Trump's Supreme Court nominee

[buttslinger]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced today that he is retiring from the Supreme Court, a move that gives President Trump the chance to replace the court’s pivotal justice and dramatically shift the institution to the right, setting up a bitter partisan showdown on Kennedy’s successor.
What a couple-a days huh?

[Stavros]

I believe the President can nominate any US citizen to sit as a justice on the Supreme Court. It may be the time for the President to shake things up and nominate his son Eric, who can be schooled in the law by Clarence Thomas, giving the latter something to do, and anyway Eric will vote as his dad tells him to.

[bluesoul]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced today that he is retiring from the Supreme Court, a move that gives President Trump the chance to replace the court’s pivotal justice and dramatically shift the institution to the right, setting up a bitter partisan showdown on Kennedy’s successor.
What a couple-a days huh?

yeah, but one thing i like about trump is he screws everyone- including his own party so who knows; maybe they'll pick this time to 'mccain' his decision considering they still have to confirm whoever is picked. and in all honesty, with the feather duster schumer treats republicans with and even more recently pelosi downplaying cortez's win the primary, i wouldn't count on them unless-

cortez is the smoke that finally catches on. but right now i see it as the republican's game to shake up

[buttslinger]

Five out of five might as well be nine out of nine, they'll rubber-stamp anything the Republicans send over.

[Stavros]

Five out of five might as well be nine out of nine, they'll rubber-stamp anything the Republicans send over.

The key point, because if the Court is just going to pass judgements that are always in favour of the Republican Party and a small group of Christian fanatics, it will not be making decisions relevant to the USA as a whole. It has already passed on the blatant practice of gerrymandering congressional districts, undermining labour unions ability to organize, purging voters from the roll in Ohio -it is not beyond reason to believe if it were to become even more conservative, gains on abortion and same-sex marriage would be reversed. The days when a Justice was appointed who ruled on the law rather than partisan politics may be over. I doubt I will visit the USA again, indeed, doubt they will let me in because of my family name and the stamps in my passport, but it does on one level look increasingly like a nasty country, not unlike parts of the UK that have fallen victim to Brexit madness. One could hope the mid-terms and 2020 will put an end to it, but the divisions look deep and beyond repair.

[blackchubby38]

Remember all those people who said there was no difference between Hillary and Trump and that's why they were not voting. Or the Sanders supporters who were still butthurt because their guy didn't get the nomination and didn't vote for Hillary. Well guess what folks, you played a part in re-shaping the Supreme Court for the next 30 years. Thanks for nothing.

[bluesoul]

^^^ nah i wouldn't blame those people anymore than anyone who voted for trump. the DNC was a mess and was pushing for hillary. the fact that they had enough hubris to ignore bernie's popularity made a lot of people turn against the party (either by not voting or just voting for candidates that didn't have a chance)- in other words, they didn't listen to the very people they should have been serving and instead focused on their donors- politics 101.

and this was (and still is) the very thing trump has used against them. of course it's all still a kangaroo court with all the pointing of fingers at who's wrong and who's not and who's losing and who's winning- coincidentally both sides being pitted against one another by both the president and establishment (read as: democrats). they point fingers: we fight.

and the really beautiful part is: nothing is getting done. policies are just being put into hibernation and the people's minds slowly back to sleep.

[buttslinger]

This Supreme Court pick is the reason Evangelicals voted for a no-tax-paying pussy-grabber. For the Republicans this is Gold on the Sidewalk.

[Stavros]

The moral and political argument that is emerging argues that as long as the President is under investigation for possible breaches of the law, he should not have the authority to nominate justices to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States,and that therefore the Senate should automatically refuse to consider the nominee until the Special Investigator has reported and the status of the President has been confirmed either way.

[buttslinger]

Time to name a new Judge. Let the bullshit begin.
Beware the Federalist Society.

They can see the Future. The one without you-
the porn addicted mis-raised misfit.


Let's see if Democrats can get their spine up, Mueller can't save them on this one...….
UNLESS...…..
Time to Rock.

https://preview.ibb.co/gFo8hT/1.jpg (https://ibb.co/gjwHbo)

[flabbybody]

I think Trump will pick Kavanaugh although I prefer Tom Hardiman, who seems more moderate.

[bluesoul]

he picked kavanaugh. so glad it wasn't mike lee

[buttslinger]

I'd prefer stan lee.
Hillary Clinton gets to sit home and watch not only the choice that could have been hers, Kavanaugh is the Republican Hitman who trashed her husband with all the lurid sex details during the Monica Lewinski Affair.

If the Republicans hold the line, boom goes the dynamite. It's over.

[bluesoul]

not sure why you keep bringing hillary up- yes she could have. lots of things could have happened, but we should deal with what did happen rather that what could have.

imo the most dangerous part of kavanaugh's choice is that he can decide whether muller's investigation can go on, and whether the president can be indicted. roe vs wade will be overturned for sure. that's almost a lost cause at this point. gay marriage will probably be revoked. again- lost cause.

at this point, getting trump out of power is, imo, the only way to stop the damage being done. anything else is just temporary

p.s. trump just pardoned the two orgeon ranchers who started the arson fires that spreed to federal land. now, if this were a democrat who pardoned the native american water protectors in standing rock, i'm sure the senate would've thrown a fit- so whether pocahontas and chuck can must enough courage to even sound a peep against this one

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/396273-trump-pardons-oregon-ranchers-at-center-of-40-day-standoff

[flabbybody]

The moral and political argument that is emerging argues that as long as the President is under investigation for possible breaches of the law, he should not have the authority to nominate justices to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States,and that therefore the Senate should automatically refuse to consider the nominee until the Special Investigator has reported and the status of the President has been confirmed either way.
a ludicrous argument from Democrats powerless to stop the confirmation process.
I’m sorta pleased with Kavanaugh. no doubt a conservative judge, but one who seems reasonable and extremely well qualified to serve

[buttslinger]

You can't like Kavanaugh and not like Trump.

[filghy2]

at this point, getting trump out of power is, imo, the only way to stop the damage being done. anything else is just temporary

The mid-terms are effectively a referendum on whether the US continues to have democracy and the rule of law in any meaningful way, just like the recent elections in Hungary and Turkey. Unless the Dems get at least a blocking majority in one house it is hard to see what will stop the US from going the way of those countries. Unfortunately, it's a referendum in which one side starts with a huge advantage due to gerrymandering and voter suppression, which is a sign of how far we've already moved from true democracy.

[broncofan]

a ludicrous argument from Democrats powerless to stop the confirmation process.
I’m sorta pleased with Kavanaugh. no doubt a conservative judge, but one who seems reasonable and extremely well qualified to serve
Every member of the Court and most presumptive candidates are going to be qualified in the sense that they attended Harvard or Yale Law and likely clerked for federal appellate judges. That makes them extremely intelligent, capable of interpreting statutes and with the exception of Alito, of writing eloquently. Even Scalia could seem reasonable at times. However, in an unreasonable moment he argued that Colorado was permitted to amend its constitution to make passing civil rights laws to protect lgbt members illegal. I urge you to read his dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans if you want an idea of the sort of sophistry that characterizes conservative jurisprudence. According to Scalia the types of laws banned by Colorado were intended to keep lgbt individuals from seeking preferential treatment under the law. Scalia characterized lgbt members seeking anti-discrimination protection as a powerful lobby seeking systematic advantage. Not reasonable or even close to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans

My understanding is that Kavanaugh believes that banning automatic weapons violates a fundamental right and is akin to banning speech. How is that reasonable? https://www.thedailybeast.com/brett-kavanaugh-thinks-banning-assault-rifles-would-be-like-banning-speech

[filghy2]

I urge you to read his dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans if you want an idea of the sort of sophistry that characterizes conservative jurisprudence. [/URL]

What exactly does conservatism mean these days? Weren't conservatives supposed to be opposed to judicial activism?

[buttslinger]

What exactly does conservatism mean these days?,,,

It means you can steal a liberal President's Supreme Court Pick.

[Stavros]

If West Virginia can impeach the justices on the State Supreme Court, albeit for financial and other misdemeanors, can Congress impeach justices on the Supreme Court of the USA? If so, I am surprised the Republicans have not already looked at how they can remove Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor from the Court, and would surely not care at all what the public think of it.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/west-virginia-house-votes-to-impeach-three-state-supreme-court-judges-for-spending-millions-on-office-renovations.html

[buttslinger]

Well, well, well, it seems like Ken Starr picked the right guy to cast aspersions on Bill Clinton (in the most graphic terms) of sleazoid hormones run amok after a couple beers. Enough to creep out a couple of female Republican Senators? I guess we'll find out. I knew there was something creepy about that guy. Will he prevail while Mitch McConnell whistles and become a skid mark on the fabric of the Supreme Court? It must really roil Mitch that he could have Christine Ford killed, but then it would be like HE'S the bad guy! (Mr Burns quote)

She passed a lie detector, Kellyanne says she could talk, Me too.

https://image.ibb.co/kEAZ7K/4.jpg (https://imgbb.com/)
poems about hair (https://poetandpoem.com/hair)

[Stavros]

With a sex pest in the White House, and an established sex pest on the Supreme Court, maybe this is the way to assess the qualities required by a new Supreme Court Justice, and suggests there is room for one more.

[buttslinger]

Let's admit it, the theatre is more important than the facts here, Kavanaugh is no sex fiend, the moral lapse here is that he will be a rubber stamp on all the Republican's lofty ambitions, like fucking over poor people. More God, Guts, and Guns. If Kavanaugh had admitted years ago that "something happened" involving a chick at some party, he'd be better off in this case, but he wouldn't be up for the Supreme Court. Rape is not about sex, it's about power, and that's what this is all about.
Every Homicide Cop in the US knew O. J. did it, I hope the FBI gets to the bottom of this before Monday. No Judge wants a case of He said She said.

[Stavros]

Let's admit it, the theatre is more important than the facts here, Kavanaugh is no sex fiend, the moral lapse here is that he will be a rubber stamp on all the Republican's lofty ambitions, like fucking over poor people. More God, Guts, and Guns. If Kavanaugh had admitted years ago that "something happened" involving a chick at some party, he'd be better off in this case, but he wouldn't be up for the Supreme Court. Rape is not about sex, it's about power, and that's what this is all about.

A pathetic shrug of the shoulders regarding 'a chick at some party' as if it were just another form of 'locker room' behaviour begging the question: what rights did a female student have then, or the woman that she is now?

It is not theatre but most definitely the facts.
Has the next Supreme Court Justice, of all people, lied under oath?
The Republcan majority has deliberately prevented over 90% of Kavanaugh's record from being made public so you won't know in detail what his legal history looks like including the advice he gave to the Presidency of George W. Bush with all its implications with regard to regime change in Iraq, rendition and torture,and the start of a permanent war in Afghanistan that has cost you over $2.4 trillion which in theory you could have spent educating your children for a 21st century the US under its current President seems determined to leave behind in its insane rush backwards to 1861 and the resurrection of Andrew Jackson as 'one of the good guys', a man whose portrait is often visible behind the President when he makes some public statement.

To Michael Pence and many of the phoney Christians this President was not just selected by the Electoral College, but by Almighty God. You have to pause at least once in your life to wonder at the near mystical reverance these people have for a con-man, a liar, and surely, as someone who publicly called on the Russians to help him attack an American at the same time they were attacking the country, a traitor. That a traitor and a liar should even be allowed to nominate Kavanaugh is the measure of how low your politicians have sunk in their determination to line their pockets at your expense and traduce the very purpose of Congress.

As for the idol of the idol of the President, Jackson was considered by John Quincy Adams to be so unfit for office he was I believe the one and only President not to attend his successor's inauguration, and his worst fears came true:

In office, Jackson was an aggressive wielder of the president’s hitherto unused veto power. He stopped Congress from spending money on new roads or canals, and he prevented the re-charter of the Bank of the United States, which had attempted to regulate the money supply and served as a lender of last resort. And whatever political challenge he faced, his language was hyperbolic. “You are a den of vipers and thieves,” he wrote to the directors of the Bank of the US, “I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out”. When he left office, the country was plunged into the deepest recession anyone could remember.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/the-5-most-notorious-presidents-in-us-history/

But hey, shrug your shoulders, dismiss the complaints of 'chicks' and watch your country take another step away from the future. People outside it are now beginning to dismiss the USA altogether. A close friend from Asia who was educated in the US said quite bluntly that if the USA wants to destroy itself, he is past caring. Do you care?

