Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blotsfan

Trump Regime thread.

Recommended Posts

Kavanugh is confirmed in the Senate 50 - 48. Steve Daines was at his daughters wedding so Lisa Murkowski agreed to vote "present".

Edited by DalaiLama4Ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Blots meltdown incoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Dems now have a chance to take back the Senate in November. Before this sham of an appointment, I would have said no way at all, but you have fired up everyone who may otherwise have sat at home. 

Bware, I really wish you would quit with the Trump admin's policies of acting like suing the media for defamation is something we should be encouraging. To your other point about Swetnik's allegations though, I do agree that it seemed to help Kavanaugh, and several democrats are pointing that out now. That said, they were never shown to be false or shown to be anything at all, since they weren't looked into at all. 

Also I completely agree with OSU on this one- neither political party gives a shit about the morals of this case, merely the fact that it gives conservatives the majority, which the GOP likes and the Dems hate. I also agree that Kavanaugh probably did what Ford claims- and Ramirez for that matter- as what she has gone through is just not something a sane person would do. But the GOP was never going to actually investigate, because they are scared to death they will lose the Senate in November and thus possibly not get a solid conservative majority.

Kavanaugh, to me, disqualified himself by his partisan attacks during the hearings-regardless of the sexual assault accusations being true or not- as well as a multitude of small lies over insignificant details. Serial liars do not belong on the Supreme Court, nor do obviously biased judges. 

One thing though, the GOPers crowing this means the end of Roe v Wade are, I think, assuming John Roberts will vote for that. I really don't think he would. But we will certainly find out, because I guarantee you there is an abortion challenge coming in the lower courts any minute now.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is can Kavanaugh be charged for perjury? He just got confirmed but is he protected from charges on things he did before he got his seat?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont want to hear anyone defend the second amendment again if they aren't shooting republicans. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

My question is can Kavanaugh be charged for perjury? He just got confirmed but is he protected from charges on things he did before he got his seat?

 

Not to my knowledge, no.

Also blots lighten up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Thanatos said:

Also blots lighten up. 

People always say the point of it is to take down the government if it becomes tyrannical and that makes all the stupid, preventable deaths from guns worth it. Well now is their shot to prove it. 

Edited by blotsfan
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blotsfan said:

People always say the point of it is to take down the government if it becomes tyrannical and that makes all the stupid, preventable deaths from guns worth it. Well now is their shot to prove it. 

I mean... Kavanaugh was heavily involved in creating the Patriot Act. His views on the justice system are unconstitutional and authoritarian. Isn't that the definition of Tyranny? What's wrong with what, blots is saying? Maybe he was being somewhat hyperbolic with his first statement but he's not wrong? If you want to keep your guns to protect your rights, you should start organizing your militias to march on Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

I mean... Kavanaugh was heavily involved in creating the Patriot Act. His views on the justice system are unconstitutional and authoritarian. Isn't that the definition of Tyranny? What's wrong with what, blots is saying? Maybe he was being somewhat hyperbolic with his first statement but he's not wrong? If you want to keep your guns to protect your rights, you should start organizing your militias to march on Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court building.

 

So Kavanaugh has not been assigned to the bench yet how the fuck do we even know what he is going to do. He has already said he is ok with keeping Roe V Wade around, and we are condemning him for doing what literally every politician in the country has done. The patriot act passed by a huge margin when it was introduced then Democrats hated it. Then Obama came in and expanded it, and the Democrats say," Well, I have nothing to hide" lol. Fucking please, this happens by every administration by both parties. Should we have killed all of them? There would be nobody left lol. Now I am not going to say I would cry if it happened but with Blots whining about Republicans is asinine. You dont want this to happen, run someone better then Clinton so we dont end up with Donald fucking trumps you bunch of pussy-ass" Im with her" cunts. This is literally everyone's fault so instead of shooting one group why not shoot both. Oh thats right, in true blots fashion, dont get your hands dirty, have someone else do the killing, but only when you ok it lol.

Dont encourage this dumbass whiny shit. he and his party lost, period. If the shoe was on the other foot he would not be crying foull and throwing his little tantrums. As fun as they are, I might add.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care what he would be saying about a democratic nomination. What he's saying about this particular topic I agree with him or at least what he said about Kavanaugh being the exact kind of Tyranny you should be raising up arms against. I think we do know how he will rule. He has a clear history of his record as a judge and what he has written and said. He also now clearly has it out for Democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

I don't care what he would be saying about a democratic nomination. What he's saying about this particular topic I agree with him or at least what he said about Kavanaugh being the exact kind of Tyranny you should be raising up arms against. I think we do know how he will rule. He has a clear history of his record as a judge and what he has written and said. He also now clearly has it out for Democrats. 

What specifically. What decisions what rulings, what oral arguments. It is easy to say you know the facts, but listening to Rachel Maddow isnt that. So what specifically against his record is there ?

And Tyrrany? How so specifically, you are kind of prone to hyperbole yourself, so again how is this tyranny specifically?

And why should he not have it out for them, they had it out for them. And dont act like others are impartial or we would not be talking about the balance of power shifting, because that implies we know all the judges there are biased.

 

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to Rachel Maddow? You think I listen to Rachel Maddow? Oh boy, I read about his record on the DC circuit Court on scotus blog actually, bud. And he lied about his involvement and some of the documents he saw in regards to the Patriot Act. I don't have to give you a bibliography, homes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

Listening to Rachel Maddow? You think I listen to Rachel Maddow? Oh boy, I read about his record on the DC circuit Court on scotus blog actually, bud. And he lied about his involvement and some of the documents he saw in regards to the Patriot Act. I don't have to give you a bibliography, homes

If you want to be taken serious you do. You are the one making a claim he is harmful to civil rights, the country as a whole, and that his voting record is harmful. You read about his record but dont offer proofs or specifics of your claim, you just say,"I read a blog". That is proof of nothing other than you read a blog. You say you dont have to prove it, but I am not the one making a claim that he is terrible/great, you are. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

If you can't or won't that is fine, just dont claim them as facts.

Edited by Omerta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blots: Kavanaugh's pissy mood makes him unfit for the SCOTUS

Also Blots: Murder is justice. Kill them all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I find it hilarious that people where upset about his demeanor during the hearing. If he had been quiet and unemotional they'd have complained about that, too. Some even claimed he was yelling. Apparently we have redefined what yelling is, folks.

Also the puritanical questioning about how much he drank when he was young. Sorry, liberals, but you oppose morality at almost every turn. Can't backpedal now. If you want to know if he ever drank enough to have forgotten some of his actions, just assume he did because most people experience that when young. Such decisions in his teenage years and twenties aren't disqualifying. Obviously we're concerned about what he might have done during those moments. Problem is, without evidence, it's not disqualifying.

It's too late now. Hang him from the tallest tree if he misbehaves at any point. If not, hope for a better nominee next time around.

Why didn't Trump just nominate Barrett like he wanted to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BwareDWare94 said:

Yeah I find it hilarious that people where upset about his demeanor during the hearing. If he had been quiet and unemotional they'd have complained about that, too. Some even claimed he was yelling. Apparently we have redefined what yelling is, folks.

Also the puritanical questioning about how much he drank when he was young. Sorry, liberals, but you oppose morality at almost every turn. Can't backpedal now. If you want to know if he ever drank enough to have forgotten some of his actions, just assume he did because most people experience that when young. Such decisions in his teenage years and twenties aren't disqualifying. Obviously we're concerned about what he might have done during those moments. Problem is, without evidence, it's not disqualifying.

It's too late now. Hang him from the tallest tree if he misbehaves at any point. If not, hope for a better nominee next time around.

Why didn't Trump just nominate Barrett like he wanted to?

Liberals oppose morality at every turn. Riiiight. Tell us more Faux News facts please.

1. If he wasn't yelling, he was talking in a very elevated tone that clearly was because he was angry at certain people. Understandable, given the circumstances, but its still a valid point to raise, because it sure seemed partisan in nature. Not something you want in an SC judge.

2. No one cared about his drinking purely as it related to his drinking. We cared about it because he claimed he never was black out drunk. Your argument is classic moving the goalposts. It was Kavanaugh who claimed he never was black out drunk and therefore what Ford claimed could not have happened while he was blackout drunk. 

3. Kavanaugh's yearbook and calendar- items HE introduced- clearly contradict this notion, along with his friend Mark Judge saying it was a common occurrence for Judge to stumble into work drunk, contrary to Kavanaugh's claim that they never drank on weekdays, and therefore he would not have been drinking at the party where the event is alleged to have occurred. 

4. Even if you insist that we need to be able to convict him like in a court of law- which absolutely no one is arguing can be done- and ignore the fact that the SC are supposed to be the best of the best, and therefore serious credible allegations from a woman with zero reason to lie is absolutely enough to keep him off the Court: even if you ignore all that, the 100% absolute fact is that he lied multiple times during his hearings.

Devil's Triangle is absolutely not a drinking game. You know it, we know it, anyone who has ever been on the internet knows it. Hell, the GOP knows it, that's why they edited the Wikipedia page for Devil's triangle right after the hearings to add in "a popular drinking game enjoyed by Judge Kavanaugh and his friends." (They seriously did, wiki registered an IP address registered to a congressional person as being responsible for the edit mere hours after he made that claim. Which I find hilarious.) Is it disqualifying that he had a threesome with a guy and another girl? No, absolutely not. But it is when he straight up lies about it. You can fucking see him think up an explanation on the spot when that question is asked. 

Boofing is not flatulence. It's putting alcohol up your ass for some ungodly reason. It doesn't even make sense in the context of the quote. The quote is asking people whether they have tried boofing yet. What? So he was asking people whether or not they have tried farting yet? As a senior in highschool? Come on, man.

Calling a girl an alumnus of a highschool football team is not saying she was friends with all of them, it's saying she was easy. As in sexual conquest easy. As in, Brett Kavanaugh, the man who claims to have been a virgin well past his college years, had sex with her. Another lie.

Seniors were not legal to drink in Maryland. Kavanaugh turned 18 seven months after the law passed that raised the drinking age to 21, and only teens who were 18 at the time the law passed were eligible to drink. Again, underage drinking, not a big deal to most of America, I would wager, but it is a problem when he lied and continues to lie about it.

If Kavanaugh, during the hearings, addressed all of this by saying "I was immature as a teenager and a young adult, and yes, I did things that were stupid in hindsight." That's it! That's the end of the damn story! I mean, besides the two credible allegations from women with nothing to gain, but hey, at least he wouldn't be a serial liar.

The whole entire point of people attacking him on these issues is because Kavanaugh lied. Many many times. Which is not surprising given that the man who nominated him lies with every other sentence out of his mouth. But its not a quality you want in a SC justice, liberal or conservative.

Edited by Thanatos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DalaiLama4Ever said:

Blots: Kavanaugh's pissy mood makes him unfit for the SCOTUS

Also Blots: Murder is justice. Kill them all.

He didn't really say that though. Also, blots is not being nominated and confirmed for the Supreme Court.

 

3 hours ago, Omerta said:

If you want to be taken serious you do. You are the one making a claim he is harmful to civil rights, the country as a whole, and that his voting record is harmful. You read about his record but dont offer proofs or specifics of your claim, you just say,"I read a blog". That is proof of nothing other than you read a blog. You say you dont have to prove it, but I am not the one making a claim that he is terrible/great, you are. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim.

If you can't or won't that is fine, just dont claim them as facts.

I thought the GPS tracking and stop and frisk case (Askew) were well documented. Again, the guy has a well documented history of supporting a police state. JD already posted about how he's connected with the Bush's. How about you tell me how I'm wrong? What's his record? Weren't you just arguing that all politicians were pieces of shit like 5 posts ago?

Edited by seanbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, seanbrock said:

He didn't really say that though

 

I thought the GPS tracking and stop and frisk case (Askew). Again, the guy has a well documented history of supporting a police state. JD already posted about how he's connected with the Bush's. How about you tell me how I'm wrong? What's his record? Weren't you just arguing that all politicians were pieces of shit like 5 posts ago?

He has a documented history of supporting Constitutional textualism and executive power.

 

He is not a politician, he is a judge.

I'm not the one making a claim he will kill the bill of Rights, that is you. I never really put a claim it there like that, thus I have to prove nothing. That is you, at least in the sense of making a factual statement. Face it dude, you used hyperbole and got called, and then tried to deflect twice. First with, " I read a blog" which isn't proof. Then with deflection making me prove or disprove a claim YOU made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, he didn't literally say that. What I gave him credit for saying was a lot milder than what he actually said. lol. 

And yes, Kavanaugh is deep in the Bush circle, just the way it is. Doesn't matter as much, but his wife is a former Bush secretary even, lol. It's not surprising to see the chain of events that led up to this point. Kavanaugh as a lawyer, gets hired onto Baby Bush's team to try and stop the recount in Florida... Bush appoints him staff secretary... Bush puts him on the DC circuit court... Bush calls Susan Collins multiple times to tell her how awesome he is.

Not saying he is the only one... But he is very clearly playing the "game" of politics, and pretty well.

I think his impact is TBD, but I would have preferred someone else take the seat of Anthony Kennedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Omerta said:

He has a documented history of supporting Constitutional textualism and executive power.

 

He is not a politician, he is a judge.

I'm not the one making a claim he will kill the bill of Rights, that is you. I never really put a claim it there like that, thus I have to prove nothing. That is you, at least in the sense of making a factual statement. Face it dude, you used hyperbole and got called, and then tried to deflect twice. First with, " I read a blog" which isn't proof. Then with deflection making me prove or disprove a claim YOU made.

I said it was a combination of his circle, his history with the Patriot Act AND his record in the DC circuit Court. It's not going to happen tomorrow but this guy has a life time seat on the highest court in the country. He could be there for 40 years. Do you know what the Patriot Act is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the first time a mainstream politician hasn't talked about this? Because I can't think of a time in recent memory. It's so unlikely to happen anytime soon, but shes 100% right. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are we replacing it with? I don't believe simple popular vote is the best solution either. I'd personally like to see ranked choice voting at all levels of government. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranked choice and the popular vote aren't mutually exclusive. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×