Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

@livinglava,

Quote:

First, you are lumping me together with someone else who thinks differently that I do.

I think Blickers doesn't care. He's kinda trollish. So being factual is easy to dispense with. I talk to atheists who are like him on another site. I came here because that other site isn't good for conversation. I'd rather talk to people who care about what they are saying, rather than attack without any sense of fairness.

So I came here. I can be very patient though.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

As has already been pointed out, the accusations by the women constitute evidence. Are you aware that when the police investigate crimes or alleged crimes, one of their first actions is to interview witnesses, suspects and putative victims?

So if I accuse Elizabeth Warren of committing genocide, is my accusation evidence that she has committed genocide?

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

The Senate Judiciary committee is not there to assess monetary damages, nor to assess if someone should go to jail. The Senate Judiciary Committee is there to determine if a Supreme Court nominee is fit to sit on the Supreme Court-intellectually, professionally and morally.

Since Kavanaugh is more than fit for the office, this means he should be confirmed.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I think Democrats should insist on the McConnel rule as long as he’s majority leader. 400+ days before a hearing is held.

Setting aside the fact that so long as McConnell is majority leader the Democrats have no power to do that, the Democrats would be wise to not start another fight with the Republicans.

Every time the Democrats pull these sort of dirty tricks on the Republicans, the Republicans retaliate in kind. And the Democrats do not seem to ever enjoy this retaliation.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Of course, Kavanaugh's disrespect for Constitutional tradition is a very good reason why he should not be confirmed.

The situation is just the opposite. Kavanaugh always fights hard to uphold the Constitution.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I think what McConnel did was a massive shift in the norms in our Senate.

You are mistaken. The Democrats shifted those norms. McConnell just retaliated and gave the Democrats a dose of their own medicine.

If the Democrats don't like having it done to them, they really should consider not doing it to others.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/17/which-party-is-more-to-blame-for-political-polarization-it-depends-on-the-measure/

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

An increase in polarization and alleged ideological shift by the Republicans do not change the reality that the Democrats started the dirty tricks and the Republicans were only giving the Democrats a dose of their own medicine.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

He has lied to the Senate, an impeachable offense.

I doubt that it can be proven that Kavanaugh lied.

But don't be so hypocritical. Since you think that it was OK for Bill Clinton to lie under oath, it should also be OK for Kavanaugh as well.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

This is not the Salem witch trials. This is the 21st century in real time that anyone with a tv can watch.

The ability to watch on TV does not change the fact that this circus that the Democrats are putting on is as unjust as the Salem Witch Trials were.

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

coluber2001 wrote:

Of course Avenatti just said he might file charges against Kavanaugh.

How does a private citizen file charges? Or do you mean a civil lawsuit?

I actually think civil damages are the appropriate remedy if it can be proven that someone who has lived an exemplary life as an adult once committed a horrible crime as a child.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

I don't agree.

Is there a different definition of "horrible crimes" that differs as one gets older?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Avenatti is an attorney/lawyer. He's a representative of the court system.
From Wikipedia,
Lawyer
Occupation
Names Attorney, advocate, barrister, counsel, judge, justice, solicitor, legal executive

Barrister, Solicitor, Judge, Advocate, Attorney, Legal executive, Prosecutor, Law clerk, Law professor, Civil law notary, Magistrate, Politician
A lawyer or attorney is a person who practices law, as an advocate, attorney, attorney at law, barrister, barrister-at-law, bar-at-law, counsel, counselor, counsellor, counselor at law, solicitor, or public servant preparing, interpreting and/or applying law, but not as a paralegal or charter executive secretary.[1] Working as a lawyer involves the practical application of abstract legal theories and knowledge to solve specific individualized problems, or to advance the interests of those who hire lawyers to perform legal services.
The role of the lawyer varies greatly across legal jurisdictions, and so it can be treated here in only the most general terms.[2][3]

1 Reply

Well, Obstructionism may be the ultimate Trump card, but I get the sense that a part of playing the trump card is to create a con job against Kavanaugh. And that is what I saw yesterday, a con job orchestrated by the Democrats. Ford's lawyers apparently never told her about Grassley's offer to meet with her where she lived (bullcough cough). Feinstein never asked her staff if they leaked Ford's original letter (bullcough cough).

Body Language analysis
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5uv6SHt1Z5Gm/

0 Replies

1 Reply

@coluber2001,

So they got an ex-FBI agent who used to work for Robert Mueller, and a former US attorney who was asked to step down by Trump, to go on PMSNBC and get all excited about evidence they don't have and don't know is there, then prognosticate as to whether Kavanaugh would decline a lie detector test, and what would happen to him if he were to decline.

I guess that is the best they have.

I hadn't watched anything from PMSNBC in a long time, I see Brian Williams is still there. I guess one thing nice about it is that the liberal activism seems to continue leaving Trump creditless. I heard someone credit Grassley earlier, but the liberal press doesn't give any credit to Trump for allowing the investigation.

Not surprising at all.

0 Replies

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

Silly. He's trying to explain the experience of a woman who was sexually assaulted. If anyone has done any research on sexual assault victims, they will learn that the majority never report it, and even if they do report it, a very small number are actually convicted. He's fighting the wrong fight; he's a white man of privilege, and will never understand these kinds of issues.

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

I had that happen to me on this site. Like what the woman on the left was talking about, she believed everything Ford said. She then began to tell everyone on the panel who she disagreed with that they can't prognosticate anything about it. But then she told them everything that will happen, like they would hear about it when the FBI was done investigating, and that the congressmen (persons) would hear from their constituents. It's like they weren't allowed to hold an opinion if it was against hers.

Just noticing a pattern here. Where have I seen that pattern before? Hmmmmm . . . .

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

How does a private citizen file charges? Or do you mean a civil lawsuit?

Do you not have a means for private citizens to file charges in the U.S. ? Admittedly it's very rare here, but one citizen did file an indictment for assault against a police officer here, about 5 years ago from memory. He had to go searching for quite some time to find a solicitor that would take it on, but he eventually found one. I can't remember the outcome though. I think the article I saw was prior to the court case.

2 Replies

Obstructionism: the ultimate trump card?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know