[buttslinger]

….But hey, shrug your shoulders, dismiss the complaints of 'chicks' and watch your country take another step away from the future. People outside it are now beginning to dismiss the USA altogether. A close friend from Asia who was educated in the US said quite bluntly that if the USA wants to destroy itself, he is past caring. Do you care?

Let me take my tongue out of my cheek for a minute and tell you to some extent I believe what Trump says, the illegal immigration problem has gotten way out of hand, and THE WORLD has hated us for decades. This is the feeling that got him elected, even though everything else he says is 87% pure bullshit. In seven weeks we will have a course correction toward the future, if you have a magic Crystal Ball, Stavros, please enlighten us what the future will bring. Nobody even reads this crap posted down here, not because they're out polling from door to door to get rid of Trump, because they're all jerking off to porn above. Are they fools too? Or did they get sick of listening to you and me?
Bad Blood in the Senate.

[filghy2]

Let me take my tongue out of my cheek for a minute and tell you to some extent I believe what Trump says, the illegal immigration problem has gotten way out of hand, and THE WORLD has hated us for decades.

As Mark Twain is supposed to have said, it's not the things you don't know that get you into trouble - it's the things you know for sure that just ain't so. The illegal immigration problem in the US has actually been declining for some time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-26/what-immigration-crisis-the-u-s-isn-t-being-swamped

To state the obvious, Trump is only making the second problem much worse. The US is only just over 20% of the world economy, and that share is almost certain to decline further in future. Do you really think that acting like swaggering bully that thinks it can always get it's own way without needing anyone else's agreement or help is going to be sustainable in future?

[buttslinger]

Well, filghy, where I live there are Hispanics everywhere, and it's been like this for 30 years. You're probably so young you can't remember a time without them. But I do. I'm glad I don't have kids.

On the Kavanaugh front, Republicans will be Republicans, and Democrats will be Democrats.
THE THIRD MAN needs to be interviewed under oath. He and Bart O'Kavanaugh were good time buddies, soon to be MADE MEN in the Good Ole Boys Club. The GOP. Right Mrs Murkowski?
Why should this be less insane than anything else in the Trump Era? Like I said, I'm glad I don't have kids.

[Stavros]

Let me take my tongue out of my cheek for a minute and tell you to some extent I believe what Trump says, the illegal immigration problem has gotten way out of hand, and THE WORLD has hated us for decades. This is the feeling that got him elected, even though everything else he says is 87% pure bullshit. In seven weeks we will have a course correction toward the future, if you have a magic Crystal Ball, Stavros, please enlighten us what the future will bring. Nobody even reads this crap posted down here, not because they're out polling from door to door to get rid of Trump, because they're all jerking off to porn above. Are they fools too? Or did they get sick of listening to you and me?
Bad Blood in the Senate.

I understand that there are times when politics can be taken too seriously, though on this occasion allegations of sexual assault and the fact that the woman in question has received death threats, her family in hiding and an attempt being made to smear her reputation suggest this is indeed serious.

The President now says 'I don't have an Attorney General' as if the Attorney General of the United States was there for his rather than the country's benefit, and if you accept that a pubilcy available description of the President's penis marks the extent to which the Office of the Presidency has been degraded, you might concede something is going badly wrong in your Executive.

I don't know what the mid-terms will produce any more than I can predict there will be a hard or a soft Brexit. I suspect that the elections will confirm how deeply divided the USA is, and that some states have successfully guaranteed a Republican majority just by making it impossible for Black people to vote, though we have yet to find out how far if at all Republicans have deserted their own party.

What I do know is that the next time I am asked if I want extra topping on my pizza, it won't be mushroom.

[filghy2]

The problem for Republicans is that having decided to give Trump a free pass for everything they can't really apply any standards to any other government appointee. Ditching Kananaugh over the rape allegation would simply highlight the multiple allegations against Trump. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/9/17/17869978/kavanaugh-trump-sexual-assault

[buttslinger]

In a Medium that is already high on theatre, the Russian Collusion angle puts American Politics right up there with some Shakespearean Play, the Kavanaugh vote will probably center around four Republican Senators, Collins, Murkowski, Corker and Flake. If Ford shows up, she'll be talking to them and the American voters. But yeah, the rest of the Republicans don't care what happened at some High School party. Whatever they can get away with. The American Constitution wasn't written until after a bloody Revolutionary War.

[buttslinger]

Personally, I think if Christine Blasey Ford didn't exist, the Democrats would be very tempted to invent her. The perfect foil for a pussy grabbing President and two crusty old farts AKA Grassley and Hatch. They will appear as the sweat on Nixon's upper lip, they will remind us how far women have come since Anita Hill.
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh needs some 'splaining to do about being a member of "The Devil's Triangle Club"...that's when two men have sex with one woman. He's a good reason to vote for abortions.
Ford is talking to the FBI today, not about the alleged attempted rape, the subject is the death threats against her.

[filghy2]

In a Medium that is already high on theatre, the Russian Collusion angle puts American Politics right up there with some Shakespearean Play.

But which one? Hopefully, it's Julius Caesar, but who will be the honourable Brutus?

Or maybe Richard III. I can picture a desperate Trump offering his kingdom for a horse (or a bit of election meddling).

[buttslinger]

But which one? Hopefully, it's Julius Caesar, but who will be the honourable Brutus?

Sean Hannity?????
Can you imagine what is going on in Trump's head at 3 o'clock in the morning? On the one hand, he's the most powerful man in the World. The other hand is Bob Mueller tapping on his shoulder. I can hear the wheels spinning.
Julius Caesar? Is he Mexican?

[Stavros]

Sean Hannity?????
Can you imagine what is going on in Trump's head at 3 o'clock in the morning? On the one hand, he's the most powerful man in the World. The other hand is Bob Mueller tapping on his shoulder. I can hear the wheels spinning.
Julius Caesar? Is he Mexican?

I wonder, who is the 'most powerful man in the world'? Is it the President of the USA, is it Vladimir Putin? Which of the two can order the murder of anyone in any country other than their own and shrug it off as 'fake news'? It begs the question what is that makes a man powerful? You might argue that for a brief period, Nelson Mandela was the most powerful man in the world because people admired him, and believed what he had to say was right and true. By contrastGeneral Abdul-Fatah al-Sisi -supported by Democracies in 'the free world', is presiding over a regime of terror in Egypt that has resulted in thousands of people being imprisoned merely for opposing military rule, followed by torture, summary execution and denial by the government.

It asks, is sympathy a stronger component of effective power than hostility? Does power produce fear in people, or love?

I would suggest that if the current President were to order a nuclear strike on a target, the chain of command would in fact prevent it unless there were prima facie evidence of a proportionate attack on the USA in accordance with international law. The Generals are not stupid, as history suggests. In addition, the power of the Presidency in the USA can be mitigated by Congress, whereas Putin can do what he likes, as appears to be the case with al-Sisi and Erdogan. The current President of the USA appears to claim that he is 'stronger' and 'tougher' than Obama, but we have yet to see his aggressive stance lead to any positive outcomes. Maybe he is not the most powerful man in the world, and we should be glad that he isn't.

[Stavros]

Maybe it is time to reform the Supreme Court?

Amy Chua, the Yale law professor and best-selling author who endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, has denied allegations that she instructed female law students to exude a “model-like” femininity (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/20/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-yale-amy-chua) when interviewing for clerkships with the judge.
But another former law student who was advised by Chua and approached the Guardian after its original story was published on Thursday said his experience was consistent with the allegations presented in the article.

The male student, who asked not to be identified, said that when he approached Chua about his interest in clerking for Kavanaugh, the professor said it was “great”, but then added that Kavanaugh “tends to hire women who are generally attractive and then likes to send them to [supreme court Chief Justice John] Roberts”.
It was a reference to Kavanaugh’s role as a so-called “feeder” judge, whose clerks often go on to win highly coveted clerkships at the US supreme court (https://www.theguardian.com/law/us-supreme-court).

The student alleged that Chua then added: “I don’t think it is a sexual thing, but [Kavanaugh] likes to have pretty clerks.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/23/amy-chua-denies-telling-female-students-to-be-model-like-for-brett-kavanaugh

[buttslinger]

Man, if a man is only as good as his word, Mitch McConnell is no good at all.

Only 37% on American Voters are in favor of Kavanaugh. This Supreme Court Justice pick isn't for the American People, he's for the Trump voters. The American people need a couple of Republican Senators to see through the bullshit and vote down Bart O'Kavanaugh. Senator Collins, Senator Murkowski, if you're reading this-
could you please post a few nude pics?

[buttslinger]

I think if a woman accused me of rape and the police got involved you would hear me screaming LIE DETECTOR TEST in about 2 seconds. Unless I was guilty, then I would go on Fox News with my wife and claim the woman is a threat to US.
They found Mark Judge, he was hiding out at Dewey Beach. His car was full of clothes and Superman comics.

1096151

[buttslinger]

McConnell will get on the phone to Murkowski and Collins tomorrow night, if they give thumbs up, we will have a vote Friday. If they give a thumbs down, they will announce they were very stirred by the woman's testimony and want to delay for a while. You know both sides must have a few tricks up their sleeves tomorrow. Love the Soaps...

[buttslinger]

After today's hearing I would say Kavanaugh will get a seat in the new branch of the Republican Party: The Supreme Court.

[Stavros]

I watched as much as I could take, but I have to say that if Kavanaugh believes his reputation has been destroyed, then he must surely withdraw from the nomination, or does he think that the qualities required of a Supreme Court justice are independent of a 'destroyed reputation'? The irony of this is that if Kavanaugh is not being judged on his legal history as a clerk/judge in his various official positions, it is because 90% of that record has been deliberately withheld by the Republicans on the Committee.

That he may be judged on something that happened when he was a 1980s brat is par for the course when Americans subject senior officials to public scrutiny, even if it now appears to be part of the new Civil War and is ugly and demeaning to all because of that. Yet the one person who has not been subject to the same scrutiny, to the extent that Americans still don't know if he even pays taxes, is the President, whose poor judgement is once again on display.

I don't know if it matters now, Kavanaugh strikes me as being in emotional terms, temperamentally unsuited to high office, and like his President may make decisions burning with resentment towards Democrats, 'the left', the Clintons and anyone else he has accused, rather than make decisions based on the law.

A sorry state of affairs for a country to be in, but Americans have opted for confrontation, accusation and demonization as a standard tactic, and you must either change the way you do your politics, or this war will continue and leave casualties in its wake, be they guilty or innocent.

[buttslinger]

In other words, f-f-f-fuck me, the Republicans stole another one.
Lyin' cocksuckers.

[broncofan]

Kavanaugh strikes me as someone who has committed at least one sexual assault. While it is true that there is no longer legal liability for it, there's no reason it shouldn't be the subject of these hearings. Dr. Ford appeared to be someone dealing with demons, who carefully detailed a trauma she experienced and has discussed in therapy over many years. There's no reason Kavanaugh would not want it to be investigated by the FBI if he thinks it's a politically motivated sham, particularly given the fact that most women believe he did what he was accused of. If there was no basis for the accusation or it was a case of mistaken identity, an investigation would shed light on that.

Although I think the stuff he wrote in his yearbook shouldn't be disqualifying despite making him look like a chauvinist and a bully, he definitely lied about it, which speaks both to the seriousness with which he takes an oath and his credibility generally when speaking about matters that might incriminate him. How hard would it have been for him to say about the Renate comment "you know that was a hurtful and stupid thing to write. I really regret that." Instead he lied under oath by saying Renate Alumnus was intended to show his respect for her. It's not a provable lie but it's an obvious lie to anyone with an ounce of sense. Since when do Republicans not care about perjury? Didn't we have impeachment proceedings over that in recent memory?

[buttslinger]

Kavanaugh strikes me as someone who has committed at least one sexual assault. While it is true that there is no longer legal liability for it....

In Montgomery County he can be tried for a sexual assault 30 years ago. Maybe they did that for all the Catholic Priests. Kavanaugh was slipping when Lindsey Graham burst in, he was smirking when asked about the Devil's Triangle, (some Republican Aide changed the Wiki definition from sex game to drinking game during the hearings, or so they say). Then when asked about Judge, he said "you'll have to ask him"
Every one of those Republicans knew Kavanaugh was lying, every one of them knows Kavanaugh will be a Republican Party Operative on the Supreme Court.

If you think the 11 Republicans have their head up their ass, you should listen to the Trump supporters that call into C-Span. They have sailed way past lying to total delusion. South Carolina is Trumpistan. The Good Ole Boys Club most definitely know which side of the bread has the butter, Kavanaugh's approval among voters is the exact same number that approve of Trump, lies and sexual antics are only sins when the Democrats do it.

