Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[sandman]

What those 2 do advocate is higher taxes and more government control over people's lives in general.  Ever known the government to run anything efficiently?

"We are the richest country in the world so I deserve to have ( insert entitlement here)".   

Do you not even hear how incredibly simplistic you are making economic policy, one of the most complex things in the world, out to be?

And the government runs healthcare much more effectively, as seen in countless countries. You realize that by claiming government cannot run anything effectively, you are taking an extremist position, right? Most reasonable intellectuals on either side will admit that government and private enterprise both have certain things they do better than the other, and to some extent, need each other in order to balance things out.

"I am an American so I deserve to have the entitlement of freedom of speech". "I am an American so I deserve to have the entitlement of bearing arms". Do you see the massive flaw in your argument there?

when you ask me if I support nazis; that is highly offensive. and I shouldn't have to post in here that I do not.

Jarmo - I want you to read that again, so here you go....

when you ask me if I support nazis; that is highly offensive. and I shouldn't have to post in here that I do not.

Then stop carrying water for the guy who says there are good Nazis and can't condemn them? And stop supporting a party which repeats white supremacist talking points word-for-word? https://splinternews.com/tucker-carlsons-racist-dog-whistle-of-the-night-is-whit-1829454231

That was Jarmo's whole point; that you cannot condemn Trump or any of the right's excesses. By actively avoiding even addressing them, much less condemning, you are being an enabler of their actions.

Let me repeat that for you:

By actively avoiding even addressing them, much less condemning, you are being an enabler of their actions.

oooohh. an enabler of their actions. deep stuff man. we should all be more like you and condemn more of the world's evils in a forum that's read by about 5 people around the globe. you are doing so much for your cause. really making a difference. way to go! 

[pilferk]

I have no doubts that there's inefficiency in the government or public sector. Or even in the private sector.... Human nature....

But still, it seems like an extreme way of dealing with it. How abut making them more efficient instead of prohibiting?

Also, sometimes the government is better at speeding things up than the private sector. Just look at something like cars. Laws were passed that car manufacturers had to live by. Otherwise they'd have little interest in making their cars better in certain aspects.

/jarmo

Don't you know, jarmo, that if you can't find the absolute PERFECT solution, you should choose to adopt NO solution (which is what the Repubs have come up with so far, in their almost 2 years of basically controlling all 3 branches of govt)?

Because damn those inefficiencies while, instead, people are bankrupted by medical bills, or worse....get NO care and just die because they don't have the means to afford it.

If the conservatives have a better solution than socialized medicine, that controls costs, handles pretty much everyone, and doesn't just benefit the insurance companies and drug manufacturers....I think pretty much everyone is ready to hear it.  I thought the Obama plan was the best compromise, though certainly not perfect and in need of tweaking, that we'd found. Hell, it was BASED on a Republican plan (and was almost exactly what the Repubs proposed during Clintons administration).

But, as they have proven in the past 10 years, the Repubs are good at being contrarians and telling everyone what WON'T work (even if it actually does).  So far, in the past 2 years, they've proven not so great at actually GOVERNING and figuring out what WILL work.

Anyway, I'll let you go back at it with the Senator.  Good luck!

[sandman]

I'm really confused.I don't know what your idea of a discussion is.

Obviously it doesn't involve you taking any kind of stand or share any of what you actually believe in.


I knew you'd bring up Antifa. It was expected.
No, I don't support extremism or violence to prove a point. That didn't feel like it was a big deal to just type those words. Easy.... Maybe it's just me.

Still waiting for YOUR answers! 

/jarmo

Jarmo – you asked a lot of questions recently, and I passed over some of them, while addressing some others that I disagreed with. But I do think you are interested in reasonable discussions so I will answer all of the questions directly. I copied and pasted them below and put them in bold. My responses follow.   

Who here is convinced that if a democrat had won the election, the USA would now be like Venezuela? Not me. We have a system of checks and balances, and Bernie or Hillary would not have gotten anything drastic done. There are certain aspects of socialism that I strongly disagree with and probably would not want in place. But collectively, my views do not fall into a single category. Some are right of center and some are left of center.   

Do you think it's a dangerous thing to have the president of your country label the media enemies of the people? Not at all. Both sides have been doing it for a long time.

Doesn't that remind you of how certain dictatorships work? Yes, that is one aspect. But I have no concerns that criticizing the media is a sign that we are moving towards a dictatorship. It’s been happening for decades.

Also I guess if you voted for this government, you think it's ethical to lie, alienate allies and start trade wars.... America first and all that. No, I do not think it's ethical to lie. As for alienate allies? Negotiations can be tough. I think foreign leaders understand that and we generally have good relations with all. Excellent relations with many allies. Trade wars? I think it's ethical to negotiate on behalf of the US and get the best deals possible. It worked with Canada and Mexico, and now he can focus on China. You could argue it's unethical NOT to negotiate better trade deals.

Do you want to work together with your allies or do you want to alienate them? Work together. Trump is doing an outstanding job with this.

You're saying that Fox News were huge Obama supporters? No, they were not. That’s why Obama criticized them regularly. it was reported that it really got under his skin when Fox News did not treat him fairly. Trump is similar, only instead of one network, it’s all of the other major networks. 

Also, why is Trump still doing these appearances? Is there a presidential campaign that's been going on since 2016 that I'm not aware of? I am not a fan of this. But it is a reality in U.S. politics. All presidents do it. There is an election in November. Trump has a vested interest in Republicans doing well. He also may be running for re-election in 2 years if he chooses. Maintaining a connection with your base is important for these reasons. It’s also a forum for getting his message out since all of the networks report on it. But this process causes presidents to focus on campaigning in the middle of their term, and then they spend a ton of time during their 4th year campaigning for themselves or for their party in the presidential election.

Obama saved the US car industry. Remember how that was met? I do not remember exactly how it was met. I believe it was mixed. Also, Bush got the ball rolling on actually saving the car industry. Obama kept it going, and I would say he “fixed” the car industry. In theory, I am not a fan of bailouts. But each situation is different and with anything related to economics, there are many factors to consider. It worked out well, but a case can be made that taxpayer dollars were not necessary. The US auto industry was not just going to go away. 

Did Reagan fall in love with Gorbachev? Not sure. Back then, coming out was not as widely accepted. 

Why are you bringing up Hillary? Does it make you feel better? I’ve addressed specifically why I brought up Hillary. But I will add that Hillary is still very much in the spotlight. She could run again in 2020 as many want her to do. 

So I'm asking you, do you agree with everything your president is doing? Do you think it's ok to lie like he does? Does it set a great example of how a leader should be?
No, there are some things I disagree with. I have mentioned them in these threads before. No, I do not believe it is ok to lie. I wish he didn’t do that. No, it’s not a great example of how a leader should be. But if he gets results, I can live with it. i’m not looking to politicians for examples of great people with high quality characters. Sadly, in the US, most are corrupt phonies.

Is it ok to keep going on and on about the word socialism when you know many of the people don't even know what the hell it actually is? Especially since it's being used to scare people. I think it’s fine to talk about socialism and offer your perspective on it.

How exactly is Trump bringing people together? By pointing out that the media is the enemy of the people? By feeding people fear? By questioning his own government agencies? No president in this political climate can ever bring the people together. The media and lifelong politicians will not allow it. Also, I’d say about 50% - 80% of the people will never give credit to anyone outside of their party. Also, liberals have been particularly hateful since Trump won. I've heard countless stories of friends and families losing touch or not being the same because liberals cannot accept anyone supporting Trump. No prez is going to have success ending that.
 
You failed to answer any of the questions, while acting like your feelings were hurt. So who's butt-hurt? You suggested that I am unethical. I wanted to point that out, because it is uncalled for. but not butt hurt. I have very thick skin and despite any discussions getting heated, I never take anything personally.
 
