Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

1202203205207208323

Comments

  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I accept he probably lied...

    That's the answer I was looking for, thanks. You're OK with a candidate for USSC perjuring himself at his confirmation hearing. You have your excuses for why it's OK for him to do so, but those excuses are irrelevant.

    I'd still like 2 Scoops to answer the question. In fact, if all the Trump/Kavanaugh supporters would be so kind as to admit that they're perfectly content with perjury - as long as it's their guy who's doing it - that would be refreshing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    everlast75 wrote: »
    So you don't believe a potential supreme court justice lying under oath to be a big deal?

    Wow


    Couldnt give a crap.
    He didn't do anything, an innocent man targeted by Democrats to stop his nomination. If I was him I'd have done the same - after laughing incredulously at "do you like beer"


    Pa8301 wrote: »
    This poster drives around Ireland with a Trump sticker on his vehicle so that probably gives you an insight into where he's coming from and what he thinks is acceptable.
    This poster is one of a number who follow me around and post this everywhere.
    Figuratively an eponymous example of "get a life" if ever I saw one.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Couldnt give a crap.
    He didn't do anything...

    By your own admission, he lied under oath.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    By your own admission, he lied under oath.
    He wouldnt have been in that position if it wasnt for the stunts pulled by the democrats.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,876 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Couldnt give a crap.
    He didn't do anything, an innocent man targeted by Democrats to stop his nomination. If I was him I'd have done the same - after laughing incredulously at "do you like beer".

    It's the hypocrisy of Trump supporters. They'll chant "lock her up" without any trial, but support a Judge who lies under oath.

    Classic.

    Meanwhile, the self made millionaire is demonstrating his amazing business acumen once more. Pity Fred isn't around to bail him out.... again


    https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1048935979669704704?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,876 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    ELM327 wrote: »
    He wouldnt have been in that position if it wasnt for the stunts pulled by the democrats.

    Another Trump trait. Refusal to take personal responsibility.

    Combined with hypocrisy, you're nearly there on the Trump bingo card.

    You're missing the misogyny and racism - then you'll have the full house!


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    You don't pay tax on a loss, especially when you have to pay millions to a parent company elsewhere to licence the trump name. ;)

    Not every 'loss' 'closure or 'bankruptcy' of a company leaves its owner poorer :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    The Democrats made him lie under oath. That is some weird warp.

    Its classic man beats wife defence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,876 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    You don't pay tax on a loss, especially when you have to pay millions to a parent company elsewhere to licence the trump name. ;)

    Not every 'loss' 'closure or 'bankruptcy' of a company leaves its owner poorer :D

    Sounds like you graduated from the Trump school of economics.

    He is a fraud. The exposé in the Times exposed him as much. The willingness to believe that he has the slightest clue about what he is doing, whether it be in business (see multiple failures including a casino ffs) or in the White House (see multiple comments from various staff members, removal of docs from his desk in order to try avoid further international diplomacy cluster****s), is mind blowing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,107 ✭✭✭TomOnBoard


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Should he have just accepted the character assasination from the democrats and done nothing? Ridiculous

    The use of the term character assassination is a misrepresentation of the process.

    The process is designed to allow Senators to assess the suitability of a Presidential nominee for Supreme Court. As part of that assessment, Senators are allowed to ask any question about any matter that pertains to the nominee's suitability. All along the way, questions were put to Kav and many of those questioning him stated that they found his answers unbelievable or to be outright lies. This belief (among Democrats particularly) was compounded by the failure of those with the appropriate powers to release a large number of documents that may (or may not- we just don't know because they haven't been released) provide further decisions and/or actions that undermine Kav's suitability. At no point can anyone argue that Opposition comments and questions amounted to 'character assassination'. Rather, it was legitimate commentary relating to questionable actions and writings during Kav's career, particularly in Bush's White House.

    In July, the whole Dr Ford allegation process was playing out behind the scenes. Notwithstanding the fact that the manner in which the allegation was handled by those with whom Dr Ford raised the matter, her raising of it only amounts to 'character assassination' if you believe she lied about her belief that Kav did assault her, and Judge was involved. If you don't believe that she lied, then no 'character assassination" took place. Most people, and I include Trump in this, found her testimony at the hearing to be 'compelling' and 'credible'.

    All the other stuff about whether Ford told anyone, had a fear of flying, needed two doors etc.etc. is only relevant to the assessment of her credibility. You need to form your own view on that.

    Kav's responses, initially on Fox and then at the hearing were such as to have generated a widespread backlash from people who knew him and flat out rejected his self- characterisation as a 'choir- boy' who liked a couple of beers at the weekends and seldom to excess. People who knew him flat out rejected that, and provided various sworn statements under penalty of felony to attest to their rejection by characterising Kav as a messy drunk and part of a racy clique in High School and College. Undoubtedly, some of these assertions and/or statements were erroneous, mistaken and possibly downright lies. However, they were so numerous, that they cannot all be discounted as being part of some hideous 'character assassination' plot. That is simply not believable.

    The Senators who supported Kav and the White House had a golden opportunity to put the whole matter to bed by a) releasing the papers requested within proper security and b) charging the FBI to conduct a proper investigation, once Flake stalled at end of the committee's work. They used the FBI to provide cover for their nominee, by seriously curtailing the FBI's scope and then using the restrictive results to add unwarranted legitimacy to Kav's character and actions to the detriment of Ford and all the other people who had come forward. This was simply appalling misuse of the FBI as an attack on other citizens for purely political ends! If anyone's character was assassinated, it was the character of those people who came forward to perform their civic duty, and had the FBI's failure to even contact them, used as propagandist "no corroboration found" rhetoric.

    Finally, in the context of so-called "character assassination", its ridiculous to say that, because women came forward to attest to their experiences of sexual assault at Kav's hands and others to his drinking habits and drunken character, they were being unfair to him. All this 'innocent until proven guilty' stuff is entirely irrelevant in this case. This was not a criminal case. It was about past performance and character assessment as part of a job interview. Performing one's civic duty and making authorities aware of skeletons in the closet of ppl ascending to positions of great power is crucial, where those skeletons have a large impact on their future ability to do the intended job. Furthermore, every single day in the USA, ppl who may be innocent of all charges are 'perp-walked' by DAs for political ends. Once charged, at which point a person is totally innocent, s/he is marched out in front of cameras and TV etc. and their 'guillt' is trumpeted by the DA for all to see. One's character is certainly assassinated at that point and no amount of "Not Guilty"s will ever restore it. So, the manner in which Dr Ford came forward was in no way an assassination when "the system" allows ppl to be put forward as criminals, without any trial, every single day.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 33,721 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK




    The hypocrisy of the Democrats in they refuse to believe any of the women who made claims against Bill Clinton and who worked to get him back to the White House with Hillary, then they believe Blasey Ford despite a lack of evidence, but Nancy Pelosi explained how you run a smear campaign and use the media to spread it and then you run with it...

    People are so gullible and the Democrats know it, they treat their supporters as idiots, just feed smears/fake news and they will run with it...


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    TomOnBoard wrote: »
    The use of the term character assassination is a misrepresentation of the process.
    blah blah blah.


    Read the below as it addresses perfectly your long-winded rant.


    RobertKK wrote: »


    The hypocrisy of the Democrats in they refuse to believe any of the women who made claims against Bill Clinton and who worked to get him back to the White House with Hillary, then they believe Blasey Ford despite a lack of evidence, but Nancy Pelosi explained how you run a smear campaign and use the media to spread it and then you run with it...

    People are so gullible and the Democrats know it, they treat their supporters as idiots, just feed smears/fake news and they will run with it...


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,990 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    How does that differ to the other side if you intend to paint one better than the other?

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 ✭✭✭SimonTemplar


    When will we start to see democrats announcing themselves as candidates for the presidency in 2020? Clinton and Saunders announced in April and May 2015 for the 2016 election, so I guess we'll start seeing announcements around April / May 2019.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ELM327 wrote: »
    He wouldnt have been in that position if it wasnt for the stunts pulled by the democrats.
    The nasty Democrats forced him to lie under oath?

    What answers was he forced to lie about, that telling the truth would have cost him the job?
    RobertKK wrote: »
    People are so gullible...

    I'd like you to answer the question too: do you also believe that Kavanaugh perjured himself, and do you also unconditionally support someone who had to lie to get a job on the Supreme Court?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    You don't pay tax on a loss, especially when you have to pay millions to a parent company elsewhere to licence the trump name. ;)

    Not every 'loss' 'closure or 'bankruptcy' of a company leaves its owner poorer :D

    You do realise the Times article indicates he committed fraud? You also realise that the New York Attorney General is seeking to dissolve the Trump foundation for breaking the law for his own profit?

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-foundation-engaged-persistent-illegality-york-attorney-general/story?id=58293404

    The truly worrying thing about the above story is that he has so many scandals at this stage so it gets lost amongst all the scandals.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,721 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    oscarBravo wrote: »

    I'd like you to answer the question too: do you also believe that Kavanaugh perjured himself, and do you also unconditionally support someone who had to lie to get a job on the Supreme Court?

    I don't know, I am not going to jumping to conclusions based on what I don't know, which is what a lot of people have done to Brett Kavanaugh.
    The people with signs up outside the Supreme Court yesterday calling him a 'sex offender' are dangerous people, as it is guilty when no evidence that an actual crime was committed.
    We remember here in Ireland how RTE had a priest condemned as a sex offender with a child as the 'evidence' and how all that turned out to be completely untrue.

    I find if anyone is 100% believing of anyone they don't know very well, they are leaving themselves open to be fooled and used.
    Too many people swallow what they are served and that is on all sides, once it suits their position, people make it is easier for themselves to believe the side one sides with, over the side they don't agree with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    How does that differ to the other side if you intend to paint one better than the other?
    Well the democrats/the left accept it when it's done to the right, so I will will accept it when it's done to the left.

    When will we start to see democrats announcing themselves as candidates for the presidency in 2020? Clinton and Saunders announced in April and May 2015 for the 2016 election, so I guess we'll start seeing announcements around April / May 2019.
    No one wants to put themselves forward for that loss.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The nasty Democrats forced him to lie under oath?

    What answers was he forced to lie about, that telling the truth would have cost him the job?

    ?
    No, the nasty democrats (sic - your false condescension), forced this sham by witholding or fabricating the allegations against SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh until they thought they could get the nomination delayed 'till after the mid terms when the (fake news) blue wave means they take the house and/or senate and can block the nomination.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    RobertKK wrote: »
    I don't know, I am not going to jumping to conclusions based on what I don't know...
    OK, but I'm not asking what you know; I'm asking what you believe.

    For example: when asked what "boofing" means, Kavanaugh replied that it referred to flatulence, implying that "have you boofed yet?" meant "have you farted yet?"

    Do you believe that that reply was truthful?
    ELM327 wrote: »
    No, the nasty democrats (sic - your false condescension), forced this sham by witholding or fabricating the allegations against SCOTUS Justice Kavanaugh until they thought they could get the nomination delayed 'till after the mid terms when the (fake news) blue wave means they take the house and/or senate and can block the nomination.

    You didn't answer: which questions, had he answered truthfully instead of committing perjury, would have cost him the job?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    oscarBravo wrote: »



    You didn't answer: which questions, had he answered truthfully instead of committing perjury, would have cost him the job?
    This spanish inquisition is taking a familiar turn. You're not an attorney and this is not a court.
    You have no authority to demand I or anyone answer or respond to anything.


    Can I ask, do you like beer?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    ELM327 wrote: »
    This spanish inquisition is taking a familiar turn. You're not an attorney and this is not a court.
    You have no authority to demand I or anyone answer or respond to anything.


    Can I ask, do you like beer?

    Hardly taking a familiar turn. He lied numerous times, much of the time to paint himself in a different light. By doing so, he purjured self. The poster is entitled to point out your unwillingness to answer certain questions. Being outraged by them doing so is a tad silly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    ELM327 wrote: »
    He wouldnt have been in that position if it wasnt for the stunts pulled by the democrats.

    Are you saying that you accept Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath to the committee because of the questions put to him by Dem-party members of the committee. I'm not asking why the judge would do so if he had nothing to lie about and could have given honest truthful testimony as to his character and previous private life.

    If your answer is that he only lied because he was annoyed at the questions put to him by the committee members, how do you rate his suitability to be a USSC associate justice? Under the US constitution the judge would have had to appear before the committee in order for it to vote on his suitability to be made a USSC Associate Justice regardless of the allegations made by Prof Ford.

    Do you feel you can trust a perjurer and liar to sit on the USSC and give an honest judgement to any plaintiff stating a case before him?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,996 ✭✭✭Duck Soup


    ELM327 wrote: »
    This spanish inquisition is taking a familiar turn. You're not an attorney and this is not a court.
    You have no authority to demand I or anyone answer or respond to anything.


    Can I ask, do you like beer?

    I love beer. I'm a recovering alcoholic. Did Kavanaugh lie under oath?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    batgoat wrote: »
    Hardly taking a familiar turn. He lied numerous times, much of the time to paint himself in a different light. By doing so, he purjured self. The poster is entitled to point out your unwillingness to answer certain questions. Being outraged by them doing so is a tad silly.
    I'm not "outraged"... I'm illustrating a point.
    Duck Soup wrote: »
    I love beer. I'm a recovering alcoholic. Did Kavanaugh lie under oath?
    Do you drink to black out?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,224 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Are you saying that you accept Judge Kavanaugh lied under oath to the committee because of the questions put to him by Dem-party members of the committee. I'm not asking why the judge would do so if he had nothing to lie about and could have given honest truthful testimony as to his character and previous private life.

    If your answer is that he only lied because he was annoyed at the questions put to him by the committee members, how do you rate his suitability to be a USSC associate justice? Under the US constitution the judge would have had to appear before the committee in order for it to vote on his suitability to be made a USSC Associate Justice regardless of the allegations made by Prof Ford.

    Do you feel you can trust a perjurer and liar to sit on the USSC and give an honest judgement to any plaintiff stating a case before him?
    Did you mean to write that in your secondary school journal?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,721 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    OK, but I'm not asking what you know; I'm asking what you believe.

    For example: when asked what "boofing" means, Kavanaugh replied that it referred to flatulence, implying that "have you boofed yet?" meant "have you farted yet?"

    Do you believe that that reply was truthful?

    I don't know, I never heard of that word so to say I believe or not, would be me jumping to a conclusion based on my own ignorance of what boofing means.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,996 ✭✭✭Duck Soup


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I'm not "outraged"... I'm illustrating a point.

    Do you drink to black out?

    I haven't had alcohol in 20 years, but yes, when I was drinking I blacked out. Drink a lot and you will lose chunks of the evening.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I'm not "outraged"... I'm illustrating a point.

    Do you drink to black out?

    Hardly illustrating a point, Kavanaugh lying while under oath is what's under discussion. You seem to be applauding a judge lying under oath. Why pray tell did he need to lie in the first place?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,442 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    I do find it hard to understand why Trump supporters are willing to defend Kavanaugh. He is not the only person that could have been nominated, and they, any more than any of us, have no idea of the man or indeed what he is really like.

    The only thing I can work out is that winning is far more important that bring right or ones principles. Even some of the responses of here, such as Bill Clinton, the DNC etc, doesn't align with the idea of MAGA.

    How is reverting to the very things that one detests make anything better.


  • Advertisement
  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,780 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    ELM327 wrote: »
    This spanish inquisition is taking a familiar turn. You're not an attorney and this is not a court.
    You have no authority to demand I or anyone answer or respond to anything.
    I'm not demanding that you answer; this is a discussion, and I'm asking you to flesh out a position you've stated. If you don't feel that the position is defensible, that's fine. I don't think your position is defensible either.
    Can I ask, do you like beer?
    I do. I don't know what it has to do with the fact that you have claimed Kavanaugh was forced to perjure himself, but seem unwilling or unable to explain that rather bizarre assertion.
    RobertKK wrote: »
    I don't know, I never heard of that word so to say I believe or not, would be me jumping to a conclusion based on my own ignorance of what boofing means.
    Come on, it's a simple question. Given the context - the question "have you boofed yet?" written in a high school yearbook - do you think a claim that it refers to flatulence is credible?

    If you're going to give another "I don't know" answer, spare us both the trouble. There's nothing more tiresome than someone trying to claim that they don't know how to think in order to avoid answering a question that might show them in a bad light. At least ELM327 was honest in his public support for someone perjuring themselves in order to get a job.
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    The only thing I can work out is that winning is far more important that bring right or ones principles.

    You got it in one.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement