Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

I don’t understand why neither Woodward nor Page consider the Trump Tower meeting collusion.

Trollminator wrote:

On that note, the Supreme Court picks under Trump will definitely be the most consequential relics of his presidency. The US has demographically shifted progressive over time and will undoubtedly continue on that path, while judicially we go the other way. This growing gap between public sentiment and the way the legal system serves the public can’t lead to anything good. Only more polarization to come.

That is absolutely true, and hardly confined to the Supreme Court. Republicans know the demographics are slipping away so they are desperately scrambling for every method to pack them. For example, Rick Scott as outgoing governor of Florida plans to appoint three new justices to the state supreme court on the morning the new governor is sworn in. The precedent and the practice has always been for the new governor to make those appointments. It is clearly the intent of the law. But swarmy Medicare Fraud Rick thinks he can pick his own judges before noon that day, due to the technicality that the new governor is traditionally not sworn in until noon.

It is now well beyond laughable, the steps that side will take to suppress votes or prevent a Supreme Court nomination and so forth. Then they wonder how they can have a 28% approval rating among millennials. Why can't they be as scared and gullible as old white people? Unfair.

Anyway, regarding the Kavanaugh hearing it is obvious one line of attack Republicans are currently testing out. The lady was assaulted but it wasn't Kavanaugh. I saw Orrin Hatch say that on CNN and likewise Ken Starr emphasized it to Wolf Blitzer an hour later: "False identifications happen all the time."

Oh sure. I make it at least 50% likely. Republicans need to be extremely careful pushing that type of theme, especially during the hearing itself. Woman after woman nationwide has had to endure that type of attack, and it can be life altering. The gender gap is already blowing open. If that side tries to pretend a woman would endure that type of assault and confuse who did it, they are rendering themselves to outright mockery and fewer votes.

Kavanaugh is a squirmy frat boy type, as evidenced by his shifty non-response to Kamala Harris last week, among other examples. The female accuser from Palo Alto is a huge favorite to be strong and decisive and articulate. Her friends have already come forward to describe her. Let's just say I don't like the opposition chances to make her out to be anything but incredibly impressive. In fact, with only a week to prepare I can almost guarantee she will have supportive anecdotes and emphasis that simpleton opposing senators have no way to anticipate or counter.

Should be fun

Lie Detector wrote:The accuser's credentials are impeccable. She passed a lie detector test. She discussed the issue with a therapist 6 years ago, a full 25 years afterwards because it is still an issue for her.

Kavanaugh should take a lie detector test himself. He needs to defend his claim that the situation never happened. Or he needs to accept his error and provide an acceptable explanation--why he did it (drunk?) and why he chose not to tell the truth about it just last week (?--I don't see a way out for him on admitting he lied). His only way out is to stick with the full denial at this point.

It seems very likely that Kavanaugh lied. But isn't it possible that he has no recollection of the event if he was very drunk at the time? I think it still should be enough to prevent his appointment even in this case. I just find it a bit odd that some people seem to acknowledge that he may not remember, but then go back to showing that he's been lying.

other fishes wrote:There are plenty of other SCOTUS candidates available who have conservative views without the baggage Kavanugh has. Attempted rape. Underage drinking. Gambling issues. Hiding how he got out of over a million in debt on a judge's salary. Believe it or not, other candidates exist without any one of those issues, let alone all of them.

Do you know that, or do you assume that? Did you know about the attempted rape? Maybe the alternatives had even more skeletons in their closets.

Trollminator wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Trump likes Kavanaugh because it gave him the chance to break interesting news, he’s not a boring candidate. Trump knows nothing about the candidates and the process otherwise. The GOP simply doesn’t care because they know they can push the nomination through. Also it’s a huge win for conservatives to have this guy pushing their agenda until his death.

On that note, the Supreme Court picks under Trump will definitely be the most consequential relics of his presidency. The US has demographically shifted progressive over time and will undoubtedly continue on that path, while judicially we go the other way. This growing gap between public sentiment and the way the legal system serves the public can’t lead to anything good. Only more polarization to come.

It’s still a 5-4 court with Kavanaugh.

This is a neat graph.

George 0 wrote:

I don’t understand why neither Woodward nor Page consider the Trump Tower meeting collusion.

Conspiracy. Not collusion.

Trollminator wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Wow that guy really gets under your skin - you should go for a run

Wait I forgot - Trollminator entered his daily shift for posting to himself - I’ll leave him to it.

showsomesense wrote:

Onedering wrote:

...

It is weird that Trump nominated someone who:

1) Is deeply in debt

2) Has a drinking problem

3) Has a gambling problem

I am giving him a pass on the sexual assault because it is not proven and Trump may not have known about it.

There have to be lots of very conservative candidates out there who aren't so f'd up in their personal lives. So why Kavanaugh?

This. Who cares about some kids fooling around? Why can't we focus on stopping this serious level of amoral corruption that Trump keeps pushing on us all?

I'm a Republican, and I'd like to stop this corruption, but, why can't the Democrats let loose of worrying about old dirt, and focus on the serious immorality/corruption issues plaguing the current administration RIGHT NOW.

1) Um...wasn't some kids "fooling around". He has been accused of sexual assault. Don't be a dolt.

2) Democrats ARE focused on the issues plaguing the administration. They can do more than one thing.

FYI. Being drunk is not an alibi for attempted rape of an underage girl.

M Jamal wrote:

other fishes wrote:There are plenty of other SCOTUS candidates available who have conservative views without the baggage Kavanugh has. Attempted rape. Underage drinking. Gambling issues. Hiding how he got out of over a million in debt on a judge's salary. Believe it or not, other candidates exist without any one of those issues, let alone all of them.

Do you know that, or do you assume that? Did you know about the attempted rape? Maybe the alternatives had even more skeletons in their closets.

0/10

It has long been known that Trump has a LIST of SCOTUS candidates. Kavanaugh was on the list from the start.

"Despite speculation that Trump might consider other candidates for a possible second Supreme Court nomination, he [Trump] said in May 2017 that he would make his next appointment from the same list he used to choose Gorsuch."

Runningart2004 wrote:

It’s still a 5-4 court with Kavanaugh.

It will still be a 5-4 court with a more right-center candidate than Kavanaugh once Trump throws him under the bus. Kavanaugh will not get a SCOTUS seat.

George 0 wrote:

I don’t understand why neither Woodward nor Page consider the Trump Tower meeting collusion.

Because the Russian lawyer was only interested in talking about Magnitsky Act. "Dirt on Clinton" was just a means to get Jr. , Jared and Manafort to agree to a meeting. They quickly lost interest once they figured out she had nothing substantive to offer. The end of story.

Morality Police wrote:

Why all of a sudden are liberals concerned about ethics and morality? Why the sudden change?

Good one!

Make America Great Again wrote:

George 0 wrote:

I don’t understand why neither Woodward nor Page consider the Trump Tower meeting collusion.

Because the Russian lawyer was only interested in talking about Magnitsky Act. "Dirt on Clinton" was just a means to get Jr. , Jared and Manafort to agree to a meeting. They quickly lost interest once they figured out she had nothing substantive to offer. The end of story.

Ahem, the Magnitsky Act was signed by Obama. Also, the Russian government reportedly lobbied against the legislation acting through a public relations company led by Kenneth Duberstein (Regan's Chief of Staff). And finally, Natalia Veselnitskaya (who met with Don Jr), who was hired to lobby against the Magnitsky Act.

CONspiracy wrote:

George 0 wrote:

I don’t understand why neither Woodward nor Page consider the Trump Tower meeting collusion.

Conspiracy. Not collusion.

Flagpole says collusion.

Guy who says wrote:You really have to wonder about Runninart2004's background when he assures us that 100% of those who are disgusted by Kavanaugh's alleged behavior are into child pornography and when he also seems to think that attempted rape is no big deal.

I assumed he was accusing almost everyone of child pornography. But it's such an outrageous allegation I wonder if he meant something else and just didn't articulate it well.

SIgned by Obama wrote:

Make America Great Again wrote:

Because the Russian lawyer was only interested in talking about Magnitsky Act. "Dirt on Clinton" was just a means to get Jr. , Jared and Manafort to agree to a meeting. They quickly lost interest once they figured out she had nothing substantive to offer. The end of story.

Ahem, the Magnitsky Act was signed by Obama. Also, the Russian government reportedly lobbied against the legislation acting through a public relations company led by Kenneth Duberstein (Regan's Chief of Staff). And finally, Natalia Veselnitskaya (who met with Don Jr), who was hired to lobby against the Magnitsky Act.

Nothing you wrote contradicts with my post. Veselnitskaya must have thought there was no chance that Clinton would overturn Magnitsky Act. So the only candidate she could lobby was Trump. But his campaign would not agree to meet her if she told them her real purpose. So she promised "dirt on Clinton" that she did not deliver.

Because nothing came out of the meeting, there was no conspiracy or "collusion."

#MeToo wrote:Assume that she is lying and this thing didn't really happen back in the '80s. What do you think should happen to her?

There should be serious punishment for people who lie about this stuff, but that clearly isn't the case here.

She discussed the incident in therapy six years ago. Did she cook up a lie about this just in he was ever a SCOTUS nominee?

She took a polygraph.

showsomesense wrote:

Onedering wrote:

...

It is weird that Trump nominated someone who:

1) Is deeply in debt

2) Has a drinking problem

3) Has a gambling problem

I am giving him a pass on the sexual assault because it is not proven and Trump may not have known about it.

There have to be lots of very conservative candidates out there who aren't so f'd up in their personal lives. So why Kavanaugh?

This. Who cares about some kids fooling around? Why can't we focus on stopping this serious level of amoral corruption that Trump keeps pushing on us all?

I'm a Republican, and I'd like to stop this corruption, but, why can't the Democrats let loose of worrying about old dirt, and focus on the serious immorality/corruption issues plaguing the current administration RIGHT NOW.

Democrats are worried that if Kavanaugh is appointed then the Supreme Corrupt will be court for decades. Also may he could help Trump.