Do you think right wing extremism is bad? Yes
Are nazis bad? Yes. I do stand by my previous point that asking someone this question in a forum, suggests that you have reason to believe I may be a racist. That's why I think this question is out of line. But I believe you when you say that was not your intent. and since there are about 5 people in this thread, I have no concerns that my reputation or character will be destroyed. i'm also not running for the supreme court in my lifetime, so I have nothing to worry about.
 
What do you think of trade wars that end up hurting farmers so the government has to bail them out? Do you support that kind of politics, and if so, why? Isn't the whole idea of a free market that if your business fails, you need to find something else? I touched on trade wars and bailouts above. This is a complicated matter. it's never black and white.

I don't buy this "But Trump isn't a politician, he's different". Different how? He is not a lifelong politician who is looking to become a millionaire at the tax payers expense by serving in government. He left a very good life to have a far more stressful one. He led a major organization for years, so he has vast business experience. Also, he is not actively seeking to get the US involved in unnecessary wars; in that respect, he is FAR different. This is actually a major reason why me and many others support him. He also has many long-term republican politicians and advisors that despise him. He truly is trying to change things in Washington, and that makes him a threat to all. But changing our fucked up system will take a generation. The best thing liberals could do is nominate another outsider for prez in 2 years and in 6 years. Biden, Warren, etc. will be more of the same. We should pursue real change.
   
Do you know WHY I asked? Because when a right wing extremist drove into protestors, the guy you voted for didn't really wanna say anything bad about those extremists....
Here is what Trump tweeted the day of: “We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Let’s come together as one!”
“The hate and division must stop. And must stop right now,” Trump said. “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides. On many sides.”
Here is what he said two days later: “Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups,”

so he should not have added "on many sides," which I underlined above. but for me, that does not mean he supports Nazis. and by Monday when he had a formal press conference and wasn't just tweeting as the events were unfolding, he specifically called out the racist hate groups. 

[jarmo]

Thanks for your answers! 


Yes, both sides have been clashing with the media. But do you think it's gotten more of a thing with this one doing it more often? That's my impression. Sure, Obama wasn't a fan of Fox News. But did he question them at almost every press conference and meeting?

I don't think it's a sign of moving towards dictatorship. I do think it has no place in a proper democracy. I mean, you can say "oh, but the leftist media is against the president". Sure, you can say that! Fine! But you also has to remember that it's their obligation to make sure to report on what's going on, including being critical of the leaders. If they don't do it, who will? What's the media supposed to do? Report about celebrity gossip only? And yes, that last part is a joke. But the point is serious. They're supposed to report things and hopefully help make sure the people with power don't do things they're not supposed to!

The president should know better than to try to turn the people against the media. I suspect it might be more of a personal ego thing than anything else....




True, I agree that a lot of people will never give credit for something the president did if he's not part of their party.

Also, anything he does is considered bad, even if in reality it's actually good for them. You stick to your beliefs and refuse to look at it from another point of view.





Yes, Trump did change his tone, after a while.... But I think it's one of those things that if you piss off some of your supporters, he'd probably win some from the other side for speaking up against right wing extremism.




You say Trump is different because he's from a business background. Ok.... But being a president isn't necessarily like running a business. Now his decisions will effect people all over the world, more or less.
Also, you say he's not looking to get the USA involved in unnecessary wars. Really? He's prepared to spend your money on military parades (another thing that reminds me a bit of dictatorships) and space weapons...






/jarmo

[pilferk]

Trump was quite the businessman, alright.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

Some things to note:

He ended up with more than half a billion from his dad (conservatively).  If he'd simply invested that money in the market, he'd be worth more than he reportedly (via this investigation and other reports) is now.

He lied a lot.

He cheated a lot.

If you take his net worth now, and subtracted out the liabilities that he discharged in bankruptcy...he'd be flat broke.

As I've said before, his most successful business venture has been to CONvince OTHER PEOPLE the Trump name has value, and should be stuck on their stuff.  Basically, branding.

And, well, now doing the same to conservatives.

[pilferk]

Just spent some time looking over NAFTA 2.0...which is exactly what it is, no matter what Trump wants to label it.

It's largely the same agreement?  There's a few changes (2 relatively minor changes for the auto industry, and a modest increase in US access to the Canadian Dairy market (which has incredibly minimal economic impact))..and that's about it.  That's what the trade war is about, apparently. 

So, as per usual, Trump slaps a new name on it, makes a couple negligible changes, and declares victory.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/01/new-trump-trade-deal-leaves-nafta-largely-intact.html

[sandman]

Thanks for your answers! 


Yes, both sides have been clashing with the media. But do you think it's gotten more of a thing with this one doing it more often? That's my impression. Sure, Obama wasn't a fan of Fox News. But did he question them at almost every press conference and meeting?

I don't think it's a sign of moving towards dictatorship. I do think it has no place in a proper democracy. I mean, you can say "oh, but the leftist media is against the president". Sure, you can say that! Fine! But you also has to remember that it's their obligation to make sure to report on what's going on, including being critical of the leaders. If they don't do it, who will? What's the media supposed to do? Report about celebrity gossip only? And yes, that last part is a joke. But the point is serious. They're supposed to report things and hopefully help make sure the people with power don't do things they're not supposed to!

The president should know better than to try to turn the people against the media. I suspect it might be more of a personal ego thing than anything else....

I would not argue that it is partly his ego. However, the majority of the media (ye suggested 90%) is liberal. I don't think anyone would argue that a large majority is liberal. on top of that, a majority of that 90% has gone "all in" on ending trump. they do everything in their power to make him look bad. and they use scare tactics and make him out to be some evil person. remember all the predictions of nuclear wars, chaos, stock market crashing, etc.? None of it has happened. we're almost two years in and nothing drastic has occurred. but if you watch any major network, including some commentators on Fox News, you would think we are in crisis mode.

Yes, i want the media to cover important issues. but i want them to do it in an honest way. they spin everything and only report certain facts to keep the narrative going that Trump is an evil human being. there has always been bias, but it is so much worse now. i remember a years ago CNN was fair. you had Fox and MSNBC on the right and left, and you could turn on CNN and get news reported in a fair manner. now there is almost no where to turn for fair coverage.

so many on both sides hate the media. so to hear Trump call them out is awesome because he is voicing what many believe. i think an incompetent and corrupt media is far more dangerous than Trump voicing his dislike for it.
 

True, I agree that a lot of people will never give credit for something the president did if he's not part of their party.

Also, anything he does is considered bad, even if in reality it's actually good for them. You stick to your beliefs and refuse to look at it from another point of view.

yes, and that is the case on both sides. i have friends with hardcore views on both sides, and some will never give the other side credit. it is in part because so many have had their minds programmed to never see good in the other side. when in fact, there is alot of commonality in terms of people's views and what they want from their govt.

Trump just got a new deal done. i've seen some flat-footed analysis of the deal. the primary goal of getting a better deal in place was to reduce incentive for companies to outsource their operations to cheaper countries. long term, the new deal will help address that. NAFTA was supposed to address this, but the wage gap has actually increased between US and Mexico. $16/hour is far higher than wages in Mexico, so this will likely bring work from mexico back to the US. It weakens or totally eliminates provisions which allowed companies to sue governments directly over actions that harm foreign investments. this has been used to challenge consumer safety and environmental protections. these provisions also further encouraged outsourcing of jobs by providing additional legal protections for companies in developing countries where legal processes may be weak or corrupt.

Charles Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, said the following about the new deal “as someone who voted against NAFTA and opposed it for many years, I knew it needed fixing. The president deserves praise for taking large steps to improve it.”

i credit Schumer for being honest in this instance. i wish more politicians would do the same. it would weaken that divide that we have here in teh states.

