Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

[CD_Sasha]

Your responses are very emotional and very bias. Passionate I haven't called you a dimwit yet
Nothing I've responded to is being bias and simply stating there's always 2 sides to everything. Not attempted rape
If evidence is found to hold allegations true, then Kavanaugh shouldn't be nominated as SCOTUS. No shit
If allegations don't hold true, then Dr. Ford should be locked up for defamation. Bust up that lie detector while you're at it
The American people (like me) see this as a political hit based on the timing and Democrats promise to "resist" anything Trump does. About 48 percent of voters do not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, compared with 42 percent who do.
But this one goes too far and I'm willing to bet Democrats with common sense can see this too. Turn off Fox News and find a shrink who deprograms cult members
We'll see what happens after this is over. You mean the Mueller Investigation??

Oh please, you're acting like anyone who thinks different "must be following Fox News!". You're acting like Libertarians aren't laughing at the Democrats being so obvious using rape allegations as their last tactic to obstruct. We're just soo baffled how easily fooled the liberals are. But ok, I won't respond anymore. Until I see EVIDENCE that leads to a conviction against Kavanaugh, then I'll agree.

[trish]

Before the hearing last Thursday, my biggest beefs against Kavanaugh were 1) his position on Roe vs Wade, 2) his position that an President can’t be indicted and 3) his action in Garza v. Hargan in which he unconscionably made a immigrant wait seven weeks before she was allowed to go through with an abortion.

And of course there was the possibility that Kavanaugh’s behavior as a young man thirty-five years prior was less than exemplary.

After the hearing it became clear to me that Kavanaough’s behavior, not only as a young man, but throughout his life and in the hearing itself was and is less than exemplary. Whether or not the allegations against him are true, he has shown himself to be 4) a liar and 5) a crazed conspiracy theorist. He has demonstrated 6) an inability to control his anger, his rancor, and 7) his biases against women and liberal colleagues. He has shown us 8, a temperament thoroughly unfitting for a Supreme Court Justice, or any sort of justice for that matter.

Yes, I would like to have a full FBI investigation into his character and the allegations against him raised by the women and associates that knew or know him. Not only the allegations of sexual misconduct, but allegations that he is a drunk and that he’s belligerent when drunk. But for me, in light of (1), (2), (3) now (4), (5), (6), (7) and 8 Kavanaugh should never have been appointed to U.S. Court of Appeals, let alone be appointed to the Supreme Court.

[Stavros]

Take a step back and tell me you don't see a similar pattern before any nomination. Happened to Trump, Roy Moore and now this judge. Why does it always happen RIGHT before any major nomination? You can't be that gullable and oblivious. And listening to what? Liberal news media who always paint Republicans and conservatives as "evil"? What happened to the previous accusers regarding Trump and Roy Moore? Why did the news stopped following their case? Because the plan failed (to stop Trump becoming President) or worked (Roy Moore stepped down)? I'm surprised no one ever questions that except independent thinkers who aren't swayed by a narrative.

This is simply a distortion of the record. There is a list (a long list) of the President's nominees who withdrew their names
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...have_withdrawn

but in most cases the President's nominees have not been accused of crimes or misdemeanors in the manner that Brett Kavanaugh has been. And Roy Moore was not nominated by the President.

Neil Gorsuch, Betsy de Vos, Rex Tillerson, Ben Carson, Rick Perry, Nikki Haley, Steve Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, Scott Pruit, John Bolton, etc -none of them accused, all of them appointed. The one person without portfolio about whom allegations have been made for some time is his son-in-law Jared Kushner who, along with his wife was relieved not to be prosecuted for deception in New York some years ago in a case where it is beieved the prosecutor treated them with extreme lenience.

But there was one person who did have a dubious background, serious enough for President Obama in their private meeting in the White House to warn his successor not to hire him: Michael Flynn. Needless to say the incoming President, probably out of spite, did precisely that and hired Flynn as National Security Advisor but he lasted barely a month before resigning. It was the sign that the President is a man of poor judgement.

[buttslinger]

If Republicans are mad that Democrats don't like Brett just because he's a Republican, they are exactly right. The Kavanaugh pick was ONE HUNDRED PERCENT POLITICAL.
The FBI needs to investigate Trump.
(Oh, that's right. They are)
PAYBACK is gonna be a bitch.

[filghy2]

Oh please, you're acting like anyone who thinks different "must be following Fox News!". You're acting like Libertarians aren't laughing at the Democrats being so obvious using rape allegations as their last tactic to obstruct. We're just soo baffled how easily fooled the liberals are. But ok, I won't respond anymore. Until I see EVIDENCE that leads to a conviction against Kavanaugh, then I'll agree.

Classic. Keep repeating the same point over and over and ignore what other people say in response. Claim that you are really independent-minded even though the only comments you ever make are arguing for one side. Declare that you are through with the discussion when you are getting the worst of it. Where have we seen that before? Do all of you people go to the same debating classes?

Why can't you answer this simple question - If it was appropriate for Bill Clinton to be impeached for one instance of perjury then why shouldn't Brett Kavanaugh be disqualified if he is found to have lied in his testimony?

[collinswriters]

No offense, but there's no hope for many people here.
You are looking for all possible means to paint Kavanaugh as bad. Not being exemplary? If he was a Democrat, I bet he would have been a role model to all of you.
Someone said Fox news. What's wrong with Fox news? They support Trump? What about other media? Have they not all supported Democrats and, even became Obama's ass-lickers?
Some of you make good points but for some, no sense. If Kavanaugh doesn't support your cause, I see no problem there. You guys want to police how people think and, behave and anyone against it is an enemy of the people. I don't see Republicans pushing for that. You guys pretend like there's no logic behind what Republicans do. You think you are the only ones that have the ability to reason?
And you guys are the ones saying that we must believe all women just because they are women. Is that even logical at all? How will you believe a particular gender no matter what? Women lie anyhow they like and so do men. We are humans, let's not pretend like women are holy. Some women are good and, some are not. Same applies to the men as well.
Some of you even believe all men are rapists, misogynistic, homophobic and all (this is now a popular line amongst Democrats).
They no longer think for themselves, they need people to think for them as a group. You ask many people why they hate Trump, some have absolutely no idea and, some of them recite the popular line. Some just make claims to paint him as the worst person in recorded history.

[trish]

Supreme Court nominees should be exemplary. The standards should be high.
Kavanaugh’s performance during the hearing was an example the opposite of judicial temperament and an example of how not to behave during a job interview. He’s certainly no role model for anybody, conservative or liberal.

Opposing a nominee because you disagree with his ideology is not even close to “policing how people think” (that’s Fox News’ job). And yes I mentioned three points of judicial disagreement that predisposed me against Kavanaugh. I do, on occasion, try to persuade people in conversation to those points. I don’t police. In the words of Kavanaugh, “Do you?”
But the remaining five points I previously mentioned were to his emotional and mental fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice. In my judgement he failed to demonstrate a relatively unbiased, reasoned and sound temperament which I would expect of a Supreme Court Justice regardless of their politics or gender.

Not all claims by all women are true as some would maliciously interpret the motto, “believe women”. Not all persons standing trial are innocent, in spite of the motto,”innocent until proven...” Yet, I don’t see anyone here but you attempting to saddle the whole with the unreasonable assumptions of the few. Professor Ford’s testimony was credible, but not decisive. Kavanaugh’s testimony was, in the words of President Trump, “incredible” and he left us with more doubts than we had before the hearing.

[broncofan]

Does that mean every accusation should be assumed to be true per se? No, but you can actually listen to the people who come forward and not engage in conspiratorial thinking.

Collinswriter, perhaps you aren't reading what people have said. I wrote this on the last page. I wrote on another thread that I don't believe decades old rape charges should be prosecuted in criminal court. Accusations made under oath at a confirmation hearing should be listened to and the credibility of the parties based on their demonstrated conduct should be taken into careful consideration. Dr. Ford conducted herself with poise and testified thoughtfully. Kavanaugh showed bad judgment and was belligerent.

Due process comes from the 5th and 14th amendments to our Constitution. It may have a colloquial meaning, but it should also be understood to have a particular domain of application. Someone who is applying for a position does not have a vested property right. On the other hand, someone who is fired from a public position for an impropriety is often entitled to due process. The due process in that hearing would not look anything like the due process someone is entitled to before facing a criminal punishment. This is not a scholarly site but does give a short summary of the issue. https://employment.findlaw.com/wages...-employee.html

I have several issues with Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy but they are not issues I would not have with other candidates so I don't oppose his nomination on that basis. I would like to hear him speak more about the issue of the appointment of special counsel and whether he thinks the special counsel statute is constitutional. I think it's terrible that there's a good chance he would overturn Obergefell and Roe, and that he thinks assault weapons are protected by the second amendment. That this follows from his judicial philosophy and that there are many other potential appointments with similar views I'm certain of. I'm more concerned by the fact that he doesn't respect an oath, that he is pretty much as Trish described him and it should be disqualifying.

[buttslinger]

If the Truth is ugly enough, people will prefer lies. Fox News isn't a Democrat problem, it's a United States problem.

[broncofan]

Just as an addendum here: is it not completely obvious that Collinswriter has misrepresented his own views to seem like a moderate who is simply skeptical about the Democrats' behavior? I get along with plenty of conservatives and can have civil conversations with them but it's very difficult when someone pretends they're not right-wing and plainly are.

On one page he is saying he is just concerned about due process and then on another is saying he isn't sure Fox News is biased, is complaining about Obama without providing a reason and is claiming Trump is getting a bum rap and that people don't even know what they object to about him.

He realizes he's on a site where the readers are much more likely to liberal and so has presented himself in a completely misleading way. It's kind of irritating.