Donald Trump

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I’ve only just realised how much the word ‘racist’ looks like ‘rapist’.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This case is the PERFECT example why the vast majority of sexual assault victims (men and women) don't report the assault.

That doesn’t make the prevailing witch hunt any more palatable. In criminal justice, power has to be evenly distributed, as much as possible.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

That doesn’t make the prevailing witch hunt any more palatable. In criminal justice, power has to be evenly distributed, as much as possible.

Politics at its dirtiest. The whole saga has been disgusting.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

This is a job interview, not a court of law. He can be rejected plenty of reasons.

Some of you must hire people. So when a candidate comes in, has accusations like this thrown against him and behaves like an unhinged douchebag in the interview, you just tell him to sign on the line, I guess. Because he's the only qualified candidate and you're just that hard up and desperate, right?

This isn't about what's fair to him or to her, and I don't care. I need the best person for the job. It's MY job to find that person. Those of you who think this guy has been shafted somehow, do you work for a public company whose stock I can short tomorrow?

 

[Damocles]

This is a job interview, not a court of law. He can be rejected plenty of reasons.

He can, but if youre asking Republicans to dismiss him based on accusations then those accusations better have some proof behind them.

And he wasn't unhinged. Stop being so hyperbolic.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

This is a job interview, not a court of law. He can be rejected plenty of reasons.

Some of you must hire people. So when a candidate comes in, has accusations like this thrown against him and behaves like an unhinged douchebag in the interview, you just tell him to sign on the line, I guess. Because he's the only qualified candidate and you're just that hard up and desperate, right?

This isn't about what's fair to him or to her, and I don't care. I need the best person for the job. It's MY job to find that person. Those of you who think this guy has been shafted somehow, do you work for a public company whose stock I can short tomorrow?

What's missing from your thoughts here is the wider political context. This wasn't just a Job interview. It was a deliberately delayed job interview focusing on a single accusation whose timing was calculated to delay the process such that the candidate wasn't hired before the upcoming elections where the Dems think they can take control of the upper house and block the nomination.

 

[urban genie]

I’ve only just realised how much the word ‘racist’ looks like ‘rapist’.

Sorry but that word play is already claimed by the orange order with papist and rapist ;-)


But yes the words are similar and I had never noticed either

 

[urban genie]

He can, but if youre asking Republicans to dismiss him based on accusations then those accusations better have some proof behind them.

And he wasn't unhinged. Stop being so hyperbolic.

But there is no proof either way to be fully certain, so you ask yourself, do you give such an important role to a man that has potentially raped or atemped to at least?

So on a one time accusation you may think, as a republican we will give the benefit of the doubt, however he has 3 allegations by 3 seperate women.
In that event it in my opinion not possible to make his appointment, until fully cleared of all 3.

 

[Damocles]

But there is no proof either way to be fully certain, so you ask yourself, do you give such an important role to a man that has potentially raped or atemped to at least?

So on a one time accusation you may think, as a republican we will give the benefit of the doubt, however he has 3 allegations by 3 seperate women.
In that event it in my opinion not possible to make his appointment, until fully cleared of all 3.

People never spin their logic round to see if it still fits.

Ok, the next time there's a Democrat judge going for the SC, do you believe that the Republican Party could definitely not find 3 women anywhere who will accuse them of sexual assault?

Your no evidence based system is unworkable in reality.

 

[urban genie]

People never spin their logic round to see if it still fits.

Ok, the next time there's a Democrat judge going for the SC, do you believe that the Republican Party could definitely not find 3 women anywhere who will accuse them of sexual assault?

Your no evidence based system is unworkable in reality.

What you on about, I just said with no evidence it is normal to give the benefit of the doubt, and witg no wbidence but her word against his then the appointment is down to personal belief on if he is innocent.
Not that he shouldn't be appointed with no evidence, but as there are 3 women seperately having accussed him I personally would fewl uncomfortable giving him the job and that is what the senaters need to dthink on.

Especially as it is a lifetime appoimtment that is difficult to be removed from once in and evidence is foind later on


I would say the same if it was a democrat

 

[TonyM]

He did act unhinged IMO.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

He can, but if youre asking Republicans to dismiss him based on accusations then those accusations better have some proof behind them.

And he wasn't unhinged. Stop being so hyperbolic.

Um, no, they don't need to have ANY proof. None. Zero. He can be rejected for a wide variety of reasons. Members of the committee can reject him for any reason they like, including whether or not I think he's the best fit for the work.

You can quibble with my choice of words, and that's fine. As I said, if you'd hire him, that's good for me, if I'm short you, or a competitor of yours, based on his interview performance.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

What's missing from your thoughts here is the wider political context. This wasn't just a Job interview. It was a deliberately delayed job interview focusing on a single accusation whose timing was calculated to delay the process such that the candidate wasn't hired before the upcoming elections where the Dems think they can take control of the upper house and block the nomination.

Exactly. As is their perogative. As it was the Republicans previously.

You want the job? Be simon pure. He isn't. Too bad. He can bitch all he wants. Fact remains you want the job but even if you just "like beer" you've given the opposition an angle, and that's your fault, not theirs. Oh, you don't like the scrutiny as a job candidate, eh? Think it's unfair, do you? No problem. Withdraw.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

People never spin their logic round to see if it still fits.

Ok, the next time there's a Democrat judge going for the SC, do you believe that the Republican Party could definitely not find 3 women anywhere who will accuse them of sexual assault?

Your no evidence based system is unworkable in reality.

Unworkable in reality??? Are you kidding? People get hired and fired constantly -- all day, every day -- on the basis of incomplete information.

Republicans have every right to fight off a Dem nominee and make up whatever they like to scotch confirmation. And will do. And have done.

If Republicans don't like it, they can find a candidate more appealing to both sides of the aisle.

 

[Damocles]

Unworkable in reality??? Are you kidding? People get hired and fired constantly -- all day, every day -- on the basis of incomplete information.

Republicans have every right to fight off a Dem nominee and make up whatever they like to scotch confirmation. And will do. And have done.

If Republicans don't like it, they can find a candidate more appealing to both sides of the aisle.

So what you're suggesting is that we should switch to a system where we allow people to make up lies in order to reject candidates?

So you're essentially asking for the abolition of the Supreme Court?

 

[inbetween]

Exactly. As is their perogative. As it was the Republicans previously.

You want the job? Be simon pure. He isn't. Too bad. He can bitch all he wants. Fact remains you want the job but even if you just "like beer" you've given the opposition an angle, and that's your fault, not theirs. Oh, you don't like the scrutiny as a job candidate, eh? Think it's unfair, do you? No problem. Withdraw.

How can you be simon pure when your past is dug up from almost 40 years ago, a past that by the way he has denied and is completely unproven.

He hasn't committed a crime, he has been accused of one and in our country and the US you are innocent of a crime until you have been proven guilty of it.

If someone assumes someone is guilty and treats them as such especially in public media then that too can be classed as defamatory and slanderous which by the way is also a crime....

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So what you're suggesting is that we should switch to a system where we allow people to make up lies in order to reject candidates?

So you're essentially asking for the abolition of the Supreme Court?

Nope. I'm suggesting when you want to be on the Supreme Court you (a) better be above reproach and (b) if you don't want any brickbats, justified or not, lies or truth, don't accept a nomination. It's really not that complicated.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

How can you be simon pure when your past is dug up from almost 40 years ago, a past that by the way he has denied and is completely unproven.

He hasn't committed a crime, he has been accused of one and in our country and the US you are innocent of a crime until you have been proven guilty of it.

If someone assumes someone is guilty and treats them as such especially in public media then that too can be classed as defamatory and slanderous which by the way is also a crime....

The fact remains -- if he doesn't like this "unfair" treatment, he can feel free to withdraw at any time.

He can't be "proven guilty" and won't be. It's irrelevant. He is going to face brickbat after brickbat. Tough shit. That's life. Welcome to the real world.

If he doesn't like it he can drop out immediately.

He's also welcome to sue for defamation.

 

[Damocles]

Nope. I'm suggesting when you want to be on the Supreme Court you (a) better be above reproach and (b) if you don't want any brickbats, justified or not, lies or truth, don't accept a nomination. It's really not that complicated.

So then every nominee gets lies made up about them, so everyone votes purely on party lines

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So then every nominee gets lies made up about them, so everyone votes purely on party lines

The party line thing? That's, um, kind of already happening. And the the harder the nominee leans one way or the other, the more likely that becomes.

I'll look forward to the no doubt exhaustive list you'll provide of the list of candidates/nominees for a wide variety of control/leadership positions in all three branches of government about whom no one who opposes them has made up lies.

Or -- hey, here's a thought -- how about the nominee is actually appealing to both parties?