Congratulations, Brett, I can hear you laughing.
I sure hope the truth climbs on you one day and fucks you in the ass. Over.

[broncofan]

In Montgomery County he can be tried for a sexual assault 30 years ago.

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

[buttslinger]

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

I think maybe you're right and I'm wrong again, attempted rape in Md in the swingin' eighties was just a misdemeanor. The Post just put an article out, but I'm not going to muddy the waters with facts, this is war. 21 senators hear the exact same evidence, the results? A joke.

[Stavros]

With so much focus on the allegations of sexual assault, the curious comparison is with a man angry and pugnacious in his denunciation of the Democrats, yet supremely coy about answering questions that either relate to the legal issues on which he might be asked to form an opinion or reflect his political views. Thus he would not say if there are any limits to Presidential power in American law, and emails in which Kavanaugh discusses racial profiling have been withheld from the Committee as they are 'Confidential', plus -

Under questions from @SenBooker, Judge Kavanaugh refused to say it is morally or legally wrong to fire someone because they are gay. He refused to state his opinion on marriage equality. And he refused to state his role in the Bush WH effort to ban same sex marriage.

SenBlumenthal asked Judge Kavanaugh to stand up to President Trump’s outrageous attacks on the Judiciary. He refused.

Kamala Harris: I asked Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh whether he believes President Trump was correct, that ‘both sides’were to blame for Charlottesville. He refused to answer. This isn’t a difficult question. One side was wrong: the one with the torches and swastikas.

Feinstein:“BREAKING: Brett Kavanaugh was asked in 2004 about whether he was involved in the nomination of Bill Pryor. He said ‘I was not involved in handling his nomination’ Newly released emails show that's not true. Asked about how Pryor's interview went, he replied ‘CALL ME.
https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Critical%20Moments%20From%20Judge%20Kavanaughs%20C onfirmation%20Hearing%20%20Serious%20Questions_.pd f

I would expect someone who wants to sit on the Supreme Court to make clear statements on issues of Rights and Responsibilities. But if the outrageous comments of Lindsay Graham are a guide, the law itself will be absent from the decision, as the BBC article suggested in a concise sentence:

A key difference in this battle is that Brett Kavanaugh has positioned himself not as jurist rising above the fray, but as a political combatant in the thick of the battle.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45673702

On the other hand, you do have an open scrutiny for these important jobs, whereas in the UK we are told who is siitting on the Supreme Court after they have been appointed, by a commission drawn from a people who usually either know them directly or know someone who knows someone. Of then 10 judges on our Supreme Court (formed in 2005 from what used to be the Appellate Court of the House of Lords), at some stage in their careers, 8 studied law at either Oxford or Cambridge, which is unusual because at one time they were all male and all graduates of the same schools and universities, so after 600 years we are clearly more diverse than we used to be..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judges_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

[buttslinger]

I think you pretty much nailed it there, Stavros, let's hope Mark Judge is as fragile as they say.
Wise men avoid sex and money, not because they're bad, because they're so good. mmmmm
10968281096827

[goatman]

That's interesting to hear. Perhaps there are other charges pending against Kavanaugh but wasn't Dr. Ford's accusation from more than thirty years ago?

The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. That being said, it'd take on HELLUVA crusading States Attorney(especially in Montgomery County of all places) to bring up charges on this...especially during an election year where there's ALREADY one hell of a bitter fight over who the next County Executive is going to be! Also, the Georgetown Prep alumni & the overall Bethesda-Chevy Chase crowd(the neighborhood not the Montgomery County public high school--though they're pretty bad too!) has a LOT of pull, a VERY LONG reach, & they hold grudges!

[broncofan]

The State of Maryland has no statute of limitations for sexual crimes. That being said, it'd take on HELLUVA crusading States Attorney(especially in Montgomery County of all places) to bring up charges on this...especially during an election year where there's ALREADY one hell of a bitter fight over who the next County Executive is going to be! Also, the Georgetown Prep alumni & the overall Bethesda-Chevy Chase crowd(the neighborhood not the Montgomery County public high school--though they're pretty bad too!) has a LOT of pull, a VERY LONG reach, & they hold grudges!
I didn't know that. I wonder if there have been any due process challenges for charges brought on very old assaults. I know there was at least one successful challenge to one prong of the rape shield statute in which an appeals courts held that it foreclosed an effective defense.

I read a paper a while back from the aclu where they said they opposed the abolition of statutes of limitations for sex crimes. The argument in favor of getting rid of a statute of limitations is that it allows victims to come forward years later given that they are often unable to report (fear of reprisal, shame, fear of character assassination). This makes particular sense in the case of minors who have been assaulted. In those cases one proposal was to toll the statute of limitations until they reached the age of majority.

The argument against getting rid of statutes of limitations is that it is difficult to defend a 30 year old accusation. If the defendant insists there was no relationship consensual or otherwise, it's difficult to establish an alibi. If they're claiming there's an ancient grudge, it's difficult to establish the motive for a false accusation. It's difficult to cross-examine the accuser effectively when most of the circumstances that are contemporaneous with the assault have been forgotten. However much I sympathize with victims I think it's probably a bad idea to charge cases that are decades old without physical evidence but maybe I'd change my mind if I read more about the subject.

[Stavros]

I am not saying the allegations of sexual assault are not important, but it seems extraordiary to me that when Kavanaugh was asked questions on matters of law, which is why he is being interviewed, he declined to answer, but is it acceptable for someone nominated for the Supreme Court not to answer such questions?

Kavanaugh had no problem making political points and insulting Senator Klobuchar by answering her questions on his drinking habits by tossing the question back at her, which to me undermined his credibility as a Justice for the Court. I would suggest that Kavanaugh is in effect the Political Commissar for the President on the Court. His primary obligation will be to protect the President from any prosecution arising out of the Mueller Enquiry or any other revelation of criminal activity. I don't know if so junior a person will have much influence over the others who, one hopes, will resist the attempt to make the Supreme Court an obedient tool of the White House much as the judiciary in countries like Turkey, Egypt and Russia, so admired by this President, long ago set the law aside to protect the Top Dog with his snout in the public trough.

[Stavros]

Is it the case that sitting members of the Court have no say in who joins them? Do they interview the candidate in private and forward their assessment to the Senate? It would be odd if the one body that had no say in the process was the Supreme Court itself. More pertinently, could they reject a candidate on legal grounds?

[buttslinger]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/amid-the-ford-kavanaugh-exchanges-have-the-local-police-been-asked-to-investigate/2018/09/27/7787d8c0-c297-11e8-a1f0-a4051b6ad114_story.html?utm_term=.2384ebf81273


If you asked the Supreme Court if they have any say in this the result would be a 4-4 tie.

[Stavros]

If there is a difference between 'then and now', it is the fear that the retirement of Justice Kennedy, who was considered a 'swing voter', removes any neutrality on the Court, that it is either Republican or Democrat, and that votes on laws follow that party loyalty.

But this is not what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, which is to asses in an objective manner the judicial consequences of political decisions using the Constitution as a a guide. Superficially, one could argue that both Neil Gorsuch and if chosen, Brett Javanaugh could abandon party loyalty if their judicial view compels them to do so, but few have the confidence in those two because of their existing record and their stated preferences.

It may be that the days when Warren Burger could start out in life opposed to abortion, but as a Supreme Court Justice was willing to defend Roe -v- Wade, and William Rehnquist, who opposed Miranda in the 1970s but came to see it as standard police procedure and voted to uphold it (much to Scalia's disgust) -that those days are over and the Court now reflects the bitter divisions in American society transposed to its Supreme Court.

But if that is the case, this is not really law at all, but politics, and Supreme Court Justices, instead of being intellectuals concerned to fine tune legislation, are just unelected politicians with loyalties to party and or individuals, and in some cases may even believe the Bible is more important than the Constitution. If Kavanaugh is chosen, it may mark the begining of, if not a crisis of confidence in the Court, a belief that its reform may be necessary if it is to survive as a branch of government not locked into partisan battles.

[broncofan]

https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1047135850197344256

Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath about when he heard about the Ramirez accusations. He said he had never heard about them before the New Yorker article was printed but was quoted in the New Yorker article discussing them.

Stavros, I think part of the problem is that originalism makes it difficult for a Judge to have an awakening. They believe they can divine the intent of the authors of the Constitution and are not trying to understand where each clause fits into a scheme of government. Part of the problem also dovetails with character and fitness. Does Kavanaugh seem like he has the personal qualities that would allow him to amend his views? Does he seem like he has the integrity to admit that the way he looked at a particular issue was wrong? I don't know what the solution to a bad judicial philosophy is. Or the types of personalities attracted to it.

[buttslinger]

Elena Kagan: 63 to 37 (2010)
Sonia Sotomayor: 68 to 31 (2009)
Samuel A. Alito Jr.: 58 to 42 (2006)
John G. Roberts Jr.: 78 to 22 (2005)
Stephen G. Breyer: 87 to 9 (1994)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 96 to 3 (1993)
Clarence Thomas: 52 to 48 (1991)
Anthony M. Kennedy: 97 to 0 (1988)

[Stavros]

Stavros, I think part of the problem is that originalism makes it difficult for a Judge to have an awakening.



Originalism is something I think I understand, intellectually, but which at the same time seems illogical. I am asked to believe not only that liberty was an established concept in 1781, but that it is has not changed since 1781, in spite of the fact that since then the Constitution has been changed, or there would not have been so many amendments to it. If Scalia is an originalist, surely the Articles of Confederation are the source of all American law, and every subsequent amendment to it is, as it were, 'contestable' because they may be construed as being poltical rather than legal? If Amendment 2 is valid, why not the 14th? Or, why would an originalist accept either the 2nd or the 14th Amendment?

More to the point, and this is an agument in the link, if Scalia was an originalist, why is his 21st Century opinion more valid than a 19th century one?

One may argue about whether a right to be personally armed is so fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty that it should be applied to the states. But even a justice who thinks the right is fundamental should find it hard to conclude that the drafters of the 14th Amendment read their amendment this way, since in 1876, just ten years after the amendment’s passage, the Supreme Court held that portions of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, did not bind the states. One might think that particular Court had a better grasp on the 14th Amendment’s framers’ intent than any recent Court could. Yet Justice Scalia, the original originalist, cast a deciding vote in favor of incorporation, disregarding both the 1876 decision and its affirmation with respect to the Second Amendment issue in a later Supreme Court case.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/02/22/is-neil-gorsuch-an-originalist-impossible/

It seems to me that the issue is similar to if not as profound as the 'Category Mistake' that Gilbert Ryle argues is the critical flaw in Cartesian philosphy. The mistake is to assume that someone in 2011 can interpret the intentions of a framer of the Constitution in 1781 when it is a matter of record that the same Article of Confederation was changed in 1791 (2nd Amendment) or 1868 (14th Amendment) -though I understand that Scalia, as well as the 'rapper' (?) Kanye West (I know next to nothing about this man) are 'unhappy' with the 14th.

In other words, far from being originalist, it seems Constitutional Amendments are matters of contemporary politics as remote from the date of their origin as the contestant is, be he or she alive in 1791, 1981, or 2011.

An article in the New Yorker allows me to relay what I think is a core point about the Supreme Court:

Anyone involved in constitutional law must confront the fact that the Supreme Court is no ordinary bench but the third branch of government, and the least democratic one. When the Court declares a law or other government action unconstitutional, it is substituting the judgment of nine élite lawyers for that of Congress and other elected officials. The problem is not academic. Scalia himself furnished a critical fifth vote in two cases that have had a marked effect on this year’s election: Citizens United (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited) v. Federal Elections Commission, which allowed unlimited campaign spending by individuals and unions, and Shelby County v. Holder, which ended the Department of Justice’s supervision of Southern voting laws under the Voting Rights Act and inspired a wave of new laws restricting ballot access.

The same article makes a telling point with regard to same-sex marriage, inconceivabe in the 18th century, perfectly acceptable to a lot of people in the 21st, just as we are told slavery and racial discrimination were 'acceptable' at one time and indeed enshrined in law, but not at other times:

Constitutional law is always controversial because judges encounter gaps in giving meaning to terms like “liberty,” “equality,” or “arms.” They must fill those gaps by deciding whether constitutional guarantees of liberty and equality offer same-sex couples the right to marry, as the Court did last year, in a ruling that seemed simple decency to many observers, outraged others, and would never have occurred to the people who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism

Presidents nominate judges they think will support their policies, it is as simple as that. Perhaps this is why the most obvious flaw in the Oiginalist and Living Constitutionalist concepts of constitutional law, is that the key person in the process, the incumbent President does not care one way or the other what Jefferson or Madison thought was right for America, they are thinking of themselves and their legacy. More Id than ego.

[filghy2]

Originalism is something I think I understand, intellectually, but which at the same time seems illogical.

The obvious illogicality is that it assumes implicitly that a small group of people 240 years ago represented the acme of thinking about constitutional matters. This view is not applied to other areas of law - eg common law is based on rules of precedent, but these rules have still allowed interpretations of the law to evolve over time in response to changing circumstances. I'm pretty sure there would be little support for originalism if it didn't happen to support conservative views on limiting the role of government.

I know these decisions are inherently political, but surely is must be possible to design a selection process that is less based on 'winner takes all' majoritarianism. There is nothing democratic about a passing majority being able to determine the court's composition for potentially decades ahead. Rather than choosing the person favoured by the majority, perhaps the principle should be to choose the person most acceptable to both sides.

One obvious change would be to have term limits as many other countries do rather than lifetime appointments. Another would be that all nominees must come from a list recommended by a bipartisan panel of judges. I'm not sure about requiring a super-majority for confirmation - in a hyper-partisan environment that might just lead to gridlock.

Of course, nothing will change as long as one party thinks that it benefits more from the status quo. Republicans will only accept the need for change if they go through a period where Democrats have the upper hand, which would in turn make the latter less likely to agree. Therein lies the dilemma.

[broncofan]

The issue I have with originalism is that it fails to distinguish between the principles the founding fathers had in mind and the application of those principles. When those who drafted the 14th amendment included an equal protection clause it does not matter whether they had same sex marriage in mind. It doesn’t matter whether they think that same sex marriage was something the principle of equal protection should apply to had they considered it. What matters is what the principle is.

If equal protection prevents discrete groups of people from being treated arbitrarily under the law, there can be a shift in what we consider arbitrary. What equal protection represents is the protection of people’s right not to be singled out without good cause and subjected to a separate set of laws or excluded from our institutions.

If substantive due process ensures that the government cannot pass laws that deprive us of a liberty interest unless they have a compelling reason, there can be a shift in what Justices consider a liberty interest as well as what constitutes a compelling reason. A principle was ratified. The application of the principle or the particular intentions of the ratifiers was not ratified.

Does this idea of having a fluid document that responds to changing mores mean that nothing is fixed and Justices are free to make it up as they go along? No, because they have principles that guide them. They have a document that embodies those principles and they have a civilization made up of people who have gotten things wrong or failed to consider one thing or another and have an awakening on certain issues.

The example of the common law provided by filghy is a good one. Does the evolution of common law lead to improvisation that causes the resulting body of law to be completely unmoored to any principle or concept of justice? Or does it allow Judges to refine the principles when difficult fact patterns challenge them and make the contemporary law more intricate and refined as a result? I would say the latter.

[Stavros]

I agree with both posts above. Whether or not the Supreme Court can be reformed is not something I can discuss, in the UK it took 600 years to reform the hghest court in the land, removing it from the House of Lords to a specially designated 'Supreme Court' but without reforming the practice of the top layer of justices appointing each other. I am going to assume that if the US does reform its Court, it won't take 600 years!

That the President can nominate may be something that can be changed; allowing sitting Justices on the Court to have their input another. An independent panel a third, and so on. It may be that precisely because so many Americans do not trust the current President, and that it is his poor judgement and personally rancid character that will prompt change.

That he has publicly mocked the woman who gave evidence at the Senate hearing will not surprise anyone, but still remains a stark example of the man's absence of moral depth and intelligence, as if insulting people will always be a plus in his playbook. Hard to believe that this display of venom and spite could be the work of 'God's chosen one', if this film is anything to go by-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/03/the-trump-prophecy-film-god-election-mark-taylor

[buttslinger]

For Trump a Supreme Court pick that gets 50 votes is better than a Judge who gets 90 votes.
I wouldn't bet money on how many votes Bart will get, unless I can get 3 points.

[Stavros]

Courtesy of the BBC, I have watched Senator Susan Collins telling the Senate why she intends to support Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

It has been a powerful, articulate and compelling, even persuasive performance. And yet, listening to Senator Collins describe Kavanaugh with regard to his views on Roe -v- Wade, by implication Brown- v- Board of Education, her claim that Kavanaugh does not support the view that the President cannot be prosecuted be it in cases of criminal or civil law, that he has supported the law on same-sex marriage, and that in 96% of cases when he was able to, that Kavanaugh voted the same way as Merrick Garland, one is left with two stunning questions:

1) Why was Merrick Garland denied a seat on the Supreme Court, and
2) Why was Brett Kavanaugh nominated by a President who wants the Supreme Court to scrap the very laws that Senator Collins claims that he supports?

Senator Collins ended her assessment with the argument divisions in US society might be healed by the appointment of Kavanaugh, but seems to me to be out of touch with the manner in which those divisions affect real Americans, every day, be they divisions which mean Americans are denied the right to vote, divisions which mean that in spite of Roe -v- Wade many American women find their state has re-defined abortion to make it all but impossibe in that state, and crude situations in which a law enforcement office shoots dead an un-armed man, who just happens at the time to be Black.

She claims to be a supporter of the reality of Prof. Ford's claims of sexual assault, yet also denied that Ford has remembered correcly what she thinks happened: which is rather like saying, well, I guess you were assaulted, but not by my guy, at no point raising what should be the most obvious next question: suppose Kavanaugh and his mates are lying? Indeed, at no point did Senator Collins even hint that on any question posed to him by the Judiciary Committe, did Kavanagh tell a lie.

She also sought to exonerate him of the claims of bias against Bill and Hiillary Clinton by citing procedure at the time of the Whitewater Investigations -which any young and ambitious lawyer knows must be respected in the development of a career- with no regard to Kavanaugh's animosity toward Bill Clinton as a man or his position as President and whether or not he thinks it was right to impeach Clinton either because he lied to a Grand Jury, or because he was opposed to Clinton as a Democrat, or both, let alone the incendiary remarks he made to the Senate Committee.

In short, Collins gave a master class in the presentation of a decent candidate where all the rough edges have been smoothed to the point where I wondered if Brett Kavanaugh is in reality a liberal whose dedication to the rule of law would be part of a process whereby the US finds ways of coming together as a nation, protected by the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Then I reminded myself that Senaor Collins is not a liberal, that the President is not a liberal, that the entire purpose of the current Administration is to trash everything that happened in the recent past so that, as a Republican said recently, 'it will be as if Obama never happened'

Susan Collins, the consummate politician, offering diamonds that turn to shit as soon as you touch them.

[filghy2]

One of the big puzzles about the past 2 years is why Republicans who have clearly had major reservations about Trump have been so ready to roll over and toe the party line. In the past party discipline in the US was fairly weak and even Presidents whose party had majorities in Congress often had trouble getting their way.

Obviously a big part of the answer is that 85-90% of Republican voters have continued to approve of Trump regardless of what he has said and done. Still it's hard to understand why Trump critics have been so reluctant to use their bargaining position to back up their words with action, especially those like Flake and Corker who are not running again. I'm not just talking about the Kavanaugh nomination, but also things like protecting the Mueller inquiry and resisting protectionism.

[Stavros]

I am not an American and I don't live there, so there are always going to be nuances that I just don't get, but from where I am I think those Repubicans who detest their President for that reason regard him with contempt, but look over their shoulders at the voters, which is why I think some are concerned at their potential losses in the mid-terms though at the moment it does not look like the Senate will go blue. It presents them with a dilemma as they are clearly using an incompetent fool to drive their policies through with particular focus on tax cuts.
The Supreme Court decision on Kavanaugh becomes an additional boost if Kavanaugh confirms Court decisions to leave States alone when they suppress voter rolls, deny Americans the right to register through legal schemes, pollute the environment, and impose such strict limits on terms as to make abortion impossible at the same time as retaining its legality. It is this use of state law to undermine federal law that establishes the fault-lines of the new Civil War taking place in the USA.

Rather than seeing this as a retreat behind state lines, it could be seen as an advance for a sub-nationalist enterprise in which individual states which may already have a long-established political culture, for example one derived from their Confederate past, resist and reject the authority of Congress to -as they see it- impose their policies on them. It is worth noting that states which voted for the President and approve of his attacks on political correctness, muti-culturalism and issues around women's rights, LGBT rights -indeed what they see as a 'rights culture' -are using States Rights to consolidate their alternative policies.

In practical effect, the suppression of the vote because it affects Black Americans more than any other single identifiable social group, returns those former Confederate states to the condition they were in when Slavery was legal -a state in which Black people can work, and even get paid, but in which they have no rights to participate in the political process, and states in which Black children as young as 12 can be imprisoned for life in an adult prison with no hope of parole for a minimum of 40 years. Segregation is real, it is happening, it is working: millions of Black Americans have been removed from public America, to the benefit of incumbemt Republicans. It is as if they do not exist.

This is not just revenge on America for putting a Black man in the White House, it is an attempt to make positive the argument that there is only one True America, and that there is no place in it for Jews, Asians, Latinos, or Africans, who were never voluntary immigrants anyway. In religious terms it outcasts anyone who is not a Christian, but may also include Roman Catholics, traditionally regarded by some Americans as natural born traitors because they believe that ultimately their Pope is more important than their Constitution.

That some of these 'True Americans' believe their President was sent to them by God further exposes fault-lines among those Americans who have no religion and those who think you cannot be American without it. The deeper problem is that without voter suppression, many Congressional Districts that return Republicans would be Democrat, just as the Demographic changes in the US tend to support the view that by 2050 or 2100 the majority of Americans will not represent the 'historic' 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' cohort that allegedly created the USA, 'from Jamestown to today'.

From this perspective, the phenomenon we saw in 2016 may have been the last gasp of a declining component of the American project, Bannon and the alt-right desperate to enforce as much change as they can to slow the process through an end to immigration, but insisting on the right of states to go their own way to both undermine the authority of Washington DC, and in time, to end it altogether.

For at some point in the future, do not current trends suggest that once again, when something happens or the time is right, those old Confederate States will secede from the Union again? It would not be legal, or constitutional, but after all many of the new Confederates were in such despair when Obama was elected, and re-elected, that they realised they have to change. Using state law at the moment is their chosen weapon, in the future, more traditional weapons may be in their hands, determined to reclaim their states 'for God, Family and Country' -only that country will no longer be the USA.

One of my oldest friends who lived and studied in the US made the chilling remark a while ago -'If the USA wants to tear itself to shreds, let it. I no longer care'. The warning signs have been there since the 1980s, but can American rescue itself from its own demons?

[CD_Sasha]

I am not an American and I don't live there, so there are always going to be nuances that I just don't get, but from where I am I think those Repubicans who detest their President for that reason regard him with contempt, but look over their shoulders at the voters, which is why I think some are concerned at their potential losses in the mid-terms though at the moment it does not look like the Senate will go blue. It presents them with a dilemma as they are clearly using an incompetent fool to drive their policies through with particular focus on tax cuts.
The Supreme Court decision on Kavanaugh becomes an additional boost if Kavanaugh confirms Court decisions to leave States alone when they suppress voter rolls, deny Americans the right to register through legal schemes, pollute the environment, and impose such strict limits on terms as to make abortion impossible at the same time as retaining its legality. It is this use of state law to undermine federal law that establishes the fault-lines of the new Civil War taking place in the USA.

Rather than seeing this as a retreat behind state lines, it could be seen as an advance for a sub-nationalist enterprise in which individual states which may already have a long-established political culture, for example one derived from their Confederate past, resist and reject the authority of Congress to -as they see it- impose their policies on them. It is worth noting that states which voted for the President and approve of his attacks on political correctness, muti-culturalism and issues around women's rights, LGBT rights -indeed what they see as a 'rights culture' -are using States Rights to consolidate their alternative policies.

In practical effect, the suppression of the vote because it affects Black Americans more than any other single identifiable social group, returns those former Confederate states to the condition they were in when Slavery was legal -a state in which Black people can work, and even get paid, but in which they have no rights to participate in the political process, and states in which Black children as young as 12 can be imprisoned for life in an adult prison with no hope of parole for a minimum of 40 years. Segregation is real, it is happening, it is working: millions of Black Americans have been removed from public America, to the benefit of incumbemt Republicans. It is as if they do not exist.

This is not just revenge on America for putting a Black man in the White House, it is an attempt to make positive the argument that there is only one True America, and that there is no place in it for Jews, Asians, Latinos, or Africans, who were never voluntary immigrants anyway. In religious terms it outcasts anyone who is not a Christian, but may also include Roman Catholics, traditionally regarded by some Americans as natural born traitors because they believe that ultimately their Pope is more important than their Constitution.

That some of these 'True Americans' believe their President was sent to them by God further exposes fault-lines among those Americans who have no religion and those who think you cannot be American without it. The deeper problem is that without voter suppression, many Congressional Districts that return Republicans would be Democrat, just as the Demographic changes in the US tend to support the view that by 2050 or 2100 the majority of Americans will not represent the 'historic' 'White Anglo-Saxon Protestant' cohort that allegedly created the USA, 'from Jamestown to today'.

From this perspective, the phenomenon we saw in 2016 may have been the last gasp of a declining component of the American project, Bannon and the alt-right desperate to enforce as much change as they can to slow the process through an end to immigration, but insisting on the right of states to go their own way to both undermine the authority of Washington DC, and in time, to end it altogether.

For at some point in the future, do not current trends suggest that once again, when something happens or the time is right, those old Confederate States will secede from the Union again? It would not be legal, or constitutional, but after all many of the new Confederates were in such despair when Obama was elected, and re-elected, that they realised they have to change. Using state law at the moment is their chosen weapon, in the future, more traditional weapons may be in their hands, determined to reclaim their states 'for God, Family and Country' -only that country will no longer be the USA.

One of my oldest friends who lived and studied in the US made the chilling remark a while ago -'If the USA wants to tear itself to shreds, let it. I no longer care'. The warning signs have been there since the 1980s, but can American rescue itself from its own demons?

You worry too much about Trump. Live life and enjoy the fresh air. Stop following that fear mongering liberal narrative and worry about your own country.. We're doing fine. Latina here and love the guy. The more trash talk you place on my president, the more we love him.. so want to be counter productive? Keep bitching about him. Saturday's justice supreme Court confirmation will be bliss <3

[filghy2]

You worry too much about Trump. Live life and enjoy the fresh air. Stop following that fear mongering liberal narrative and worry about your own country.. We're doing fine. Latina here and love the guy. The more trash talk you place on my president, the more we love him.. so want to be counter productive? Keep bitching about him. Saturday's justice supreme Court confirmation will be bliss <3

I'll probably regret asking this, but why??? How exactly do you expect to benefit from Trumpism? You are non-white, non-heterosexual, not rich, and (I assume) not a religious nut or a gun nut. You live in New York, not the manufacturing rust belt.

Are you one of those people like Kanye West who seem to get great satisfaction out of being a contrarian? At least Kanye is rich. Liking someone just because others don't like him does not seem very logical.

Also, you suggested in another post that you were a libertarian. You don't seen any inconsistency in supporting a president who can't hide his admiration for dictators and would clearly like to be one if he could? This is a man who has suggested many times that the power of the state should be used to punish his opponents. How is that consistent with libertarian philosophy?

[peejaye]

You worry too much about Trump. Live life and enjoy the fresh air. Stop following that fear mongering liberal narrative and worry about your own country.. We're doing fine. Latina here and love the guy. The more trash talk you place on my president, the more we love him.. so want to be counter productive? Keep bitching about him. Saturday's justice supreme Court confirmation will be bliss <3

Oh I love you Sasha, I love you :p
Don't let them drive you in to a mental institution though, you're better than that.

[CD_Sasha]

Because I know Trump is not what the liberal media claims he is. The dude was born and is a New Yorker. He's centrist, not Republican. He's not part of the political establishment and can tell both parties are outraged because he wasn't meant to be elected by the political establishment. We got tired of the status quo and especially of Hillary Clinton's failure as secretary of state (her laughing at Gaddafi when he died did it for me..). My biggest worry was her stance on open borders and ignoring how Europe was suffering with random terror attacks from radical islamist terrorists at the time ISIS was losing ground in Syria and Iraq. Me living in NYC, my biggest fear is getting caught in a random attack on my way to work or coming back home. Trump strong stance on temporarily halting refugees from terror prone countries (which the media miscategorized "Muslim ban") with governments either collapsed or brink of collapse (Syria) just to keep us safer. Gotta love the way he says it like it is without worrying about political correctness. I got tired of the liberals forcing us to fall aligned with their way of thinking and what really pissed me off is how they're treating anyone wearing a damn MAGA hat - attacking those who disagrees with them and not respecting anyones right to think differently.

The good:
First few weeks of presidency, he blocked CIA funding and arming rebel groups that we had no idea were either our friends or foe.

He placed strict ban and temporary halted refugees from countries where there's an active war with Al-queda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Taliban

Tax cuts - gotta love seeing an extra $100 on my paycheck. I see the company I'm working in constantly hiring and interviewing new people on a weekly basis. Didn't see this much during previous president administration. If Trump tax plan was so horrible, why is the economy doing so damn good that the federal reserve increased interested the 3rd time within 2 years into Trump's presidency? We're doing fine.

His tough stance on North Korea and pressing China against the rogue regime. Even South Korean president gave credit to Trump for having the opportunity to have peace talks with Kim Jong Un. Obama did terrible with his "strategic patience" and his handling during North Korea provocation against South Korea and Japan. He allowed the Kim regime to create bombs of stronger yields and finally create their first hydrogen bomb.

NAFTA has been renegotiated which both Democrats and Republicans have praised. It's about damn time and of course the media ignores it because it doesn't fit their anti-Trump narrative

Enforcing immigration laws. Not too sure why the liberal media keeps blurring the lines of "immigration" and "illegal immigrants". Trump has nothing against those entering the country legally. And the whole ripping children away from parents at the border, it's always been like this and why is it a problem now? If a US citizen commits a crime, do they get separated from their children? Of course they do! But we should do it the liberal way - let's keep families together and place children in prison with us! ��

The bad:
Ending Net neutrality. This was something I felt strongly against when he announced it and when the FCC pulled the plug on. But surprisingly, we're still alive lol

Attempting to scrap Obamacare with NO replacement. This whole process was sloppy and completely utter failure

The wall - this is such a stupid idea of him trying to push for it. His attempt to have US tax payers pay for it makes it even worse. I wish he would've used "the wall" as a metaphor to beef up border security. He should know damn well that the wall is a such an antiquated method of border security and instead, should heavily invest tech to secure it.

On Russia - I honestly believe if Hillary and Bernie were at the final race of presidency, Russia still would had meddled and attacked Hillary since he blamed her for the protest in St. Petersburg, Russia in 2010~2011, during the time other countries "uprising" protests. But Trump's weak stance against Putin is making it look more likely they colluded, which I don't believe they did.

And just as an FYI, I'm neither a republican or Democrat (hint hint.. libertarian here) but love the job he's doing so far. Nothing wrong with America first. Sorry for any typos.. typed this all up on my phone

[buttslinger]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/trump-kavanaugh-fbi.html
The last thing you want in a Judge is prejudice, the Republicans bought a Judge. Trumpettes are cool with that.

[CD_Sasha]

Phew, I hope that clears things up regarding my views. Sravros, figly and that other guy Buttslinger dude should know that Sasha isn't your typical Trump loving redneck airhead lol

[buttslinger]

OK Sasha, I can't find it on the net, but there was a study that said above all else Republican Voters want their STATUS back. They are well aware that in the Media they are depicted as under-educated hicks. I've never figured out how you can watch Grapes of Wrath or To Kill a Mockingbird and still stand on the wrong side of History. And don't call me dude, …...DUDE!!! ha ha ..Kavanaugh would LOVE you, once he understood you, right? WRONG.
All my relatives live in the Deep South, I love all of them. There is a reason for everything, and I hope we, as a Nation, get down to it. Warts and all.

[CD_Sasha]

Doesn't matter what the media states. I know a bunch of uneducated liberals or ovely emotional liberals with useless college degrees who are Democrats too. What's your point? My siblings and I are either IT engineers, aeronautical engineers or studying in Colombia University .. I guess we're the lowest of the barrel when it comes to education right? Everything going wrong with the Democrats is because they keep shooting themselves in the foot with their desperate tactics.

[buttslinger]

Tonight, you're right. You scored a big Victory today, Sweetheart, Enjoy.

[filghy2]

Because I know Trump is not what the liberal media claims he is. The dude was born and is a New Yorker. He's centrist, not Republican.

Better than expected but still a masterpiece of selectivity. Trump a centrist - you must be kidding. The Trump administration is largely standard Republicanism with extra nastiness. The only real point of differentiation is the America first stuff. That hardly makes it centrist, just a different strand of right-wing politics.

I'm not going to address every point because there's only so much time you should spend arguing with people on the internet, but here's a few.

Trump says it like it is - No, he says it like it ain't. Independent fact checkers have found that around 70% of statements by Trump are mostly or completely false. https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ That compares to around 25% for Obama.

Tax cuts - The tax cuts primarily benefit very rich people - one analysis found that 83% of the benefits would go to the top 1%. Most people's taxes will go up again from 2026 as many of the tax cuts expire.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/18/16791174/republican-tax-bill-congress-conference-tax-policy-center
https://taxfoundation.org/the-distributional-impact-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-over-the-next-decade/
Also, the tax cuts are mostly financed by borrowing. Somebody will have to pay for that eventually, and if Republicans are in charge you can bet it won't be the rich.

Economy - the US economy is doing well, but it was doing well under Obama once the financial crisis he inherited was out of the way. Employment is increasing by around 200,000 per month, but it's been increasing at around that rate since 2011. If you don't believe me you can check it on this site. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/adp-employment-change
Also, it's not doing as well as the headline numbers would suggest. The share of the working age population in jobs is still lower than in the 2000s, and median wages/incomes have not increased a lot because most of the gains are going to the very rich. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-20/five-essential-numbers-for-measuring-an-economy

North Korea - The vague agreement made at the summit was no more than what North Korea had agree to previous times, which they obviously didn't honour. Even Mike Pompeo says that they've done little in the way of concrete steps toward disarmament. Yet Trump is carrying on as if the problem is solved and singing the praise of his new friend Kim Jong-Un - hardly a tough stance. And how much cooperation do you expect from China now he's launched a trade war against them?

Immigration - It's simply untrue to say that Trump has nothing against legal immigration. They have made it harder to get working visas even though the unemployment rate is very low so the economy actually needs more workers. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/business/trump-legal-immigration-h1b-visas.html They are also making it harder for legal immigrants to become US citizens. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/business/trump-legal-immigration-h1b-visas.html Refugee visas have been cut severely and Trump backed a bill in 2017 to cut legal immigration by half.

Don't think that I didn't notice that you avoided the question about how libertarianism can be consistent with supporting a president with obvious authoritarian tendencies.

[filghy2]

OK Sasha, I can't find it on the net, but there was a study that said above all else Republican Voters want their STATUS back.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/existential-anxiety-not-poverty-motivates-trump-support/558674/
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/04/26/trump-voters-were-motivated-by-fear-of-losing-their-status

[Stavros]

Phew, I hope that clears things up regarding my views. Sravros, figly and that other guy Buttslinger dude should know that Sasha isn't your typical Trump loving redneck airhead lol

Sasha, I appreciate you taking the time to air your views and draw up a list of pros and cons with regard to the President and understand as a libertarian why you see little benefit in goverment as it is today, even though it is now the primary source of employment for most Americas, and that without Federal and State contracrs, the US economy would collapse.
I can't say I agree with you because it is obvious that I do not, but I do think that your perspective seems to be shaped by hostility to the two party system and the candidates they choose who do not inspire you -you may even believe they are responsible for all that you think has gone wrong with the USA in recent years- but that this allows you to either ignore, or just not focus on the specific factors that make this President unique, because he is so lacking in any of the qualities Americans -indeed, anyone anywhere in the world- should expect from their leaders.

So I understand how you may not like the man, but support the changes he is trying to make, but would suggest that not only are those changes damaging the USA as a country, the fact is that he doesn't care about them. This is a man with no interest in the world in which he lives, he is not even interested in his own country, being ignorant and selfish and utterly without empathy for Americans he has openly abused and insulted, be they women, black or disabled.

The simple fact is that the two most important things in the President's life are his ego, and his money. Nothing else comes close, least of all the USA.

Rather than go through the list you provided -your dismissal of the Russian link is worthy of a thread all of its own- I will remark on but one-

He placed strict ban and temporary halted refugees from countries where there's an active war with Al-queda, ISIS, Hezbollah and Taliban

First of all, the ban did not just affect refugees but a wider group of people including legitimate immigrants, and people who have been denied entry to the USA because, for example, they have visited Iran.

It is no accident that Saudi Arabia is not on the list, because the President has financial investments in the Kingdom, and has been the recipient of millions of Saudi dollars in real estate transactions in the USA, all of it in complete disregard of the direct and indirect role that Saudi Arabia as played in the development of international terrorism since the 1980s, because the money is all that matters.

Indeed, the creation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was the consequence of a sequence of domestic terrorist attacks that began in 1902 with ibn Saud's 'Brotherhood' attacking his rivals, the Rashidi in Riyadh, and ended in 1925 with an attack on Mecca which ended the control of Mecca and Madina by the Hashemites that dated back to Muhammad himself, and that destroyed historic buildings, something the Saudis have continued to do right through to the present day.

If you want to trace the modern history of Islamic terrorism, it starts with the Brotherhood in Arabia in 1902, and continues through their attacks on the Hashemites in Jordan in 1921 and continues today with Saudi Arabia's support for the Taliban, which it has been doing since it was formed in Pakistan in 1994. And just in case you don't get it, the organization of armed militias which resulted in the formation of the Taliban and al-Qaeda began with the USA and Saudi Arabia supporting the Mujahideen in Afghanistan when it was fighting the USSR there. The roots of the terror that slaughered thousands of Americans on 9/11 lie with you and your choice of allies.
You creamed their ass, they fucked yours.

The majority of the hi-jackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia; the Kingdom was directly involved in the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, and has been, though the funding of Madrasas in that part of the world as well as in Europe a major source of extremism which produces literature that demonizes Muslims, such as the Shi'a and Sufi, as well as broadcasting its sickening loathing of Jews.

So when you applaud crackdowns on the extremists you think have now been denied entry to the USA, ask why it is that the friends and relatives of the 9/11 Hi-jackers can come and go whenever they like, just as the couple from San Bernardino who murdered Americans in 2015 were free to come and go from a place that has no elected government, where teenagers are flogged to within an inch of their lives, and innocent people beheaded in public every week.

If the support for Saudi Arabia proves that you are supporting a policy that is based on hypocrisy is not enough, look up the record of the Iranian Mujahideen-e-Khalq and after counting the dead Americans ask why it is that Rudolph Giuliani and John Bolton regularly appear on their platforms.

It is your President who benefits, not the USA. It is his obsession with his ego and his money that enables him to dance with dictators, and piss on his allies because they don't adore him, and don't give him millions of dollars. The USA does not benefit from this because your friends are turning away, because the USA has become not just an unreliable ally, but an untrustworthy ally, and the President doesn't care. Suppose one day you need your friends but we are not there for you?

The USA has for so long survived and prospered because it has a large and diverse internal market, and for all I know you can exist without trading with China or India, by erecting tariff walls with the EU, by treating Canada and Mexico as if they were silly children. But you are being led by a gambler, a man who has taken risks with other people's money and more often than not, failed to deliver.

You are now gambling with a Casino President who has put all your money on one bet, that alone is scary. That he is delivering independence to fomer confederate states in the long term may in fact destroy the USA as it once was, but perhaps you think it is a bet worthy of your wealth and security. In the end, you are more likely to be destoyed from within than by an external enemy.

[buttslinger]

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/existential-anxiety-not-poverty-motivates-trump-support/558674/
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2018/04/26/trump-voters-were-motivated-by-fear-of-losing-their-status

Good Hunting Filghy, it's a damn shame we have to trash the World to make Trump's base feel good about themselves. My sense of humor may not recover from this never ending river of bullshit.
Election Day can't get here soon enough.

[filghy2]

Oh I love you Sasha, I love you :p
Don't let them drive you in to a mental institution though, you're better than that.

"Poor old Collin....he's probably on his way to the "funny farm" which is where most people
end up who've had dealings with you fruit bats."
"I'd stay off this section if I were you Vex ; for your own sanity, that other cunt is close to
coming under lock & key by the Sanity Police."

If you are going to take up trolling again can you at least have the wit to come up with some new lines? How about something like this one? I've no idea how cancer could prop up a flyover, but it has a nice surreal touch.

"Your sort are a type of fucking cancer, the sort of rubbish that should be propping up
flyovers somewhere."

[peejaye]

Doesn't matter what the media states. I know a bunch of uneducated liberals or ovely emotional liberals with useless college degrees who are Democrats too. What's your point? My siblings and I are either IT engineers, aeronautical engineers or studying in Colombia University .. I guess we're the lowest of the barrel when it comes to education right? Everything going wrong with the Democrats is because they keep shooting themselves in the foot with their desperate tactics.

Have a drink on me Sasha, saw the news this morning, made me smile ;)

[MrFanti]

If one is a true defender of violence against women, then 'that one' should apologize to and/or support those women that accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual harassment. Those women were treated like shit and ostracized.

[MrFanti]

And just as an FYI, I'm neither a republican or Democrat (hint hint.. libertarian here) but love the job he's doing so far. Nothing wrong with America first. Sorry for any typos.. typed this all up on my phone

Pretty much why I stopped for the most part posting here. Folks like to label as either Republican or Democrat and can't seen anything else....

[filghy2]

If one is a true defender of violence against women, then 'that one' should apologize to and/or support those women that accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual harassment. Those women were treated like shit and ostracized.

Here we go again. That's already been gone over in this thread MrFanti. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?106645-Trump-signs-law-targeting-sex-trafficking-websites/page7

You seem to have missed it, but I don't think anyone here has been arguing against Kavanaugh solely on account of the rape allegation.

People might find your claims to be independent more credible if they could find any posts where you've actually criticised Trump or the Republicans. Can you direct us to any?

[Stavros]

Pretty much why I stopped for the most part posting here. Folks like to label as either Republican or Democrat and can't seen anything else....

I don't believe I have labelled you or anyone else. I suspect that you lack the confidence to express your political views and find it frustrating to deal with those of us who are confident.

But I also think that critics of the 'left' or 'liberals' of whatever you think we are, can applaud the President for breaking all the rules, and enjoy watching the architects of our problems squirm in their seats as a 'new order' sweeps into the place with the claim that change is coming. Except that this President is not just a liar, but also a fraud, and the consequences of his tenure, rather like the consequences of Brexit here, are not going to be positive at all, but just create a different menu of problems.

This is a man who has been hostile to China, not because of globalization, which he doesn't understand, but for the simple reason that until he went there as President and received the right to license his LLCs there, the Chinese refused to give him a license to operate anything at all. He watched his fellow Americans reaping billions of dollars in profit from their investments in China and seethed with anger that he was denied a slice of the pie. His policy on China like his attitude to Obama is pure spite, revenge and resentment that he was denied what others had.
This is not politics, this is psychology, of the psycho kind.

I have yet to be given a coherent defence of the President and his Republican chumps, and I don't expect to read it here any time soon. But who knows, maybe someone will have a go.

[MrFanti]

You seem to have missed it, but I don't think anyone here has been arguing against Kavanaugh solely on account of the rape allegation.

People might find your claims to be independent more credible if they could find any posts where you've actually criticised Trump or the Republicans. Can you direct us to any?

Yes I did miss it because I'm not over here every day.
If you read carefully, I state "one" - i.e., not directed at anyone specifically......

YOU choose to believe what you believe....And it's sad to have to criticize for credibility.....You must love confrontation...to demand criticism for credibility....And you obviously don't understand Libertarians nor Constitutionalists....

I take you with a huge grain of salt....

[MrFanti]

I don't believe I have labelled you or anyone else.
To the best of my recollection, you haven't!

[filghy2]

People might find your claims to be independent more credible if they could find any posts where you've actually criticised Trump or the Republicans. Can you direct us to any?


YOU choose to believe what you believe....And it's sad to have to criticize for credibility.....You must love confrontation...to demand criticism for credibility....And you obviously don't understand Libertarians nor Constitutionalists....

I'll take that as a no. I note that (as before) you avoided any comment on those who have effectively accused Christine Ford of lying in support of a political conspiracy.

Whether you are Libertarian is beside the point if you support most of what Trump does and consistently excuse his behaviour.

[MrFanti]

Knowing that the Democrats rely heavily on ostraciziing White Males, and assuming he's going to lean towards conservative, Trump would have been better off nominating a conservative Asian woman to avoid all the Kavanaugh baggage.

Nominating a conservative Black wouldn't work because conservative Blacks are labeled by Democrats as "Uncle Tom's" if male or "sell outs" if female....

[MrFanti]

Because I know Trump is not what the liberal media claims he is. The dude was born and is a New Yorker. He's centrist, not Republican. He's not part of the political establishment and can tell both parties are outraged because he wasn't meant to be elected by the political establishment.

You've hit the nail on the head here and many Democrats today still don't understand this and Republicans have realized that they just have to accept this.....

[Stavros]

You've hit the nail on the head here and many Democrats today still don't understand this and Republicans have realized that they just have to accept this.....

I wonder, Mr Fanti if people who claim to be Libertarian can justify their beliefs by explaining how the US would function if the models normally associated with it were to replace the system you have now. I suspect some so-called Libertarians claim it just to oppose the two party politics and the tax-based politics of State and Federal governmet because they can't think of any alternative. In reality, a Libertarian US is not going to happen because it is not in the interests of Wall St or Washington DC or your State to dismantle the system from which they benefit -Libertarian just beomes a slogan rather than a movement, and crucially, the man you claim is not part of the political establishment has done nothing to undermine it, but is in fact using it to line his own pocket and polish his ego. If you think he was a revolutionary, you have been had, by a one trick pony whose time may be running out. You can only pull a rabbit out of a hat once for the trick to work.

[buttslinger]

The problem I'm having in Politics is that these problems are not problems with my TV set or Computer Screen, these problems are real and dangerous. Complicated. If you think you understand it you are a fool, you can only manage it. Not fix it. Eight years of Bush and Cheney used up all the Ignorance we're allowed.

[MrFanti]

I wonder, Mr Fanti if people who claim to be Libertarian can justify their beliefs by explaining how the US would function if the models normally associated with it were to replace the system you have now. I suspect some so-called Libertarians claim it just to oppose the two party politics and the tax-based politics of State and Federal governmet because they can't think of any alternative. In reality, a Libertarian US is not going to happen because it is not in the interests of Wall St or Washington DC or your State to dismantle the system from which they benefit -Libertarian just beomes a slogan rather than a movement, and crucially, the man you claim is not part of the political establishment has done nothing to undermine it, but is in fact using it to line his own pocket and polish his ego. If you think he was a revolutionary, you have been had, by a one trick pony whose time may be running out. You can only pull a rabbit out of a hat once for the trick to work.

It would be tough in respect because of the current state of how money is inter-twined with establishment politicians. What the Democrats and Republicans totally missed was that the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (both being non-establishment, although Trump is more non-establishment than Sanders) is that a huge sector of the populace was tired of establishment politicians. So the key in terms of Libertarian is as they say to "drain the swamps". And right now, the current establishment is doing a better job at draining the swamps than previous Presidential establishments.

[MrFanti]

If one is a true defender of violence against women, then 'that one' should apologize to and/or support those women that accused Bill Clinton of rape and sexual harassment. Those women were treated like shit and ostracized.

I meant to add this yesterday: And if you can't see/support the above, then you are just an angry person at Trump and/or Kavanaugh and are not in support of women, but rather your own personal agenda.

[CD_Sasha]

Their agenda was BELIEVE ALL WOMEN, no proof needed... Unless it's against a Democrat. But oh well, that part of the battle is over and I'm glad common sense prevailed where if there's no evidence to prove an allegation case, then there shouldn't be any conviction - simple logic there. Every person should be viewed innocent until proven guilty.

[buttslinger]

Bill Clinton's women were never raped, or sexually harassed. They all were consenting adults. They all had their own agenda. Bill Clinton was a PIG. But every bit of legislation was Pro-Woman.
1098948

[MrFanti]

Bill Clinton's women were never raped, or sexually harassed. They all were consenting adults.
You should read up on Juanita Broaddrick...

[filghy2]

I meant to add this yesterday: And if you can't see/support the above, then you are just an angry person at Trump and/or Kavanaugh and are not in support of women, but rather your own personal agenda.

But what exactly is the point that you are making in relation to the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh? Are you saying that it's a bad thing that Republicans have impugned Christine Ford's motives for political reasons? Or you saying that it doesn't matter whether she was telling the truth because of what happened with Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago? If you won't say the first then it looks very much like you are insinuating the second.

