Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree80Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 10th, 2018, 06:49 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 23,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Yes.. he was Travel Gate (of which he had to pay damages to the Employees he fired without cause)

Yes For Violations of Sunshine laws by his Healthcare Commission of which he had to disband because of the violation of the law.

For Lying under oath (of which he pleaded guilty) on January 21,2001
Suborning Perjury (of which he pleaded Guilty) on January 21, 2001

For Sexual Harassment (which he had to pay $850,000 in damages)

For lying under oath in a state Civil Court for which he had to pay 90,000 fine

Yes, the investigations were warranted.. and they didn't take 2 years to complete or to find evidence of wrongdoing.

So glad to see you boys have no problems with aggressively investigating and pursuing every possible civil/criminal charges against a sitting president.
Enjoy whats coming.
Thanks from Clara007
Hollywood is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 06:51 AM   #42
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Dad View Post
The Democrats shot their wad a bit early on this one. Already announcing their outrage at the nominee before even knowing whom the nominee would be.
The nominee being on record as maintaining the President as being "above law" tends to cause reactions like that.....
GluteusMaximus is online now  
Old July 10th, 2018, 06:52 AM   #43
PragmaticBastard
 
GluteusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollywood View Post
all he needs to know is that trump approves of him. These people have no minds
fify
GluteusMaximus is online now  
Old July 10th, 2018, 06:52 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Posts: 8,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
Why, that's just too fucking bad. Remember the GOP Congress saying they would not approve ANY person nominated by President Obama, remember how they said NO new SC justices should be approved during an election year?
Why are you people surprised at this? You boys set the precedent, now shut up and enjoy it.
You're upset that someone is "slinging mud" for political reasons? The guys that voted in TRUMP? ...
Little Civics Lesson for those who missed it in High School....Only The President gets to pick the Nominee.....The Senate's job is to "advise and consent".... Are you with me so far??.... In 2016 Obama was a two-term President who had already given us two left leaning Justices....we now had a Republican controlled Senate....Obama (the same guy who claimed "Elections have consequences!!" was now a lame-duck President....The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gives his advice...."You already gave us two activist moonbats, you are now a lame duck, let the next POTUS have a chance" . Not knowing that Hillary would fuck-up royally and Trump would be POTUS....

In today's scenario, we are looking a Congressional elections, not Presidential .... Congress has no business picking a SC Justice.... So, the "an election is up rule" does not apply....So Sorry!!!

And the Democrats look like a bunch of fools protesting a SC nomination when they have not even found out who it will be.... Your guys ought to get back in the clown car.....
Jimgorn is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 07:07 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Clicker II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood View Post
It's an election year. NO one should be approved and placed in the bench. Remember?
Only works as previously applied, during Prez election years. The Biden rule, remember?

Biden advocated that GHW Bush not nominate or the Senate not consider any SCOTUS candidacy before the 1992 Prez election. He did this to establish what they would do, even mentioned the Thomas nomination as a harbinger of what would happened if the Reps dared nominate in a Prez election year. The rule the Reps invoked was applied in accordance with the Biden rule. Dems should have no beef with Reps applying a rule that Biden established. Self inflicted wounds are a bitch aren't they.
Thanks from Jimgorn
Clicker II is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 07:16 AM   #46
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen Kane View Post
Clarence Thomas is one of the most brilliant jurists America has ever produced. But Russian trolls would not know that.
Does Clarence Thomas ever do anything besides copy whatever Sam Alito is saying or writing down?

Clarence Thomas likely wouldn't be on a court anywhere if it wasn't for affirmative action programs! What's worse is that he publicly campaigns against this/but takes advantage of being black anytime it can help him personally.

Thomas's appointment is a classic example of how liberalism has failed as a political movement and philosophy in America over the past half century:

The Dems in the Senate at the time, couldn't say it out loud that Clarence Thomas was a dullard, cause they were afraid of being accused of racism. After subverting the left in America and prioritizing race, gender and later-sexual preference identity over organizing around economic class, they got trapped in the spiderweb of their own rhetoric cause they were afraid to challenge Alito's "second vote on the Court!"
right to left is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 07:16 AM   #47
Senior Member
 
Clicker II's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 304
Dems are losing every time they change the rules to benefit their agenda. this is true with the Biden rule on SCOTUS nominees and the Schumer rule that allows a majority to pass Senate judicial nominees. IMO the next biggie might be the ability of the VP to vote as a tie breaker in a nomination fight for SCOTUS.
The Baltimore Sun headlines that he shouldn't be able to but then builds the case that he actually can. It also states that a simple majority is sufficient to seat a candidate. Then cites all kinds of blather about why the VP shouldn't.

Waiting for angst and gnashing

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opi...705-story.html

Last edited by Clicker II; July 10th, 2018 at 07:30 AM.
Clicker II is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 07:22 AM   #48
end capitalism now
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,750
Re: Kavanaugh, I'm just watching to see if the Dems have grown a pair and will act like the way Republicans do when they are in opposition!

Spineless Obama offered the GOP a 'moderate' Republican- Merrick Garland as a compromise choice, and they even refused that one and declared they would refuse all Obama appointees to SCOTUS, even though it could have been a disaster for them if Shrillary came in with a Democratic majority in the Senate and demanded a pro choice liberal as a nominee.

So, will the Dems do the same, and stick by their 'resistance' rhetoric and refuse to allow anymore Trump appointees through (even compromise candidates)? I'm holding my breath in anticipation!
right to left is offline  
Old July 10th, 2018, 07:23 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 10,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal View Post
LOL, you best re-read my post and pay attention.

Thanks!


Sorry but that is not IN TN's skill set.

You'll catch on quickly.
Thanks from RNG and Hollywood
Clara007 is online now  
Old July 10th, 2018, 07:28 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clicker II View Post
Dems are losing every time they change the rules to benefit their agenda. this is true with the Biden rule on SCOTUS nominees and the Schumer rule that allows a majority to pass Senate judicial nominees. IMO the next biggie might be the ability of the VP to vote as a tie breaker in a nomination fight for SCOTUS.
The Baltimore Sun headlines that he shouldn't be able to but then builds the case that he actually can. It also states that a simple majority is sufficient to seat a candidate. Then cites all kinds of blather about why the VP shouldn't.
Waiting for angst and gnashing
And guess what? We'll hold McConnell's feet to the fire- no judicial approvals in an election year. The American people should get a say- right?
Thanks from Clara007

Last edited by leekohler2; July 10th, 2018 at 07:33 AM.
leekohler2 is online now  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
kavenaugh



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.