Yes, Trump did change his tone, after a while.... But I think it's one of those things that if you piss off some of your supporters, he'd probably win some from the other side for speaking up against right wing extremism.

Trump consistently and clearly spoke out against hatred. Trump and other republicans are not worried about pissing off white supremacists. there are hardly any in the US. i've heard a few hundred to a few thousand. and i believe most do not vote.

You say Trump is different because he's from a business background. Ok.... But being a president isn't necessarily like running a business. Now his decisions will effect people all over the world, more or less.

I think there are similarities to running a business. the Trump organization employs over 20,000 people around the globe. it has nearly $10 Billion in revenues. so he has constantly been making decisions that impact a huge organization. he also has relationships with very important people around the globe. and a very important aspects of being prez is managing the financials, understanding economics, and pursuing legislation that will help increase jobs.

more than anything, people are frustrated with our political system. partly because of lobbyists and lifelong politicians who have "played the game" for years and owe people alot of favors. voting these people in as prez just ensures more of the same.

Also, you say he's not looking to get the USA involved in unnecessary wars. Really? He's prepared to spend your money on military parades (another thing that reminds me a bit of dictatorships) and space weapons...

i'll take military parades over unnecessarily killing innocent children all around the globe. many lifelong politicians are hawks, including many on the left - it's not just the neocons. many politicians are in favor of regime change and nation building. look at Libya. disastrous results and africans are now being sold as slaves there.

there have been ample opportunities to get the US involved in more disputes in the middle east, and trump has done a great job managing that. i was critical of him when he bombed Syria (as many democrats praised him - further proof they are desperate to start more wars). but it worked out ok and it did not suck us into anything. he's also selectively bombed ISIS, which has worked out extremely well. and despite scare tactics, no nuclear wars with NK! just an honest effort to get them to denuclearize.   

[jarmo]

I would not argue that it is partly his ego. However, the majority of the media (ye suggested 90%) is liberal. I don't think anyone would argue that a large majority is liberal. on top of that, a majority of that 90% has gone "all in" on ending trump. they do everything in their power to make him look bad. and they use scare tactics and make him out to be some evil person. remember all the predictions of nuclear wars, chaos, stock market crashing, etc.? None of it has happened. we're almost two years in and nothing drastic has occurred. but if you watch any major network, including some commentators on Fox News, you would think we are in crisis mode.

This is nothing new. Fear is how you win votes.

Trump himself made use of it, and still does..... The US is gonna be another Venezuela? Things like that.

so many on both sides hate the media. so to hear Trump call them out is awesome because he is voicing what many believe. i think an incompetent and corrupt media is far more dangerous than Trump voicing his dislike for it.

Like I've said, you can voice your opinion. But refrain from labeling them the enemy of the people. That's out of line.

Trump consistently and clearly spoke out against hatred. Trump and other republicans are not worried about pissing off white supremacists. there are hardly any in the US. i've heard a few hundred to a few thousand. and i believe most do not vote.

I didn't mean they were gonna piss off the far right wing extremists.

But just like he didn't know anything about the former KKK leader, it seems like anything to do with people on the right wing, he's a bit slow to say anything negative about.

Surely there must be some reason for that?

I think there are similarities to running a business. the Trump organization employs over 20,000 people around the globe. it has nearly $10 Billion in revenues. so he has constantly been making decisions that impact a huge organization. he also has relationships with very important people around the globe. and a very important aspects of being prez is managing the financials, understanding economics, and pursuing legislation that will help increase jobs.

Sure. you can believe that.
So he's been making money for himself his whole professional life. But this doesn't mean he's more fit to be a president or that there's no/less corruption.... I mean, didn't he appoint family members to White House positions?

more than anything, people are frustrated with our political system. partly because of lobbyists and lifelong politicians who have "played the game" for years and owe people alot of favors. voting these people in as prez just ensures more of the same.

Yes. All these interest groups have a lot of power. But I don't think anything has changed. Trump will take care of his friends. Just like everyone else has/will.

i'll take military parades over unnecessarily killing innocent children all around the globe. many lifelong politicians are hawks, including many on the left - it's not just the neocons. many politicians are in favor of regime change and nation building. look at Libya. disastrous results and africans are now being sold as slaves there.

That wasn'y my point. My point was that he'll still spend money on arms....

Sure, a parade to feed his ego is better than a conflict involving soldiers. But even better would be to spend that money on something that will benefit the people for years to come....





/jarmo

[pilferk]

jarmo

A little context on something:

"Schumer, who had not yet seen the final details of the reworked deal, went on to say ""However, any final agreement must be judged on how it benefits and protects middle-class families and the working people in our country."

“Two areas where I particularly want to see the details are dairy, where our dairy farmers are being taken advantage of by Canada, and real enforcement of labor provisions," Schumer continued. "Labor provisions are good, but too often they are written into trade bills and never enforced."

“If a final agreement is signed by all three countries, I also look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to write ‘implementing legislation’ to ensure the deal actually achieves these goals," he added.

Schumer (who clarified this over the weekend) wasn't saying the new agreement was "large steps" better/different than NAFTA (because it's not, 95% of the agreement is, VERBATIM, the exact same wording as NAFTA).  He was saying Trump took large steps (fair...considering he almost started a trade war over it) to fix it. 

Just so you're aware.  It might not matter to you, but the quote presented to you was "spun" more than just a little.  He said it, but it wasn't exactly meant in the way it was presented to you.

It's funny, though. Trump spent a lot of time campaigning on NAFTA being one of the worst deals in history, a disaster, and that it needed to be totally redone.

What he did was to make some relatively minor tweaks (which is what democrats have been saying for years), slap a new name on it, and suddenly it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Anyway, I'll slink back to the shadows and continue watching.  This is eye opening (and a bit scary), tbh.

[jarmo]

It's a disaster, but when he does something similar, it's the greatest thing ever.... 


I mean, Obama was told to present his birth certificate. When Trump is asked to present his tax returns....
If things were more transparent, maybe he'd have more support. Who knows.

It seems like every week there's something new so no one remembers what was done, or wasn't done, two weeks ago anymore.

Is the Mexico Wall still a thing? I don't think it's up yet. That was a huge thing! And so on....




/jarmo

[tim_m]

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

[jarmo]

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

[tim_m]

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

Correct and now the republicans are trying to confirm a judge to SCOTUS who has been accused of sexual assault by 4 women. The vote was delayed for an investigation by the FBI and i use the term investigation lightly. They didn't interview the judge, the first to accuse him or 40 other people that could corroborate her claims. They interviewed all of 9 people in under a week. It is all a sham.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

[pilferk]

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

There is a HUGE difference between a consensual affair (which, ironically, the Repubs got their panties in a bunch over at the time) vs  defending, and excusing those who have committed (or have been seriously and credibly accused of having committed) sexual assault, sexually preyed on minors, and potential committed statuatory rape (which apparently Repubs are OK with, as long as it's "their guy").  Trump has taken exactly that position more than once.

Quite frankly, I think it's disgusting and offensive to even insinuate they are the same thing.  And Bill Clinton has plenty of OTHER issues with women that WOULD be valid comparisons (and you have only to look back in this thread to see me condemn him for them). So picking out the Monica affair is particularly bad form, and in bad taste. And, to me, proof that you just don't get it (and  that's true for a big chunk of Repubs, it seems).

And since I can almost read what you're about to type, next: To be clear, I'm not saying BK committed any of those acts I mentioned.  I don't know, and, based on what we're hearing about this investigation, neither do those voting.  What I AM saying is: it deserves a full, fair, and complete investigation BEFORE we confirm the guy to a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.  I was relieved, and 100% OK with the outcome, last Friday when it looked like we were going to get that. If the FBI had done a more complete assessment, I'd be 100% OK with him being confirmed.  I don't like his politics or his jurisprudence, but, like it or not, the appointment is Trumps to make, and barring findings of character issues or material wrongdoing....he should be confirmed.  But I think, when a hint of those wrongdoings/issues crop up, there has to be an actual effort to get to the bottom of those accusations, and not just a "we'll plow through" mentality.  Of course, that was true of Merrick Garland, too, who should have gotten a confirmation hearing and a vote.  And it would be (is) hypocritical of Dems to bitch about that, and then demand similar action for BK.  It was either wrong to do (it was), or it wasn't.  Exacting a pound of flesh doesn't help anyone.  It is NOT hypocritical to ask for a full investigation, and pledge...no matter what the outcome of the November elections...to give BK a vote prior to Jan 1, 2019 (aka in the Repub controlled Senate).  I think that's where we were at the end of last week.

Of course, the reverse is true on the Repub side: If you were OK with what McConnel and the Repub controlled Senate did to Garland (like Lindsey Graham gleefully was), you have very little room to voice outrage over anything the Dems have done now, or any delay tactic they take.  Because the Repub controlled Senate circumvented the ACTUAL Constitution and robbed a sitting president of an appointment that was theirs by right.

  Back to the BK nomination, though: From the reports coming out....I don't think we got that investigation.  Apparently LOTS of people were not interviewed, and there was plenty of stuff left to look into.  Hopefully that report will end up becoming public, somehow, so we can all judge from a position of knowledge, and not speculation.

Whats REALLY funny in all this, though, is...the senator jarmo is remembering is probably Al Franken, a democrat.   The Republican Senator who was accused (and there are text messages and other evidence to back up the accusation) DID NOT step down.  In fact, his party has not actually imposed any sort of censure or "punishment" on him. He's just not seeking re-election.

And the Judge (I'm assuming) is Roy Moore, who actually did NOT quit. He lost the election (though it was relatively close, and Republicans still voted for him in pretty large numbers). He has said he's going to run again....

[Dr. Blutarsky]

My wife's family are Democrats, last week I was talking politics with that side of the family ( which can be quote dangerous) and my brother in law said since the GOP didn't allow the vote for Garland , F--- Kavanaugh. I think this is pretty much the attitude of most democrats in the senate evidence or no evidence.

Feinstien sat on Fords letter till the questioning of Kavanaugh was over and they couldn't get him on anything else. The letter could have been brought to the committee and the FBI could have looked into things in the beginning while protecting the identity of Dr Ford instead of it turning into the circus we have all been a witness to.

Ford's testimony had a lot of inconsistencies and no one can corroborate it. The other accusers are even less credible. Standing by a punch bowl handing out solo cups for example doesn't necessarily make you a gang rapist.

 

 
     

[tim_m]

Even with a proper investigation I have major issues with BK with his temperament, the fact he lied under oath, showed he may be vengeful and not fair and impartial. If any of us went into a job interview and were belligerent, lied, professed how much we love beer and acted like we were going to use the job to get revenge we would be told to leave.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 I think if he didn't show any emotion he'd be criticized as being unfeeling and showing lack of passion. Most job interviews dont call the applicant a a gang raping alcoholic.

Back in the 1800's if this kind of thing happened you'd see Kavanaugh and one of the senators choose pistols or swords at dawn. 

 

[PermissionToLand]

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Nothing is more deliciously hypocritical than republicans still harping on Clinton 20 years later for a consensual affair, while they supported Roy Moore the fucking PEDOPHILE.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Nothing is more deliciously hypocritical than republicans still harping on Clinton 20 years later for a consensual affair, while they supported Roy Moore the fucking PEDOPHILE.

He mentioned a Senator so I responded it wasn't me since my screen name is Senator and I borrowed a Bill Clinton quote. 

And Roy Moore was a horrible candidate, never should have gotten to run.