Quake3World.com Forums
     General Discussion
        President Trump


Post new topicReply to topic
Login | Profile | | FAQ | Search | IRC




Previous topic | Next topic 
Topic Starter Topic: Re: President Trump

The fuct one!
The fuct one!
Joined: 16 Nov 1999
Posts: 34163
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 11:05 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


YourGrandpa wrote:
raw wrote:
LOL Thanks for the judgments and the avoidance of any substance Gramps. As expected, you came with nothing to offer and everything to say.


What is left to be said? It's only a matter of your opinion at this point. But I'm willing to remain impartial if there is something specific you want to discuss. It is kind of funny how you don't see the Democrats attempt to block the Kavanaugh appointment as having the same motivation as the Republicans blocking Obama's appointment.


There's plenty to be said. However, it's quite clear you're only here to pick apart other people's talking points without offering any counter of substance. For the record, I'm not even a Democrat and you're right, they play their games too. However, as an American I'm pissed off at the obvious games the Republican party plays. It's like every so often when they actually win they revel in it and act like they have a shopping spree for 30 minutes. It's pure chaos and they've proven over time they do not care about the American public as a party.

Old people rave about the Regan days but he was the first one to approve amendments into the Glass-Stegal act. Clinton was a piece of shit but publicly people liked him. He destabilized Haiti and meddled in affairs we had no business in. Bush (both of them) were shit!

Trump, that dude is a loser and has been his entire life. NY, his home town hates him. But hey, let's continue to play tit-for-tat (well, the dems did it first1) as we watch our country erode in front of our eyes.

Let's talk about climate change? Why are we the only civilized nation of our size not doing anything to protect our world and co-exist with nature as unobtrusively as possible? Why are we trying to bring back coal?

SOOOOO MUCH is going on and it can't all be ignored or trivialized down to some BS Trump-sayings.




Top
                 

The fuct one!
The fuct one!
Joined: 16 Nov 1999
Posts: 34163
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 11:06 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


YourGrandpa wrote:
Transient wrote:
No, it was a statement of fact. Look it up.


I can't and neither can you.


This is actually correct. The administration as well as the GOP senators ensured that no one will have the facts. That in itself is a crime..but hey the Democrats!




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 11:35 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Both political parties are corrupt, rifled with special interest lackeys who could care less about Americans. They are equally evil and will continue to bankrupt this country in every way imaginable until we the people stand up as a whole. But until we can see past the separatist ideals promoted by each party and their associated media outlets, we're doomed to keep electing these self serving sacks of trash. Blaming one party is exactly what both parties. They don't care who you blame or why. Because that blame equals the proliferation of their two party reign and less of a chance for change.




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 02:21 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


YourGrandpa wrote:
Transient wrote:
No, it was a statement of fact. Look it up.


I can't and neither can you.


His testimony is public information, as are the interviews people gave which refuted his claims. I'm sorry if you're too willfully ignorant to want to do a little research yourself, but I promise you the information is out there.

Here are a few off the top of my head which amount to perjury:
1) He said a Devil's Triangle was a drinking game with cups and quarters. LOL.
2) He said he didn't drink excessively, but many people, including friends of his, have said that he was frequently drunk throughout college. He even mentioned it himself in his yearbook AND in public while giving speeches years ago.
3) He received stolen information about judicial nominations back in 2003 and then lied about it being stolen while under oath in 2006.
4) He lied about when he learned about Ramirez's accusations. He said he read about it when it made headlines in the New Yorker, but text messages prove he talked with friends about it prior to the news story.

Not to mention the other questionable shit he said, like that "boofing" meant farting, or that "Renate Alumnius" were just friends of hers, or that his "Ralph Club" comment was that he throws up when he eats spicy food. I mean come on.




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 05:00 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Transient wrote:
His testimony is public information, as are the interviews people gave which refuted his claims.


He said she said accounts don’t = facts. There are also people that support his claims. But in your OPINION he lied.

Transient wrote:
I'm sorry if you're too willfully ignorant to want to do a little research yourself, but I promise you the information is out there.


Calm down Tranicunt.

Transient wrote:
Here are a few off the top of my head which amount to perjury:


In your OPINION they’re perjury.

Transient wrote:
1) He said a Devil's Triangle was a drinking game with cups and quarters.


Webster lacks an accepted definition. But in your OPINION he lied.

Transient wrote:
2) He said he didn't drink excessively, but many people, including friends of his, have said that he was frequently drunk throughout college. He even mentioned it himself in his yearbook AND in public while giving speeches years ago.


Are you referring to the claim he made about never blacking out? Drinking frequently is different than drinking until you black out. Excessive is also relative, open to interpretation. There are also classmates that have made claims in favor of Kavanaugh, contrary to the ones you’re refencing. Since there are no videos, beer receipts, DUIs, etc. These aren’t facts. This is more he said she said. But in your OPINION he lied.

Transient wrote:
3) He received stolen information about judicial nominations back in 2003 and then lied about it being stolen while under oath in 2006.


His testimony was that he didn’t know the information was stolen. Since there is no way to prove otherwise his word carries as much weight as anyone else’s. But in your OPINION he lied.

Transient wrote:
4) He lied about when he learned about Ramirez's accusations. He said he read about it when it made headlines in the New Yorker, but text messages prove he talked with friends about it prior to the news story.


Every article I’ve read about this, the authors are carful to use phrase like “suggest Kavanaugh's team” and “imply Kavanaugh had been”. There was nothing openly accusing Kavanaugh of sending the text messages himself. But in your OPINION he lied.

Transient wrote:
Not to mention the other questionable shit he said, like that "boofing" meant farting, or that "Renate Alumnius" were just friends of hers, or that his "Ralph Club" comment was that he throws up when he eats spicy food. I mean come on.


More conjecture and speculation. Nothing provable. But again, in your OPINION he lied.

Hopefully by now you're beginning to understand how political bias and blind conviction can guide some people down the wrong path. The day we start convicting/penalizing people on hearsay is the day we've truly lost it all.

BLNT. :up:




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 05:45 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


YourGrandpa wrote:
Webster lacks an accepted definition.

LOL please.

YourGrandpa wrote:
Excessive is also relative, open to interpretation. There are also classmates that have made claims in favor of Kavanaugh, contrary to the ones you’re refencing. Since there are no videos, beer receipts, DUIs, etc. These aren’t facts.

As I said, he himself has admitted to his excessive drinking. He did it on tape in public years ago.

YourGrandpa wrote:
His testimony was that he didn’t know the information was stolen.

He denied even receiving the documents. He got caught in that lie, and then said he didn't know they were stolen. They were labeleled "not for distribution".

YourGrandpa wrote:
Every article I’ve read about this, the authors are carful to use phrase like “suggest Kavanaugh's team” and “imply Kavanaugh had been”. There was nothing openly accusing Kavanaugh of sending the text messages himself.

Sure, everyone but Kavanaugh himself was involved. These messages started months before he even had the nomination.

YourGrandpa wrote:
More conjecture and speculation. Nothing provable.

Hence why I used the phrase "not to mention". Do you not know how that figure of speech works?

YourGrandpa wrote:
Hopefully by now you're beginning to understand how political bias and blind conviction can guide some people down the wrong path. The day we start convicting/penalizing people on hearsay is the day we've truly lost it all.

I don't want to send him to jail or even take away his job. I just don't want to give him a promotion. Getting the job of Supreme Court Justice should be the highest bar possible for any job in the country. He lied under oath multiple times, gave evasive answers, and erupted in anger during his closing remarks. His final words were highly partisan and biased against Democrats and by his own standards from past statements, he doesn't meet his own standards.

If Democrats were so blind from their political bias, then why did Gorsuch's nomination go through without a fight?




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 06:06 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


In your OPINION he was lying...

Look, this was a last ditch effort by the Dems to delay the appointment. Nothing more, nothing less. This is blatantly obvious by the timing. The Dems knew they didn't have anything that would legally hold up in court. So they tried a hail Mary attempted rape accusation, in hopes the recent "me too" movement might give it more punch. But it didn't work out.

The Dems didn't have a problem with Kavanaugh personally or professionally. The Dems didn't care about the women's claims or how they were affected. All they cared about were the political ramifications. If you believe otherwise, you're foolish.




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 06:12 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Again, if they wanted to muck up the Supreme Court, why didn't they do this with Gorsuch?

Are you trying to tell me that the Dems colluded with Ford? She recounted her story to her husband and therapist over a decade ago. Ramirez also told her story prior to Kavanaugh's name being floated about. LOL talk about blind conviction.




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 06:41 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


The Kavanaugh appointment assured the SCOTUS would have conservative/republican majority. Especially considering Ruth G. (Dem) is 85 and Stephen B. (Dem) is 80. Both spots could come up for reappointment during this presidency.

Ford's story was inconsistent, contested, lacked corroboration and originally didn't identify Kavanaugh. Ramirez's claim of misconduct has also been refuted.

There's no PROOF. It's all hearsay. Should we listen? Sure. Should the information be used against him? Of course not. If Kavanaugh was a true sexual predator, wouldn't this behavior have continued later on in life?

Come on man, you're grasping at straws.




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 07:25 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Straws?

Four accusations ranging from sexual assault to rape. If it was just one and there was no corroboration, I'd leave it alone. But Ford documented her assault to multiple people. So did others who accused him of shit. And not every rapist continues to rape their entire life.

There were multiple instances of perjury, combative answers during hearings, refusal to answer questions, and noncommittal answers. He yelled and made multiple accusations against the Dems during closing statements, revealing his partisanship.

The ACLU opposed his nomination. Over 2,400 law professors from nearly 200 different firms signed a letter opposing him due to his lack of judicial restraint. Did you know there are actually statutes governing bias and recusal that say judges must step aside if they are at risk of being perceived as or of being unfair? A separate letter from over 900 female law professors asked the Senate to reject his nomination.

Straws?




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 07:42 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Rape was never on the table. Straw

Four what? College party fouls? Straw.

Ford's accounts changed and were refuted. Straw.

Your OPINIONS are based on circumstantial information. Straw.

You mean to tell me to tell me more people are coming forward with unfounded information in protest? Really big straw.




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-10-2018 08:54 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Yes, rape was one of the accusations. Try to keep up. It's really kinda disturbing that you consider these accusations to just be party fouls.

The ACLU and law professors' opposition isn't based on unfounded information, it's based on his lack of judicial restraint, which was made evident to the whole country during the public hearings.




Top
                 

Lead Pipe Mafia
Lead Pipe Mafia
Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Posts: 4905
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 03:32 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Don't forget the FBI "investigation" in which they didn't even question key witnesses. I mean, what excuses do you have there? It's painfully obvious it was done just to placate everyone. Nothing was actually investigated. Besides the rape allegations his temperament really doesn't appear to be that of a supreme court judge but hey, he likes beer.




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 04:42 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Transient wrote:
Yes, rape was one of the accusations. Try to keep up. It's really kinda disturbing that you consider these accusations to just be party fouls.

The ACLU and law professors' opposition isn't based on unfounded information, it's based on his lack of judicial restraint, which was made evident to the whole country during the public hearings.


Accuser Ford: Claimed attempted rape.
Accuser Ramirez: Claimed she was shown his penis.
Accuser Swetnick: Claimed she saw him standing in a line to have sex.
Accuser Anonymous: Claimed he pushed a woman sexually.

Where's the rape accusation?

Do you not find the timing of the ACLU's criticism/opposition a little suspect? Where were they in 2006?

We could keep going back and fourth discussing everyone OPINIONS of Kavanaugh. But that won't change the fact he's been appointed to the SCOTUS.




Top
                 

Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 42415
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 04:48 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


YourGrandpa wrote:
Accuser Ford: Claimed attempted rape.

Where's the rape accusation?


:paranoid:




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 05:26 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Because attempted rape is as much rape as attempted murder is murder. :tard:




Top
                 

Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 42415
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 06:21 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Oh, didn't know you'd gone in full IAAL mode.
Please continue.




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 06:31 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Just pointing out the obvious. No IAAL necessary.




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 09:39 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


YourGrandpa wrote:
Accuser Swetnick: Claimed she saw him standing in a line to have sex.

She accused him of drugging girls and gang rape.

YourGrandpa wrote:
Do you not find the timing of the ACLU's criticism/opposition a little suspect? Where were they in 2006?

He wasn't being nominated to the Supreme Court in 2006. :dork:




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 10:15 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


You're all in here on the selective presentation and interpretation of information.

Quote:
The allegation came from Julie Swetnick, 55, who like Judge Kavanaugh, 53, grew up in the Washington suburbs. In a statement posted on Twitter by her lawyer, Ms. Swetnick said she observed the future Supreme Court nominee at parties where women were verbally abused, inappropriately touched, made “disoriented” with alcohol or drugs and “gang raped.”

She said she witnessed Judge Kavanaugh participating in some of the misconduct, including lining up outside a bedroom where “numerous boys” were “waiting for their ‘turn’ with a girl inside the room.” Ms. Swetnick said she was raped at one of the parties and believed she had been drugged, but did not directly accuse Judge Kavanaugh of raping her.

None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview.


She never accused Kavanaugh directly of rape and as stated at the end, "none of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated"

But he was being appointed to a higher court in 2006. :tard:




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 02:42 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Yeah, he was in the rape line but decided to leave since he didn't want to commit a party foul. :rolleyes:




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 03:19 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


In your OPINION, of course.

I think by now it's pretty clear to you why they can't prosecute or remove Kavanaugh's appointment to SCOTUS. There really is nothing but hearsay or conjecture as evidence, all of which has been denied and contested. But you're so deep down the rabbit hole you'll never admit it.




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 03:37 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job. If you were applying for a job working at a bank and your boss found out 4 women had accused you of sexual assault, you bet your ass you wouldn't get the job. Why invite that kind of risk and liability in the off chance those 4 women were all conspiring together to screw you over? Especially if your response was to get angry and loud and refuse to answer questions directly. This guy's forever going to have an asterisk next to his name because more than half the country distrusts him; his confirmation has weakened the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and revealed its partisanship for everyone to see (not that it wasn't already partisan).




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 04:32 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Comparing a highly contentious SCOTUS appointment to the average Joe's job interview is ridiculous. It's also been established that these women's claims have changed over time, have been contested by multiple people and currently denied. There's never been any proof. Just 30+ year old drunken party stories that may or may not be true, to some degree. If I believed people were telling false stories about me and I stood the chance of losing a great job, you bet your ass I'd be noticeably angry.

If people just took things for face value and were incapable of being objective, they'd have an OPINION like yours. It's too bad for you that you feel this way. Because there's nothing you can do about it. Oh, and "revealed partisanship" in the SCOTUS? LOL. More ridiculousness.




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 06:57 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Wow, your ability to miss the point is impressive. The fact that SCOTUS is more important than some rando bank job is exactly my point. And I knew you'd make a comment about "revealed partisanship", which is precisely why I went back and edited my post to add the bit in parenthesis. But no, reading comprehension isn't your thing I suppose. :shrug:




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 07:43 PM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Why would you compare a SCOTUS appointment to a regular job if your point was they are completely different? :tard:

Why bring up revealing partisanship if you knew it made no sense? :tard:

More straws... :rolleyes:




Top
                 

Arrr?
Arrr?
Joined: 09 Feb 2001
Posts: 34467
PostPosted: 10-11-2018 09:04 PM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


:olo:




Top
                 

Cool #9
Cool #9
Joined: 01 Dec 2000
Posts: 42415
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 12:17 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Transient wrote:
He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job.


You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.




Top
                 

Digital Nausea
Digital Nausea
Joined: 10 Feb 2001
Posts: 23576
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 06:16 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


:dts:




Top
                 

Lead Pipe Mafia
Lead Pipe Mafia
Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Posts: 4905
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 06:40 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Eraser wrote:
Transient wrote:
He wasn't on trial, they don't need to prove anything. He was applying for a job.


You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.



More like full ostrich mode, head burying commence.




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 10:00 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Eraser wrote:
You're forgetting Gramps is in full lawyer mode right now.


Sorry referencing facts and verifiable information is so tasking for you. I know it's even tougher for the people who are emotionally invested. Their political bias guides their decision making process and blinds them to any information that detracts from the current party agenda. Poor saps...




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 10:05 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Κracus wrote:
More like full ostrich mode, head burying commence.


This from the guy who thinks he's created a better form of communism.

You should really try removing your head from your ass first.




Top
                 

Lead Pipe Mafia
Lead Pipe Mafia
Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Posts: 4905
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 10:06 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


Just so I'm hearing this right, you believe Kavanaugh is fit for the job based on everything you've witnessed?

So, none of the testimonies are relevant?

The obviously sabotaged fbi investigation doesn't raise any alarm bells for you?

His demeanor during the questioning doesn't seem odd to you and is what you expect a supreme court judge for life to behave like?

I just want to be sure I got it right that you feel all of those things are completely ok and that none of that seems odd to you?

Edit: Pot here's your kettle.




Top
                 

Blockheaded Blubberboy
Blockheaded Blubberboy
Joined: 16 Apr 2000
Posts: 20318
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 10:46 AM           Profile Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


I guess you're a little late to the party (probably the story of your life).

I've made my point above. I'm not doing it again for you.




Top
                 

Lead Pipe Mafia
Lead Pipe Mafia
Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Posts: 4905
PostPosted: 10-12-2018 11:18 AM           Profile   Send private message  E-mail  Edit post Reply with quote


You mean the parts where you just ignore those points and talk around them while denying any problems? Sorry that's not really making a point, that's more like avoiding one.




Top
                 
Quake3World.com | Forum Index | General Discussion


Post new topic Reply to topic


cron
Quake3World.com
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group