17 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

sanity prevailed? hardly

 

Lol....cherry-picked the afterthought in the very last sentence. Guess the rest of the post was just waffle then. Not bad really, one of the best examples of a la carte choosing of what to comment on from a post I've seen for a while.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Kavanaugh was not ‘found innocent’.

 

The FBI did not conduct an ‘investigation’, they undertook an additional background check, the White House set the terms and limitations of that ‘background check’.

 

The many allegations against Kavanaugh (sexual assault, perjury, financial and tax crimes) have not been investigated by the FBI.

 

Well not yet anyway.

Now this some pure fiction here. You can't back up any of this.

What a shame for The USA.

Under Trump America is going

 

down

                 down     

                                  down.

Another Scumbag sits on bench for 30 years <deleted>

Well, I hope I'm not brought in front of a court of law, for an ass I might have pinched when I was in my teens.  To be accused of being some sort of miscreant, sexual predator, or rapist, based on a 20-30-40 yr memory of a woman feeling scorned by life, will have courts/media brimming with juicy accusations and filings.  Not that they want any money, fame or media attention, purely seeking social justice of course.

I just read the following article, very interesting.

And I think it's interesting for both sides to understand each other's views.

 

Why do Democrats and Republicans see Kavanaugh in such different ways?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/democrats-republicans-kavanaugh-polarization

 

5 hours ago, Rigby40 said:

What a great day!!

Lefties were so sure of themselves this time, just like they were in 2016 hehe

 

Other than in your imagination and troll posts, I don't think the wide-brush about those on the left were "so sure of themselves". Some were, for sure, but most realistic commentary was pretty much in line with how things unfolded - as in Kavanaugh bound to be confirmed regardless of anything.

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I just read the following article, very interesting.

And I think it's interesting for both sides to understand each other's views.

 

Why do Democrats and Republicans see Kavanaugh in such different ways?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/democrats-republicans-kavanaugh-polarization

 

Republicans want someone that will interpret the laws as written using the constitution and precedence as a guide, Democrats want a judge that will bend the law (as it was written) to render rulings that suit their beliefs. Democrats believe that the constitution is an obsolete document and they want judges that feel the same. The Democrats know that the balance of the US Supreme Court has just shifted to the right for the next 20-30 plus years, and that is why they fought with dirty tactics and false allegations from the very beginning.

3 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

No candidate put forth by President Trump will ever be "Unquestioned".

 

Oh, Trump's a victim now? Cry me a river. Don't recall that many issues with his previous candidate, or that the Republicans were particularly forthcoming about acceptance of candidates by the "other side". You're welcome to try and paint this as a one-sided issue.

27 minutes ago, CanuckThai said:

Well, I hope I'm not brought in front of a court of law, for an ass I might have pinched when I was in my teens.  To be accused of being some sort of miscreant, sexual predator, or rapist, based on a 20-30-40 yr memory of a woman feeling scorned by life, will have courts/media brimming with juicy accusations and filings.  Not that they want any money, fame or media attention, purely seeking social justice of course.

 

I doubt you'll ever be considered as a candidate for a life-time appointment to the US Supreme Court. If you feel that the same standards ought to apply, guess we'll have to disagree.

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I just read the following article, very interesting.

And I think it's interesting for both sides to understand each other's views.

 

Why do Democrats and Republicans see Kavanaugh in such different ways?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/06/democrats-republicans-kavanaugh-polarization

 

Republicans want someone that will interpret the laws as written using the constitution and precedence as a guide, Democrats want a judge that will bend the law (as it was written) to render rulings that suit their beliefs. Democrats believe that the constitution is an obsolete document and they want judges that feel the same. The Democrats know that the balance of the US Supreme Court has just shifted to the right for the next 20-30 plus years, and that is why they fought with dirty tactics and false allegations from the very beginning.

Did you read the article which I linked in my post?

Because what you write has nothing to do with that article. Maybe you should read it to open your mind.

32 minutes ago, CanuckThai said:

Well, I hope I'm not brought in front of a court of law, for an ass I might have pinched when I was in my teens.  To be accused of being some sort of miscreant, sexual predator, or rapist, based on a 20-30-40 yr memory of a woman feeling scorned by life, will have courts/media brimming with juicy accusations and filings.  Not that they want any money, fame or media attention, purely seeking social justice of course.

I think this is not so much about his behavior from 30+ years ago but about telling the truth now.

I am sure lots of us got drunk when we were teenagers and lots of us tried to kiss a girl or two who didn't want that.

I think if Kavanaugh had admitted that yes, he got drunk when he was young, and he did not always behave 100% correct then lots of people would have accepted this.

But that is not what Kavanaugh did. He said under oath that he never ever drunk too much and he never had a blackout. Is that realistic? I am pretty sure if the FBI would have investigated that part they would have found witnesses who saw him drunk.

Is it a problem that he was sometimes drunk when he was young: No.

Is it a problem that now he lied about that: Yes!

36 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Lol....cherry-picked the afterthought in the very last sentence. Guess the rest of the post was just waffle then. Not bad really, one of the best examples of a la carte choosing of what to comment on from a post I've seen for a while.

weird comment.

 

do you mean that I should have asked you if I may comment? and if yes, on which parts?

 

guess your post, by and large, was ok, except a faulty conclusion in my view.

however, 3 shortcomings in your post;

 

you talk about ruining a man's life, big words

he is now on SC, with a ruined life?

had he been dumped by the Hill, ruined life?

 

you say obviously no evidence,

this you know zilch about, absolutely zilch

maybe there is evidence somewhere, maybe there is not

to conclude on that an investigation (not background check) would have to be carried out

 

you waffle about innocent/guilty until proven guilty/innocent,

the new legal standard in US since midget-Bush and 9/11 is guilty until proven innocent

that is how the legal system in US is treating people they don't like

and to be on the safe side they add on torture

for evidence - just look to Cuba

so holding the guilty flag high is just following expressed US presidential preference

 

 

"Wins" is the right word, ' cause he sure as #@&* didn' t earn it!

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

31 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Did you read the article which I linked in my post?

Because what you write has nothing to do with that article. Maybe you should read it to open your mind.

I read it, it was dribble.

 

38 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I think this is not so much about his behavior from 30+ years ago but about telling the truth now.

I am sure lots of us got drunk when we were teenagers and lots of us tried to kiss a girl or two who didn't want that.

I think if Kavanaugh had admitted that yes, he got drunk when he was young, and he did not always behave 100% correct then lots of people would have accepted this.

But that is not what Kavanaugh did. He said under oath that he never ever drunk too much and he never had a blackout. Is that realistic? I am pretty sure if the FBI would have investigated that part they would have found witnesses who saw him drunk.

Is it a problem that he was sometimes drunk when he was young: No.

Is it a problem that now he lied about that: Yes!

I have no argument, with what you wrote.  Unfortunately the States, with their polarized political, religious and ultra liberal (or do gooder) fanatics, their would be no acceptable "wai".  Only podium chest beating...

What most people are missing is: who paid/organized to mount the initial attack?  The cost to finance this might have been in the millions of $ (lawyers, researchers, paid informants, grease the wheels etc)

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

It is not the duty of the FBI to investigate this and the woman should have gone to the police where it was said to have happened. Secondly, this trial by the press plus general social media mob along with being labeled guilty until proven innocent is ridiculous (and dangerous), especially when it is overflowing with such hate filled and agenda driven political partisans. Historical sex allegations like this from like over 20 years ago are simply not tenable imo as how can you defend yourself against them and there is obviously no evidence...just your word against theirs. However, it has become fashionable for people to be victims now and also seems perfectly OK to ruin a man's whole life over an allegation that can't be proven or stand up to any real scrutiny and could even be construed as slanderous really. You can't just say "J'accuse..." about so long ago and not be able to back it up, not OK as the consequences can be serious (as we have seen here). This man has rights too and deserves his due protection from the baying mob. Fortunately sanity has prevailed

The appointment was political, the protests online and in the flesh together with news report and wide public discourse are all evidence of the thriving democracy Trump is trying to destroy.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The appointment was pilitical, the protests online and in the flesh together with news report and wide public discourse are all evidence of the thriving democracy Trump is trying to destroy.

The liberal screeching and bleating was also 'political'. It is ALL political. The Dems and their 'spartacus moments' were a joke. The Reps and their moral high ground were a joke too. It is ALL a con and only about power.

AWESOME NEWS 

The Dems really showed their true colors and energized the Republicans for the mid terms 

Cant let complete liberal  idiots win the mid terms 

Posts containing links to non-credible sources have been removed as well as the replies. 

5 hours ago, Thailand said:

A win for Trump, a job for life for K and a family and friends who will not quite believe him in the future, the damage is done.

 

Politics stink do they not?

lol... a proper investigation, vs limited questioning of limited cherry picked witnesses, may have changed that reality.

 

whom so ever decided and agreed to limit the scope of the “investigation” is largely responsible for any lasting damage, as we will never know the truth, as it was not sought, whilst the senate majority rammed their nominee forward

 

regardless of that, it’s the legacy of this decision, made along extreme partisan lines which divided a nation, that will haunt the citizens of the United States for years to come.

 

Politically, for anti trumpists, this is a great result. 

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I read it, it was dribble.

 

 

I see, largely on par with your posts then.

 

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I read it, it was dribble.

It seems you didn't understand it. Are you by any chance a Trump supporter?

5 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

How do you know it was limited? How do you know Ms. Fords attorneys didnt stop her from talking to the FBI for obvious reasons?

Hey, let's start coming up with unsupported suppositions and claim them as what? Potential facts? Factoins? Nonsense.

5 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Ummm....under statute, dating back to English Common Law, Corporations (or Juristic Persons as they are known here) are "Artificial Persons" (See Blackstone, for Example).

 

If you want to limit corporate rights as persons you must proceed accordingly, not by judicial fiat.

 

So how can Corporate rights be a creation of Modern Conservatism if they date back more than a hundred years.

 

Legislatures have their jobs. Courts have theirs. Do you want your rights circumscribed by the "Wise Latina" flavour of the day?

Corporations had some right. The conservative Supreme court expanded those rights bigly including giving some corporations permission to discriminate on the grounds of religion. I can't say I attend church much, but I've never seen a corporation in one.

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

No candidate put forth by President Trump will ever be "Unquestioned".

Because those candidates put forth by Democratic presidents do go "unquestioned". Did you really mean that seriously?

59 minutes ago, CanuckThai said:

I have no argument, with what you wrote.  Unfortunately the States, with their polarized political, religious and ultra liberal (or do gooder) fanatics, their would be no acceptable "wai".  Only podium chest beating...

What most people are missing is: who paid/organized to mount the initial attack?  The cost to finance this might have been in the millions of $ (lawyers, researchers, paid informants, grease the wheels etc)

Bizarre to see someone trying to pass themselves off as reasonable and then invoke a conspiracy theory.

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Bizarre to see someone trying to pass themselves off as reasonable and then invoke a conspiracy theory.

...the question of who paid was rhetorical 

37 minutes ago, CanuckThai said:

...the question of who paid was rhetorical 

You're right. It was rhetorical in the sense that it wasn't really a question at all but an accusation.

In America there is an unalienable right to innocence until proven quilty and is known as the adversarial form of justice. In Europe as I'm sure in Thailand its called the Inquisitorial (INQUISITION) form of justice, quilty first and prove innocence later. Like what occurred in the dark ages of Europe looking for witches. Justice Kavanaugh congratulations!