Ford vs Kavanugh

**NCRAVEN** · 09-21-2018, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by ddr_jr

That headline is really misleading. More appropriately, it should read:

"Kavanaugh accuser is now being advised by a person who is linked to Anita Hill hit job"

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Almost all headlines these days are misleading

**boller4president** · 09-22-2018, 03:48 AM

I'm more then willing to listen to Ford with an open mind but so far she hasn't been very convincing. Can't remember the time. Can't remember the place. Noone can place Brett at the party. Doctor has no notes mentioning Brett or describing the alleged assault in detail. No police report.

There is really nothing there except the shaky recollection of someone from 35 years ago. This isn't enough the media has really bungeled this they seem to think women have to be believed that's not a fact pattern or legal standard. Woman don't have some sort of honest gene that men lack.

The presumption of innocence should always be with the accused even when it comes to the public. Our standards can be lower then a court of law but we shouldn't be believing someone because they are black, white, latino, female or male. We should believe the evidence and weigh the credibility of the narratives of the accused and accusor.

Here's the thing Brett says he wasn't at the party I've been to a fair number of house parties in my highschool days how many people do you reckon were there 40? If he was there it should be easy to prove he lied. Do the legwork dems. I really hope the Republicans follow through with hiring a female prosecutor. This woman has had 35 years to get her story straight she should be ready to testify today hell yesterday.

**darb72** · 09-22-2018, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

If they did that, they'd probably have to fire most of the teachers in America. Just sayin'...….

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-22-2018, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

He is. He's denying it and agreeing to testify on Monday. What more can he do? Go on the View? I'm sure Ford will be on Colbert in 3 months.

My guess is it won't take three months. She'll be sure to appear wherever and whenever she can (except DC), before the Mid Terms. Of course, she'll have to take lots of limo rides to get there.

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-22-2018, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Almost all headlines these days are misleading

I agree. Most are nothing but clickbait. I remember a few weeks ago an "article" from NBC, which had a headline....."Ron DeSantis resigns from Congress". So, since I was interested in the story, I clicked on it. After opening it up, it read..."Ron DeSantis resigns from Congress to focus on running for Governor". They had left the last part out. There was plenty of room to print it all out, they just chose to do it that way. Then, being pretty sure of his Party (R), I checked. Sure enough, he's a Republican. But, it was NBC so.....'nuff said.

**boller4president** · 09-22-2018, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by ddr_jr

Reid made it that you could pass through a regular judicial nominee with only a majority. 60 was still required for Supreme Court nominees. The mistake was the original sin by Reid. When GOP won majority, they were holding up nominees like crazy. Held seats open for years, putting in blue tickets left and right. Just like Rav said, majority rules and they did what they wanted to do. Reid changed the rules to pass folks through..which made it ok for McConnell to do what he did...I never know why some on the Right despise McConnell so vigorously; where he was the main cog in the wheel stopping Obama and his agenda. The only reason why Trump is in this position to get Gorsuch and all these other conservative judges through was McConnell.

60 is where it should be. That is why Obama nominated the moderate Merrick Garland because he knew that was the only way he could get that many votes. Cavenaugh/Garland voted the same 90% of the time. It forces the president to pick someone who represents both sides of political spectrum. 51 is a nightmare. I hope they change it back and make it law.

The funny thing now as I think about it, If Cav gets mowed down, the next person on the list would probably be WAY more to the right?

Democrats didn't have control of the senate elections have consequences and you can damn well be sure if the Republicans lose the senate and RBG croaks they'll do the same thing. You think they'll allow Trump to choose her replacement?

I'm actually fine with 50 not only for congress but bills as well. For one it sets the stakes clear from the get go if Trump runs on a wall he should get a wall elections should have consequences. If Democrats want to run on abolishing ICE and all these fringe positions they should be forced to vote on them and not allow the cover of needing 60 to protect America from their nutty base. Let the lines and stakes be clear every election.

Also it sort of helps remove the politicization of the courts and puts their focus on where it should be enforcing laws not making them.

**Ortizer** · 09-22-2018, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

That's the advantage of holding the majority. Why is this considered a problem?

Because it's their job. Must be nice to take 185k a year to the bank to just sit there and grandstand.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-23-2018, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

Because it's their job. Must be nice to take 185k a year to the bank to just sit there and grandstand.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

I agree, for the most part. It seems all they do is grandstand, spin their wheels and work on getting re-elected. Both sides. They are hired to make laws and do their jobs. Here is a link that, if accurate, goes into a bit of detail about their salaries, benefits, etc. Drain the swamp.

https://www.thoughtco.com/salaries-a...embers-3322282

**ddr_jr** · 09-23-2018, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman

I agree, for the most part. It seems all they do is grandstand, spin their wheels and work on getting re-elected. Both sides. They are hired to make laws and do their jobs. Here is a link that, if accurate, goes into a bit of detail about their salaries, benefits, etc. Drain the swamp.

https://www.thoughtco.com/salaries-a...embers-3322282

Great read. IMO, lots of these folks have already made their careers prior to getting in Congress. There moneys have already been made. Now, it's just about them doing favors for their lobbyists/corporations so them and their friends can get richer.

I would think only the grassroot members who didnt have much prior to Congress benefit the most with these salaries and benefits. Those type of congressmen tend to be about issues...well unless until they get corrupted after years of serving.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

**ravenmaniac4life** · 09-23-2018, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by ddr_jr

Great read. IMO, lots of these folks have already made their careers prior to getting in Congress. There moneys have already been made. Now, it's just about them doing favors for their lobbyists/corporations so them and their friends can get richer.

I would think only the grassroot members who didnt have much prior to Congress benefit the most with these salaries and benefits. Those type of congressmen tend to be about issues...well unless until they get corrupted after years of serving.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

My boss has some friends involved in the political scene in California. Insider trading is how people like Maxine Waters have become multi-millionaires. Drain the swamp? If Trump exposed that...the political system as we know it would be turned upside down.

It’s a very dangerous game.

Imagine if you were involved and someone like Trump was POTUS. I’d do everything possible to get get rid of him.

**blueridgemtnman** · 09-23-2018, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by ddr_jr

Great read. IMO, lots of these folks have already made their careers prior to getting in Congress. There moneys have already been made. Now, it's just about them doing favors for their lobbyists/corporations so them and their friends can get richer.

I would think only the grassroot members who didnt have much prior to Congress benefit the most with these salaries and benefits. Those type of congressmen tend to be about issues...well unless until they get corrupted after years of serving.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I agree w/all your points, except that it probably doesn't take most of them years to become corrupted. I imagine they get their indoctrination much quicker than that. Also, to Rav's point......I remember reading years ago about Nancy Pelosi and her filthy rich husband being involved in legal insider trading and about how Congress had basically passed laws exempting themselves from such laws (they have quite a few of them). Don't remember the details, but anyone wanting to do some research on it, if it's true, might be a bit surprised...….and pissed off. People need to wake up and take a good look at what our elected officials are getting away with. A good start would be getting rid of the career swamp dwellers.

**ddr_jr** · 09-23-2018, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

My boss has some friends involved in the political scene in California. Insider trading is how people like Maxine Waters have become multi-millionaires. Drain the swamp? If Trump exposed that...the political system as we know it would be turned upside down.

It’s a very dangerous game.

Imagine if you were involved and someone like Trump was POTUS. I’d do everything possible to get get rid of him.

This is what sucks about politics. It would be great if Trump did expose that...but as always it's hard to find someone who is pure enough to do so. Trump, IMO isn't pure in that sense. He hired the swampiest of the swamp Manafort who been wheeling and dealing for years as a lobbyist. You got Pruitt who did all kinds of swamp things when he was in office. Chris Collins who was/maybe inside trading like Walters. In each case, Trump says they are great people and are being unfairly treated. If he were truly about draining the swamp he would lay down a marker publicly and say this type of behavior is unacceptable. Not through his comm director..but from himself as his people only listen to him. But because they are or were his friends or on his same side politically, its ok. He did that, I would change my tune.

Not to mention the perception of doubling your golf club fees because you know folks will pay to possibly to gain access among other Trump corporate things.

Not to only focus or pick on Trump...I feel that most super rich guys like that are binded to the swamp..its part and parcel on how they got rich in the first place.

Btw..it sucks that it's raining yet again at the game..this is great convo to pass time

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk