, and spend their whole careers never learning, because in fact the lawyers educate the judge on the specific law pertaining to individual cases, because one lawyer cant know everything, and laws change with time. Graduation from law school is not even a requirement to be a judge in many jurisdictions. They are political appointees chosen by voters or chosen by representatives who were chosen by voters because it is we the people (not the law schools) who govern the country through our elected officials. Your argument is based solely in opinion not fact. You be a good judge by doing the things which cause the people who put you in your job to keep you there. The judge's legal clerk and the parties' lawyers must scurry around figuring out the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tres3  [View Original Post]
    You missed my point. To reach the appellate level, a judge should go through the trial (District Court) level first. A trial judge is a fact finder who tries all sorts of cases, not just murder or other crimes. These cases are brought by many different legal specialties. The common thread is litigation before a judge. How can a person be a good judge without litigation experience? The facts and cases may be different, but a trial before a judge is still a trial before a judge. If you know of a law school with a class on "How to be a Good Judge", please enlighten me. Kavenaugh reached an appellette judgeship through the political process, not the judicial process. He is not alone.
    .

  16. #359
    Senior Member


    Posts: 577

    Point Missed

    Quote Originally Posted by JimBob  [View Original Post]
    Not all lawyers specialize in trial law, if I was on trial for murder for example I would want a lawyer specialized in criminal trial law, for example, an ex prosecutor who knows how the prosecution in that jurisdiction handles crimes of that nature. If I was convicted I would want one who specializes in appeals, if I was getting divorced I would want a family law specialist etc. But there are also lawyers in entertainment law, real estate, constitutional law, etc. Kavanaugh had experience in appellate law (he is in fact a sitting appellate judge) which seems more important for being on the supreme court than trial law, besides some of the most controversial appellate reviews are not about crimes like murder which is pretty cut and dried they are about social issues.

    .
    You missed my point. To reach the appellate level, a judge should go through the trial (District Court) level first. A trial judge is a fact finder who tries all sorts of cases, not just murder or other crimes. These cases are brought by many different legal specialties. The common thread is litigation before a judge. How can a person be a good judge without litigation experience? The facts and cases may be different, but a trial before a judge is still a trial before a judge. If you know of a law school with a class on "How to be a Good Judge", please enlighten me. Kavenaugh reached an appellette judgeship through the political process, not the judicial process. He is not alone.

  17. #358
    Winner 2017 Noob of the year


    Posts: 162
    Not all lawyers specialize in trial law, if I was on trial for murder for example I would want a lawyer specialized in criminal trial law, for example, an ex prosecutor who knows how the prosecution in that jurisdiction handles crimes of that nature. If I was convicted I would want one who specializes in appeals, if I was getting divorced I would want a family law specialist etc. But there are also lawyers in entertainment law, real estate, constitutional law, etc. Kavanaugh had experience in appellate law (he is in fact a sitting appellate judge) which seems more important for being on the supreme court than trial law, besides some of the most controversial appellate reviews are not about crimes like murder which is pretty cut and dried they are about social issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tres3  [View Original Post]
    I do not oppose Judge Kavenaugh because of something that might have occurred when he was a teenager. I oppose the nomination to a judgeship of any lawyer who does not have trial experience. Lawyers specialize in many aspects of the law. A good litigator specializes in trying cases in a courtroom. How is someone going to be a good judge, if that person has never been in a courtroom facing a judge? It does not matter whether or not that judge is a justice of the peace, or a Supreme Court Justice. An attorney must start somewhere. Kavenaugh, and others, are political appointments who should have never donned a judge's robes because they had no trial experience. No one should be surprised that the nomination has become a partisan political circus. Experience is a prerequisite for virtually every profession extant.
    .

  18. #357
    Winner 2017 Noob of the year


    Posts: 162
    I agree that Kavanaugh should not have to deal with a smear campaign, whether he did it or not, but I also don't believe that anything happened to Blasey her performance to me seemed well coached but completely dishonest. If we are to "believe women" they have ridiculous statistics, one in three women have been assaulted and 70% don't report assaults or basically they are trying to say all women are assaulted and all men are assaulters. The logical conclusion, were this to be true, is we would have to throw all men in jail, so the judges would have to convict themselves and the cops would have to lock themselves up etc. I guess upon puberty we would all just to have to choose our first and last rape date before going off to jail. Basically the USA is the safest place in the world for women, but quite dangerous for men, as Wild Walleye points out. But I think the real culprits are not women, who we expect to use lies and tears to control us, but voters who want to be tough on crime and like to elect prosecutors with a history of convicting so-called rapists. These prosecutors are looking for any case to fry a man in order to get a more impressive rape conviction resume with voters. If we voted for prosecutors with histories of frying perjurers, then there would be a motive for prosecutors to go after the women who make up the lies. But of course no prosecutor wants a resume of frying crying women.

    Quote Originally Posted by WildWalleye  [View Original Post]
    Even if he did what she said he did, in 1982 in Chevy Chase, MD, the cops would have laughed them out of the police department. However, while she may very well have been assaulted that summer, I sincerely doubt that it was Kavanaugh doing the assaulting.

    Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. In 70% of the "DNA cases" (The Innocence Project, et al) that have been overturned in the USA (on DNA evidence), there were eye witnesses swearing that the wrongly-convicted person was the perpetrator. I don't doubt that she was assaulted, but in the ensuing 30+ years, she either unintentionally, or intentionally, misidentified her attacker to be Kavanaugh.

    Interestingly, I am about the same age as both of them. I have friends that were at school with them. That area (NW DC out to Potomac, MD) was home to some serious partying and the fastest and loosest high school girls in the USA. Many of my friends in the area were in rehab, before graduating high school. When I was a junior in HS, my dad (total straight shooter, never cheated on my mom in nearly 60 years) sat me down to talk about women. Not about fucking them or the birds and the bees, but protecting oneself from women, not with rubbers, but from being wrongfully accused of sexual misdeeds or getting trapped into a relationship by some psycho chick. He was a doctor and he never, ever saw female patients without a staff member in the room. This was the 1980s, nobody was thinking like that, but he was. He told me that whenever possible, avoid "He said, she said" situations (I didn't point out that is extremely difficult when you are trying to get laid). There are countless doctors who have been extorted out of lots of money by female patients who say "I don't know what happened, but when I woke up my blouse was askew and my vajayjay hurt."

    When things get political, all sense of reason and propriety gets tossed out of the window. It is the most important time to remember a few very important facts, we are a society of which some of the fundamental tenets are the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. It is a Constitutional right to confront one's accusers and witnesses against him/her. In this case, there is no crime, there is one witness (Ford) who says the crime happened and four witnesses who absolutely refute that. There is no evidence, there are no facts (no location, no time the crime occurred, no contemporaneous facts that could help place things). Whether or not one wants Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS, I think that we can all agree that he has been unfairly smeared by claims that cannot be substantiated and therefore never should have been made public.

    I am not saying that Dr. Ford was not assaulted. I am saying that there is nothing about her claims that can be substantiated and therefore they are just gossip and rumors. Gossip and rumors should not ruin a man or woman's life.

  19. #356
    Senior Member


    Posts: 577

    Trial Experience

    I do not oppose Judge Kavenaugh because of something that might have occurred when he was a teenager. I oppose the nomination to a judgeship of any lawyer who does not have trial experience. Lawyers specialize in many aspects of the law. A good litigator specializes in trying cases in a courtroom. How is someone going to be a good judge, if that person has never been in a courtroom facing a judge? It does not matter whether or not that judge is a justice of the peace, or a Supreme Court Justice. An attorney must start somewhere. Kavenaugh, and others, are political appointments who should have never donned a judge's robes because they had no trial experience. No one should be surprised that the nomination has become a partisan political circus. Experience is a prerequisite for virtually every profession extant.

Posting Limitations

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape