Lets see if we can keep this thread a little more civil.

I found this interview very interesting.  A lot of soft balls thrown at Trump, he explained his back pedalling on his more extreme issues as a lot of his claims as opening bids for negotiation purposes.  Which .. whatever .. I still think that those are insincere claims he used to get elected.

He does now come across way more presidential then he did prior to the election.  A lot of his noise, yelling, and rhetoric has been scaled back.

Do respect this one though:

Quote

 

Lesley Stahl: Are you gonna take the salary, the president’s salary?

Donald Trump: Well, I’ve never commented on this, but the answer is no. I think I have to by law take $1, so I’ll take $1 a year. But it’s a -- I don’t even know what it is.

Donald Trump: Do you know what the salary is?

Lesley Stahl: $400,000 you’re giving up.

Donald Trump: No, I’m not gonna take the salary. I’m not taking it.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-donald-trump-family-melania-ivanka-lesley-stahl/

Either junior is this stupid or it’s a vile attack on a victim. 

People with a fear of flying fly all the time. 

 

When fox has turned you know you’re in trouble 

 

1 minute ago, do or die said:

Reactions from Fox News....

Chris Wallace:

Judge Napolitano (a Trump favorite)

 

Wow... that's the state broadcaster?

 

Wait, my apologies... that is the news side of Fox... Let's wait until the opinion shift comes out. Two people I am looking forward to hearing from: Pirro and the Tuckster... I wonder what these two shills are going to say...

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

When fox has turned you know you’re in trouble 

 

Nah- that is the news side of fox, they are not the crazies... If you get the opinion side of fox to turn... that is a real breakthrough.

1 minute ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Wait, my apologies... that is the news side of Fox... Let's wait until the opinion shift comes out. Two people I am looking forward to hearing from: Pirro and the Tuckster... I wonder what these two shills are going to say...

They will talk about the Democrats. They will not talk about the validity of Ford's testimony. 

They will blame the prosecutor, and assert that she somehow bungled the proceedings.   Of course, if Senators on a Senatorial Committee would actually do their own job.........

ps.... Grassley and Graham still looked and sounded like "angry old white men"......

 

44 minutes ago, JCon said:

They will talk about the Democrats. They will not talk about the validity of Ford's testimony. 

More specifically... Hillary. Hillary is totally going to come up.

25 minutes ago, do or die said:

They will blame the prosecutor, and assert that she somehow bungled the proceedings.   Of course, if Senators on a Senatorial Committee would actually do their own job.........

ps.... Grassley and Graham still looked and sounded like "angry old white men"......

 

Cuz, they are? can't stand Grassley- ******* hate his face. Graham, I used to think was alright- not recently though... he sold his soul to the trump party too- he did hold out pretty long... but in the end- trmp.

 

 

WOw... 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking to reporters at a break, expressed his frustration with the allegations that have threatened to derail Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation and shared a warning, "Let me tell my democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees."

Here's his full remark:

Well let me put it this way to my Republican colleagues. If this becomes the new standard where you have an accusation for weeks, you drop it right before the hearing you withhold from the committee a chance to do this in a professional timely fashion. When they say they’re going to do this is to delay the vote get the senate back in 2018 so they can fill the seat. I don’t want to publicly reward that kind of behavior. I think we’ve been very fair. And to my Republican colleagues. If you can ignore everything in this record an allegation that’s 35 years old, that’s uncertain in time place date and no corroboration. If that’s enough for you , God help us all as Republicans. Because this happens to us, but this never happens to them. Let me tell my democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 20187 yr by wanna-b-fanboy

15 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

More specifically... Hillary. Hillary is totally going to come up.

Cuz, they are? can't stand Grassley- ******* hate his face. Graham, I used to think was alright- not recently though... he sold his soul to the trump party too- he did hold out pretty long... but in the end- trmp.

 

 

WOw... 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking to reporters at a break, expressed his frustration with the allegations that have threatened to derail Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation and shared a warning, "Let me tell my democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees."

Here's his full remark:

Well let me put it this way to my Republican colleagues. If this becomes the new standard where you have an accusation for weeks, you drop it right before the hearing you withhold from the committee a chance to do this in a professional timely fashion. When they say they’re going to do this is to delay the vote get the senate back in 2018 so they can fill the seat. I don’t want to publicly reward that kind of behavior. I think we’ve been very fair. And to my Republican colleagues. If you can ignore everything in this record an allegation that’s 35 years old, that’s uncertain in time place date and no corroboration. If that’s enough for you , God help us all as Republicans. Because this happens to us, but this never happens to them. Let me tell my democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees.

 

 

 

 

Thats totally unbelievable.  They can be critical of Sen. Feinstein if they want to.  But they have refused an FBI investigation.  By the way, as I read, the Anita Hill FBI investigation took three days, so had they called for this last week, it could have been done by now.  Regardless of Dr Ford, there are 4 other allegations, multiple witnesses etc.

He's more concerned with NOT getting his nominee than he is with the truth.  He sees this as fake and a con and that Dr Ford is a liar.  He's a creep.

Hmm, tough call, could go either way. The more recent allegations coming out against Kavanaugh make the guy look like a real creep. 

Re: the Graham comment, if you can ignore everything in this record an allegation that’s 35 years old, that’s uncertain in time place date and no corroboration. If that’s enough for you , God help us all as Republicans.

That should be concerning to everyone. 

21 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, speaking to reporters at a break, expressed his frustration with the allegations that have threatened to derail Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation and shared a warning, "Let me tell my democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees."

Here's his full remark:

Well let me put it this way to my Republican colleagues. If this becomes the new standard where you have an accusation for weeks, you drop it right before the hearing you withhold from the committee a chance to do this in a professional timely fashion. When they say they’re going to do this is to delay the vote get the senate back in 2018 so they can fill the seat. I don’t want to publicly reward that kind of behavior. I think we’ve been very fair. And to my Republican colleagues. If you can ignore everything in this record an allegation that’s 35 years old, that’s uncertain in time place date and no corroboration. If that’s enough for you , God help us all as Republicans. Because this happens to us, but this never happens to them. Let me tell my democratic friends, if this is the new norm, you better watch out for your nominees.

 

 

 

 

Didn't Graham lead the call for Clinton to be impeached over sexual misconduct? 

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

Hmm, tough call, could go either way. The more recent allegations coming out against Kavanaugh make the guy look like a real creep. 

Re: the Graham comment, if you can ignore everything in this record an allegation that’s 35 years old, that’s uncertain in time place date and no corroboration. If that’s enough for you , God help us all as Republicans.

That should be concerning to everyone. 

I think all the allegations, including Dr Ford's make him look really really bad.   But clearly the Senators didnt want anyone else in hearing because they want to frame it exactly as Graham said...(and as Trump said), random allegation from 35 years ago ruins a good man.  Thats the narrative.  Multiple allegations and some more recent, ruin the narrative.

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Didn't Graham lead the call for Clinton to be impeached over sexual misconduct? 

Ummm yeah...thats a totally wild statement considering not just Bill Clinton but their attacks on Hilary when she was running for President.  And maybe...maybe...he should consider what it means when he says it happens to "them".  Its entirely untrue that only Conservatives have been accused of sex crimes.  He's nuts.  They confirmed Trump's first nominee without this...

He's basically threatening to create false allegations against Democratic nominees..

 

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think all the allegations, including Dr Ford's make him look really really bad.   But clearly the Senators didnt want anyone else in hearing because they want to frame it exactly as Graham said...(and as Trump said), random allegation from 35 years ago ruins a good man.  Thats the narrative.  Multiple allegations and some more recent, ruin the narrative.

Yup- hence no FBI investigation, no subpoenaing of Mark Judge. That is just the first allegation too...

 

it's kind of scary when republicans want to ram through a SCOTUS pick even though that an accuser of his can have the moniker of "Original" Accuser.  

Well, they could of taken statements from Ms. Ramirez and Ms.Swetwick, or subpoenaed/questioned Judge, the polygraph examiner, or any of the potential witnesses.   With this Senate Committee not being able to bring themselves to do any of that, and not having the balls to simply ask their own questions - bottom line, the FBI could of handled all of that.  But an actual investigation was simply not part of the this particular agenda, in any way shape or form.  Nor was any delay in the confirmation process.

3 women publicly stepping forward, who are willing to do lie detection, and testify.....against a Supreme Court nominee, for various forms of sexual misconduct?   Why would anyone want to take a closer look at that?  

Nah, lets vote.

 

Just now, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Yup- hence no FBI investigation, no subpoenaing of Mark Judge. That is just the first allegation too...

 

it's kind of scary when republicans want to ram through a SCOTUS pick even though that an accuser of his can have the moniker of "Original" Accuser.  

The impression I get is, the Republican's really dont care.   They aren't moved by Dr Ford's testimony.  You can truly imagine them in a room saying "so what if he did these things?  It was a long time ago, he was drunk, he was like every other young man...so what??"  Like they dont care.  If they watched a video of him doing it, it wouldnt matter to them.  They accept he did it.  Their public narrative is he didnt do it.  But they know the truth.  They just dont care.

2 minutes ago, do or die said:

Well, they could of taken statements from Ms. Ramirez and Ms.Swetwick, or subpoenaed/questioned Judge, the polygraph examiner, or any of the potential witnesses.   With this Senate Committee not being able to bring themselves to do any of that, and not having the balls to simply ask their own questions - bottom line, the FBI could of handled all of that.  But an actual investigation was simply not part of the this particular agenda, in any way shape or form.  Nor was any delay in the confirmation process.

3 women publicly stepping forward, who are willing to do lie detection, and testify.....against a Supreme Court nominee, for various forms of sexual misconduct?   Why would anyone want to take a closer look at that?  

Nah, lets vote.

 

And the Sens. create an environment designed to chill other women and witnesses from coming forward.  Its a circus.  The President of the United States will publicly call you a liar and a conman.  Dont come forward.  If you're a witness....why would you?   But the FBI knocking on your door?  That's totally different.  You have to tell them the truth.  This screams for a real investigation and the ONLY reason the GOP wouldnt want that is because they know the truth.  If they believed it was a con, they'd be demanding these liars be thrown in prison.

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The impression I get is, the Republican's really dont care.   They aren't moved by Dr Ford's testimony.  You can truly imagine them in a room saying "so what if he did these things?  It was a long time ago, he was drunk, he was like every other young man...so what??"  Like they dont care.  If they watched a video of him doing it, it wouldnt matter to them.  They accept he did it.  Their public narrative is he didnt do it.  But they know the truth.  They just dont care.

I don't think they care if Kav did it. Boys being boys. Nothingburger. 

I find it interesting they questioned Dr Ford on the polygraph.  Someone noted online how interesting it is that they want to know who paid for the test but they dont seem interested who suddenly paid off Kav's $200,000 debt before his nomination.  Who cares who paid for the poly.   The results matter...and to a degree they dont.  Its inadmissible.  Will Kav take one?

If they dont want to question Judge, that tells you everything.  

😮

 

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I find it interesting they questioned Dr Ford on the polygraph.  Someone noted online how interesting it is that they want to know who paid for the test but they dont seem interested who suddenly paid off Kav's $200,000 debt before his nomination.  Who cares who paid for the poly.   The results matter...and to a degree they dont.  Its inadmissible.  Will Kav take one?

If they dont want to question Judge, that tells you everything.  

I guess they were hoping she would say, "George Soros". 

Just now, JCon said:

I guess they were hoping she would say, "George Soros". 

And as I just read online, her lawyers said they paid for it.  I imagine its fairly standard as part of your over-all legal fee arrangement.  She'd be billed for it.  OR, it was due diligence on the part of the law firm to test her credibility.  Many lawyers have done that.

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but isnt the choice of SCOTUS nominee meant to be confirmed by Senate as a check on the power of the President?  So this idea that Trump can pick anyone he wants and the Dems are evil for not just going along with it rings hollow.  The whole point of selecting someone that is agreeable to the majority of the Senate is to avoid appointing a radical or someone of undeserving character.  You dont get your pick guaranteed.  

And if the GOP felt that way, they broke their own rules by blocking Obama's pick.

23 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

And the Sens. create an environment designed to chill other women and witnesses from coming forward.  Its a circus.  The President of the United States will publicly call you a liar and a conman.  Dont come forward.  If you're a witness....why would you?   But the FBI knocking on your door?  That's totally different.  You have to tell them the truth.  This screams for a real investigation and the ONLY reason the GOP wouldnt want that is because they know the truth.  If they believed it was a con, they'd be demanding these liars be thrown in prison.

...and Grassley, Graham, and McConnell would be leading the charge

the only way Graham's angry statements about feeling betrayed make any sense is that he's really angry after listening to Dr Ford because she was credible and he knows it to be true.  He cant still be this angry after this long over it coming out publicly.  He's angry because he expected his prosecuter to rip Dr Ford to shreds and now he has a big problem.

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

And as I just read online, her lawyers said they paid for it.  I imagine its fairly standard as part of your over-all legal fee arrangement.  She'd be billed for it.  OR, it was due diligence on the part of the law firm to test her credibility.  Many lawyers have done that.

Someone correct me if Im wrong, but isnt the choice of SCOTUS nominee meant to be confirmed by Senate as a check on the power of the President?  So this idea that Trump can pick anyone he wants and the Dems are evil for not just going along with it rings hollow.  The whole point of selecting someone that is agreeable to the majority of the Senate is to avoid appointing a radical or someone of undeserving character.  You dont get your pick guaranteed.  

And if the GOP felt that way, they broke their own rules by blocking Obama's pick.

They're doing it pro-bono. I laughed when I read that! Silly Senators, they should know the answers to the questions before they ask.