[buttslinger]

You should read up on Juanita Broaddrick...

I liked the part where she failed a lie detector test.

[MrFanti]

I liked the part where she failed a lie detector test.
Excellent point - I'll give you that one
However..

Keep on defending Clinton and not being a true supporter of aggressive male acts against women (unless they are against Republicans)...shows your true agenda (which has nothing to do against supporting women)...

And when you look at the big picture, the 'Clinton women' were treated like shit by the Democrats...

But hey...that's cool, just don't try and combine the two unless you eliminate party politics and defend women....

[buttslinger]

...And when you look at the big picture, the 'Clinton women' were treated like shit by the Democrats...
Clinton's sluts demeaned by Democrats? Oh No!!!! Look at the picture, Fanti. Where are the Women?
1099053

[filghy2]

Keep on defending Clinton and not being a true supporter of aggressive male acts against women (unless they are against Republicans)...shows your true agenda (which has nothing to do against supporting women)...

And when you look at the big picture, the 'Clinton women' were treated like shit by the Democrats...

You remind me of Fonzie in Happy Days when he could not bring himself to say the word 'sorry'. You couldn't even bring yourself to put the word "also'' in the last sentence I quoted.

My biggest issue with you is not what you say, but what you don't say. You make vague statements, but avoid spelling out what you mean or providing concrete examples. Your claim about Trump 'draining the swamp' is another example of this. It looks like you try to avoid being pinned down, perhaps (as Stavros suggested) because you don't feel confident that you can explain and defend your position.

By the way, in the first sentence I quoted you have actually said the opposite to what I assume you intended.

[filghy2]

I should add that if you criticise only Clinton and the Democrats, but never offer a word of criticism on Kavanaugh and the Republicans, then you are simply a mirror image of those you are pointing the finger at. Even setting aside the question of whether the two cases are equivalent, you are posing as a high-minded exposer of hypocrisy when you are guilty of precisely the same hypocrisy.

[Stavros]

It would be tough in respect because of the current state of how money is inter-twined with establishment politicians. What the Democrats and Republicans totally missed was that the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (both being non-establishment, although Trump is more non-establishment than Sanders) is that a huge sector of the populace was tired of establishment politicians. So the key in terms of Libertarian is as they say to "drain the swamps". And right now, the current establishment is doing a better job at draining the swamps than previous Presidential establishments.

I would expect a Libertarian to promote the idea that Government at the Federal and State level is too big, and that the only department of government you actually need is State merely because the USA has international relations. You don't need the Federal Reserve because anyone should be free to create a bank and print their own money derived from the value of their assets. You don't need a Department of Defence because the Constitution allows for the formation of armed militias, and to pay for your military you have to impose taxes on citizens whereas Libertarians don't believe in taxation, and there is not a single reason for any of your armed services to be outside the USA.
The US currently spends $25 billion a year subsidizing the agricultural industry, it should not spend a cent -if farmers can't farm at a profit they should leave the market, or be dumped out of it. Libertarians also do not believe in social controls, which must mean an end to all forms of censorship in the media, the repeal of all laws that concern relationships, sexual preference, and reproductive rights, and because Libertarian believe Freedom is absolute and non-negotiable, all limits on immigration must be removed.

Your President has done nothing to 'drain the swamp' (the quote as he has acknowledged is from Mussolini), he has deepeed its swell by appointing billionaires to run Departments of State where they have racked up staggering bills for transport (Mnuchin can't travel first class by train from DC to New York, he needs military aircraft -why pay $200 for a trip that can cost $20,000?). Ben Carson thinks its ok to spend thousands of dollars on cutlery, and so on and so on. What does 'draining the swamp' mean anyway?

And what about the fact that when the President plays, you pay? Is it coincidental that you have spent millions of dollars on his golfing trips which end up in the tills in the golfing clubs he just happens to own? If this was Africa you would expect the 'Big Man' to help himself to the national wealth, since when did the USA beome just another 'African' Kleptocracy? Swamp has a new meaning, a new identity, a five letter word that starts with a 'T' and ends with a 'P'.

[filghy2]

You forgot to mention Trump's refusal to release tax returns as previous presidents have done. Surely transparency about finances is an absolute first condition for draining the swamp? Also, his refusal to follow previous conventions about putting his affairs into a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest.

[MrFanti]

I would expect a Libertarian to promote the idea that Government at the Federal and State level is too big, and that the only department of government you actually need is State merely because the USA has international relations.

Most Libertarians that I know only think that the federal government is too big - and has infringed too much on states right to govern. But they also do not think the federal government is useless. E.G., a federal government is needed in foreign relations.

[MrFanti]

Clinton's sluts demeaned by Democrats? Oh No!!!! Look at the picture, Fanti. Where are the Women?
1099053
Actually,
Since you've now sunk down to derogatory words (sluts), and can't hold an intelligent debate, I choose not to look at your image.

[MrFanti]

Your President has done nothing to 'drain the swamp'
I tend to disagree with you here, but your point is noted. Personally, I think it's going to take draconian measures to drain the swamp from all, regardless of political party.

[MrFanti]

What does 'draining the swamp' mean anyway?

Generally speaking, it means to make a purge of all establishment politicians, federal employees, and businesses that have become so intertwined with each other, they serve their own personal interests first.

[filghy2]

Mr Fanti the Artful Dodger. For a man with no agenda you seem to have a curious level of selective blindness.

Mr Fanti's art of political debate in 10 easy steps:
1. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
2. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
3. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
4. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
5. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
6. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
7. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
8. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
9. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
10. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.

[Stavros]

Generally speaking, it means to make a purge of all establishment politicians, federal employees, and businesses that have become so intertwined with each other, they serve their own personal interests first.

Your posts suggest you adopt a libertarian position because it is against something rather than an alternative form of politics, one in which ideally there is no state, and thus one which might begin with the minor changes you refer to, but must work toward an end to all forms of taxation and government.

I would agree that there has been a purge, but not of 'establishment politicians' but the bureaucrats in the various departments of state, some of whom come and go with each administration anyway. But if you look at the jobs shredded in the EPA you find experts on climate change have gone because the Administration does not believe in it; the layers of bureacracy shredded by Rex Tillerson may have saved money at State but it has led to one some would call a catastrophic loss of people with years of experience in the Middle East and Korea, to take two examples with the result you now have a shortage of people who can speak the languages of those regions, and as yet the US has still not appointed an Ambassador to South Korea. In these cases it is not in fact the 'establishment politicians' who are being purged but the very experts you need to draw up briefing papers, international documents and so on.

The 'establishment politicians' were on show in the Senate Judciciary Committee, not just Diane Feinstein but Lindsay Graham and Charles Grassley, just as elsewhere you have Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell, about as establishment as you can get, and as plugged into the 'People's Bank' that is Congress as their younger colleagues.

If you think you can drain a 'swamp' that determines the jobs of approx, 4 million Americans, at least tell us what happens to those jobs when $790 billion worth of contracts are cancelled because they are the 'intertwined' corporations, Senators and Congressional Reps funnelling your taxes to their own state for jobs making bombs and bullets -and all of it applauded by the President himself, which again begs the question is he serious about his own claims?

As for the President himself, if he is so opposed to the corrupt practices of the swamp, why is he so corrupt himself? His entire policy on China has nothing to do with an objective appraisal of the balance of trade, but is revenge, pure and simple. For decades he sat in his New York office seething with rage and resentment as he watched other Americans make plenty dollar in China while the Chinese refused to give him a license to operate in their country. The first thing he did when he visited China as President was to persuade them to give him the access he craved by allowing him to register 38 trademarks, giving him an opening into the Chinese economy, and a clear example of the President using his Office to make money for himself and his family.

So where is this swamp? And who is stirring the slush?

[buttslinger]

Actually,
Since you've now sunk down to derogatory words (sluts), and can't hold an intelligent debate, I choose not to look at your image.

The last thing I want to do is appear derogatory toward women.
1099168

[filghy2]

Time to put this thread out of its misery I think. How can you have a discussion or debate with people who refuse to explain, clarify, elaborate or respond on anything of substance?

[MrFanti]

So where is this swamp?
Just about every federal agency to start with....
But, really no point in me going any further if you're still asking this question.

I do appreciate the civil debate though!

[Stavros]

Just about every federal agency to start with....
But, really no point in me going any further if you're still asking this question.
I do appreciate the civil debate though!

I can understand why a Libertarian would criticize Federal agencies, but in one particuar case, the Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) it begs the questio: Can commercial enterprises be relied upon to protect the enviroment without the imposition of Federal law? To which the answer is: No.

Moreover, the EPA has one of the most successful records in US government in achieving its aims. The standard complaint is that the 'reams of regulations' that companies must adhere to in order to operate weakens their performance and profit margins, when this is usually not the case. They just don't like regulations.

For example, when oil was disovered in Alaska the companies decided to build an 800km pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez, but spent four years in litigation as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society used the new EPA to force the companies to provide environmental stipulations in this most pristine and beautiful part of the USA. Imagine, five years without making any money! And yet, when the oil was discovered it was worth less than $2 a barrel, by 1979 it was over $10 and by the 1980s one of the firms on the North Slope was making $600 million a month net profit.

Fast forward to 2018 and not only are environmental scientists being dismissed from the EPA, as many of the regulations passed during the Obama era as can be are being repealed simply because they were passed when Obama was President. The astonishing fact is that for the first time in over 40 years commercial firms are being allowed to pollute the environment, because they have no interest in being responsible citizens, but is that not part of the 'cult of the individual' that you would support in a Libertarian America?

So I would ask you to think again about this Ageny of the Federal governent. You can read about its accomplishments in these two links:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-epa-first-40-years/

https://www.ehso.com/ehshome/epa-accomplishments.htm

[BostonBad]

The Illuminati runs the show and they're pissed when they lose control. They lost it with him so the media went wild with their shit.

[MrFanti]

the Obama era
Case in point.
The previous administration weaponized the IRS (Federal Agency) to target conservatives (see story below)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/irs-admits-targeting-conservatives-for-tax-scrutiny-in-2012-election/2013/05/10/3b6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.99b7601d948a

Now, the IRS must be purged of all factors that were used to weaponize it against conservatives. As long as those constituents remain in Federal power, it doesn't matter if one is Green Party, Libertarian, or what not, if you get too strong, a federal agency will be weaponized against you.

[Stavros]

Case in point.
The previous administration weaponized the IRS (Federal Agency) to target conservatives (see story below)
Now, the IRS must be purged of all factors that were used to weaponize it against conservatives. As long as those constituents remain in Federal power, it doesn't matter if one is Green Party, Libertarian, or what not, if you get too strong, a federal agency will be weaponized against you.

Case not proven. First of all I offered you the example of a Federal Agency, the EPA as an agency that has had a positive impact on American life, yet you offer in return the IRS which is rather like telling me what you had for lunch when I asked you what you had for breakfast.

Second, as your link makes clear:
Although the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, it “is an independent enforcement agency,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said

And as your link also makes clear the IRS was suspicious of the number of organizations seeking tax exemption status-

The number of organizations applying for tax-exempt status under that provision more than doubled after 2010, Lerner said. It was a scramble that began after the Supreme Court lifted the ban (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866.html) on corporate and union spending in political campaigns, a move that was seen as a green light for outside groups to become more involved, as well.

Both Democratic- and Republican-allied interests have formed such organizations, but the conservative groups have raised vastly more money.

I am surprised that you are surprised that Conservative groups should all believe they must be able to agitate for their cause with buckets of money and not say where it came from or pay taxes on it.

And, again, as your link makes clear, the IRS chasing people for taxes is not new and not exclusive to one President.

Speaking of Presidents, what does the current President's tax profile look like?

[filghy2]

These allegations were investigated by the IRS Inspector-General, the FBI and the DoJ. They found no evidence of illegal activity or systematic partisan bias in targeting organisations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy It may be news to Mr Fanti, but I'm pretty sure political advocacy organisations are not entitled to tax-exempt status.

The biggest problem with the IRS is that it has been so starved of funds that it's capacity to pursue tax-avoiders like Trump has been severely impaired.

I see that Mr Fanti has dropped the veil and is progressively revealing himself to be a right-wing zealot. Purging all public officials who are not ideologically-correct is something that Communists or Nazis would do.

[MrFanti]

Case not proven.
Please....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-pleads-the-fifth-again-doesnt-testify-on-irs-targeting/

If that doesn't convince you well....then I guess you truly can't see the swamp.....

[MrFanti]

Case not proven. First of all I offered you the example of a Federal Agency, the EPA as an agency that has had a positive impact on American life,
EPA positive impact? I offer you EPA swamp here...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fired-whistleblower-details-corruption-epa-n865461

[filghy2]

Did you actually read that article? It's about corrupt behaviour by Scott Pruitt, not the agency.

[MrFanti]

Here's some more about your 'darling' EPA...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#26f7081321ad


I can understand why a Libertarian would criticize Federal agencies, but in one particuar case, the Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) it begs the questio: Can commercial enterprises be relied upon to protect the enviroment without the imposition of Federal law? To which the answer is: No.

Moreover, the EPA has one of the most successful records in US government in achieving its aims. The standard complaint is that the 'reams of regulations' that companies must adhere to in order to operate weakens their performance and profit margins, when this is usually not the case. They just don't like regulations.

For example, when oil was disovered in Alaska the companies decided to build an 800km pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez, but spent four years in litigation as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society used the new EPA to force the companies to provide environmental stipulations in this most pristine and beautiful part of the USA. Imagine, five years without making any money! And yet, when the oil was discovered it was worth less than $2 a barrel, by 1979 it was over $10 and by the 1980s one of the firms on the North Slope was making $600 million a month net profit.

Fast forward to 2018 and not only are environmental scientists being dismissed from the EPA, as many of the regulations passed during the Obama era as can be are being repealed simply because they were passed when Obama was President. The astonishing fact is that for the first time in over 40 years commercial firms are being allowed to pollute the environment, because they have no interest in being responsible citizens, but is that not part of the 'cult of the individual' that you would support in a Libertarian America?

So I would ask you to think again about this Ageny of the Federal governent. You can read about its accomplishments in these two links:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-epa-first-40-years/

https://www.ehso.com/ehshome/epa-accomplishments.htm

[filghy2]

Here's some more about your 'darling' EPA...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrickson/2013/03/14/the-epa-the-worst-of-many-rogue-federal-agencies/#26f7081321ad

If I spent time on it I'm sure I could show that this is also dubious, but what would be the point when you will just ignore it?

Even if some of it was correct, why does it follow that the solution is to abolish the EPA rather than reform it? Defence is notorious for waste and inefficiency - does this mean the military should be abolished as well?

You seem to be unaware that environmental pollution is clearly recognised as an area of market failure that justifies government intervention, even by most conservative economists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics The basic problem with libertarianism is that it completely ignores these and other market failures.

[Stavros]

Here's some more about your 'darling' EPA...


Oh dear, Mr Fanti, Mark Hendrickson is notorious, and has been part of the politicization of science since the EPA was founded which makes claims such as climate change is a hoax, refers to the campaign to reduce carbon emissions as a 'carbon jihad', and basically ridicules all science that does not fit his model of 'capitalist morality' in which markets know best and anyone who interferes with markets is basically a lunatic or a communist or some other pathetic epithet. He claims asbestos is not that dangerous in defiance of science (a neighbour of mine died from a asbestos-related cancer some years ago).

He quotes the science that he thinks supports his argument, and dismisses all the science that does not. To cap it all, he is incapable of offering an informed opinion on the science of climate change because like so many 'deniers' he doesn't know what the science is, as you can see in this link

-https://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=50502

The fanatics who want to shut down the EPA also want to shut down the Department of Education, because they hate taxes that much, because they are convinced in spite of the evidence against them, that commercial firms can be trusted. Whatever the bureaucratic issues there have been in the management of the EPA, the core issue is simple: do you want to protect your environment or just watch is deteriorate in front of your eyes because Conservatives literally don't care about it?

[MrFanti]

Oh dear, Mr Fanti, Mark Hendrickson is notorious, and has been part of the politicization of science since the EPA was founded which makes claims such as climate change is a hoax, refers to the campaign to reduce carbon emissions as a 'carbon jihad', and basically ridicules all science that does not fit his model of 'capitalist morality' in which markets know best and anyone who interferes with markets is basically a lunatic or a communist or some other pathetic epithet. He claims asbestos is not that dangerous in defiance of science (a neighbour of mine died from a asbestos-related cancer some years ago).

He quotes the science that he thinks supports his argument, and dismisses all the science that does not. To cap it all, he is incapable of offering an informed opinion on the science of climate change because like so many 'deniers' he doesn't know what the science is, as you can see in this link

-https://www.catholic.org/news/green/story.php?id=50502

The fanatics who want to shut down the EPA also want to shut down the Department of Education, because they hate taxes that much, because they are convinced in spite of the evidence against them, that commercial firms can be trusted. Whatever the bureaucratic issues there have been in the management of the EPA, the core issue is simple: do you want to protect your environment or just watch is deteriorate in front of your eyes because Conservatives literally don't care about it?

Bottom line is that I've provided you with 2 different sources reporting about the corruption in the EPA. If you can't see it, then argue with the sources, not me....
I'm just the messenger.

But....Now I'm convinced that after providing you with sources about EPA corruption, you can't see the swamp.

Have a good weekend!

[buttslinger]

Bringing things back to Trump's Supreme Court pick, Trump picked the most partisan choice he could get away with, and crippled the FBI's investigation that would have shown he was a liar.
If I lie to you once, and you believe it, shame on me.
If I lie to you twice and you believe it, shame on you.
Anyone who believes Trump's 5 thousand lies has serious Daddy issues.

[Stavros]

Bottom line is that I've provided you with 2 different sources reporting about the corruption in the EPA. If you can't see it, then argue with the sources, not me....
I'm just the messenger.
But....Now I'm convinced that after providing you with sources about EPA corruption, you can't see the swamp.
Have a good weekend!

The problem is that you define the Federal Agency as a 'swamp' when it is really just a large bureaucracy that generates issues of management competence, disagreements on policy and need not be held up as an example of what is wrong with the US when the same problems exist in, for example, the Department of Defence and the multiple problems that exist when you have cash flow in the Billions, Senators and Congressional Representatives fighting to get contracts in their locality, let alone the conflicts over jobs and strategy that take place in the upper reaces of the armed forces.

Of course there were disagreements with the use of DDT, which these days is rarely used because alternative chemicals have been developed. But the disagreement and its impact on policy was not part of a corrupt system of decision making but reflected a growing anxiety throughout the 1960s -Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) being a seminal publication (and also a controversial one)- about the impact that modern industry was having on the environment. Indeed, in the same way that Conservatives felt in the 1960s that they had lost the battle against civil rights, they re-grouped in the 1970s to mobilize opinion against the science that underpinned a lot of the environmental movement's major causes. It means that Myron Ebell can not only dismiss the role of human agency in climate change but characterise the whole of the debate as a 'left-wing' attempt to centralize policy making in the Federal government with an array of carbon taxes and other regimes all of which are 'bad for business', an argument that has been made time and again and has proven to be wrong. Again, in the 1960s when the movement wanted lead removed from petrol/gasoline, the car firms objected, said it was unncecessary, would ruin the industry -it never happened, and the removal of lead from fuel has been a health advance welcomed by all. I could go on but I think you see the difference in our arguments.

You had no response to the links which laid out the achievements of the EPA, you have said nothing about the links you provided to an anti-science crank called Mark Hutchinson, but rather than rely on other people, you yourself have not made a case for a Libertarian alternative to 'the swamp'. I would rather hear your own version of the politics you want to see, rather than listen to some half-baked objectons selective in nature and wholly unconvincing so far.

[filghy2]

Did you actually read that article? It's about corrupt behaviour by Scott Pruitt, not the agency.


Bottom line is that I've provided you with 2 different sources reporting about the corruption in the EPA. If you can't see it, then argue with the sources, not me....
I'm just the messenger.

But....Now I'm convinced that after providing you with sources about EPA corruption, you can't see the swamp.

Have a good weekend!

You are a really this stupid?

[peejaye]

Hey Fanti :banghead

Step back & leave them to it :stop

[MrFanti]

Hey Fanti :banghead

Step back & leave them to it :stop

Agreed 100%
If they don't want to accept the official IRS apologies to conservative groups for targeting them and if they don't want to accept two different sources of EPA corruption, then anything else to explain 'the swamp' from me would be a waste of my time...

[buttslinger]

1) You guys have explained yourselves perfectly, and
2) Yes, it was a complete waste of time.

[CD_Sasha]

Close this thread, it's useless now. Justice Kavanaugh won, the angry left mob has lost. Get over it and have a good night.

[Stavros]

Agreed 100%
If they don't want to accept the official IRS apologies to conservative groups for targeting them and if they don't want to accept two different sources of EPA corruption, then anything else to explain 'the swamp' from me would be a waste of my time...

Again you avoid a proper debate, such as the reason why the IRS targeted the sudden profusion of conservative groups rather than, say, more centrist ones. You first decide all of Washington DC is a 'swamp' then look for the evidence to prove it, yet provide samples of the kind of bureucratic intrigues that affect all large organizations, and other than relying on a proven climate change fraud for your 'science', have nothing to say on the core remit of the EPA and its protection of your environment and our planet.

I agree that this is an example of how a thread creates debates that veer away from its original purpose, it happens, and yes, Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court, for now. There is nothing that says he cannot be impeached, but who knows, actually being on the Court may moderate his views, he does't yet have a record by which he can be judged.

[MrFanti]

And corruptness in the Treasury Department...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/politics/treasury-official-charged-with-leaking-docs-related-to-russia-manafort/index.html

Amazes me that some still can't see the federal agencies swamp!

[Stavros]

And corruptness in the Treasury Department...
Amazes me that some still can't see the federal agencies swamp!

a) I hope you are not presuming guilt before a trial, and one notes that the person concerned does not appear to have made any money from the leaks; and one person being arrested does not condemn an entire department.

b) are the people who leaked information to Bob Woodward going to be arrested and put on trial?

c) I wonder if, in a place awash with money and power, the Federal Agencies are the epitome of the 'swamp' or whether you should be looking at individuals, so many of whom are Republicans. As a Libertarian I expect you to condemn Republicans as they do not and cannot promote your agenda, though you do seem to think the 45th President, the most dishonest man to have occupied the Presidency, is 'draining the swamp' when the reality is that the swamp has deepened to accommodate the corruption with which he is so intimately associated, not least with the millions of tax payer dollars he has pocketed when playing golf at his own clubs and hotels.

In the whole of the Obama one official did resign -General David Petraeus- whereas in barely two years the list of resignations, sackings, arrests and confessions of lying to Congress and Law Enforcement has become so routine you expect the 45th President to nominate crooks and swindlers to public office, and to look the other way when Republicans stuff their pockets with as much tax payers cash as they can.

The roll-call is grim and never ending, here are some starfish from the swamp, not even inluding Gates, Manafort, Flynn, Papadopoulos and Sessions-

Rep. Chris Collins, the first member of Congress to endorse Trump for president, was recently arrested for allegedly perpetrating an insider trading scheme while on the board of a foreign pharmaceutical company.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the second congressman to endorse Trump, was indicted last week for illegally using campaign funds for personal enrichment.
Tom Price resigned as Health and Human Services secretary after spending $400,000 in federal money on private jet travel.

Scott Pruitt stepped down as Environmental Protection Agency administrator amid a dizzying list of abuses.

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, has confessed that while serving in Congress, he only met with lobbyists after they ponied up a donation.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/30/donald-trump-republicans-corruption-problem-drain-swamp-column/1112746002/

Ben Carson Housing and Urban Development Secretary -the Washington Post reported that a firm run by Carson's wife had won a $485,000 contract from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services without a competitive bidding process.

Wilbur Ross -Commerce Secretary has not disclosed all of his business interests, which includes a company he owns that is in partnership in Russia with a firm owned by Vladimir Putin's son-in-law.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/15/trump-cabinet-officials-in-ethics-scandals.html

And what about those members of the President's staff using the White House email server for their own correspondence? What's that all about?
If you did indeed 'drain the swamp' you would end up without a President and most of his Cabinet, and who knows how many members of Congress?

But I assume that is what you want?

[buttslinger]

Let's totally go off topic and ask Mr Infantile why, out of those 17 Republican Debate Clowns was Donald Trump the obvious choice? Ted Cruz was every bit as Conservative, more so, he could have cut taxes and deregulated businesses, and upped the military, etc etc what is it about Trump that has the entire Republican Party acting like fools?

[decastro]

Close this thread, it's useless now. Justice Kavanaugh won, the angry left mob has lost. Get over it and have a good night.

glad i wasnt paying attention to this thread at the time or else I would have wasted so much of it. All I can say now is shut the fuck up Sasha.