Donald Trump can kiss my Azz

[52weekbreak]

perhaps i was to fast at posting that, but i just do not care much about what is going on in usa politics. But one thing i know for sure she has ruined him

Oh well. Her testimony seemed reasonably credible if unsubstantiated and details coming out about his drinking days doesn't help nor did his belligerence during testimony. I am not inclined to be critical or condemning if he did BUT if he is lying about it now, he sure wouldn't be Supreme Court material IMO. He seems to be doing a fair bit to screw himself. Always liked Ralph's approach: Just admit you screwed up and move on.

 

[52weekbreak]

this whole situation just shows how sleazy politics has become. The only two people that know the truth are the ones being manipulated by politics. I am sure glad I am not in their shoes!

I couldn't agree with you more. The only thing I would add is that I think politics has always been sleazy and the internet makes it seem worse. Must be a meme for that

 

[Cdnfireman]

There’s nothing Kavanaugh or anybody else can do to change the minds of democrats. They have vowed to resist, obstruct and be uncooperative in every way they can in preventing the Trump administration from conducting the business of government. If Kavanaugh is voted down and another candidate is brought forward, the democrats will do everything in their power to destroy the life of the candidate and their family, their reputation and their future. Any candidate for the Supreme Court will have an academic and job history that is above what’s normal for most people, and therefore be easier to track. These people are among the best legal minds in the country, and as evidenced by Kavanaugh, will have a lengthy history of service.
To the democrats, every man will be a sexual predator or deviant, and every woman will be a promiscuous harpy that doesn’t have the temperament or is too emotional.
There is nothing anybody can do but watch the democrats do their level best to destroy the Trump administration.

 

[52weekbreak]

Doesn't look to me Kavanagh has the temperament for that role regardless of his education, experience or political affiliation. He was belligerent, evasive and too emotional. That's OK though because the Republicans have enough seats to vote him in if they want regardless of the Democrats. We'll see I guess.

There’s nothing Kavanaugh or anybody else can do to change the minds of democrats. They have vowed to resist, obstruct and be uncooperative in every way they can in preventing the Trump administration from conducting the business of government. If Kavanaugh is voted down and another candidate is brought forward, the democrats will do everything in their power to destroy the life of the candidate and their family, their reputation and their future. Any candidate for the Supreme Court will have an academic and job history that is above what’s normal for most people, and therefore be easier to track. These people are among the best legal minds in the country, and as evidenced by Kavanaugh, will have a lengthy history of service.
To the democrats, every man will be a sexual predator or deviant, and every woman will be a promiscuous harpy that doesn’t have the temperament or is too emotional.
There is nothing anybody can do but watch the democrats do their level best to destroy the Trump administration.

 

[catalac]

Doesn't look to me Kavanagh has the temperament for that role regardless of his education, experience or political affiliation. He was belligerent, evasive and too emotional. That's OK though because the Republicans have enough seats to vote him in if they want regardless of the Democrats. We'll see I guess.

I believe sentence one from cndfirman quote was just confirmed.

 

[DaveB]

Doesn't look to me Kavanagh has the temperament for that role regardless of his education, experience or political affiliation. He was belligerent, evasive and too emotional. That's OK though because the Republicans have enough seats to vote him in if they want regardless of the Democrats. We'll see I guess.

Don’t be a left wing useful idiot. “Temperament”? Really? Piss off. If someone wrongly accused you of something heinous I’d love to witness your “temperament”.

Here's some thoughts by a guy who is NOT right wing.... http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/10/01/episode-242-scott-adams-fentanyl-flake-canada-and-other-stuff/

 

[rknight111]

Here is what her lying bull**** caused.View attachment 212293

This is old and part of the Fake news network.

An Ancaster home was covered in graffiti in 2016 after a beloved neighbourhood tree was cut down. Online claims circulating that protestors vandalized the home of controversial U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh feature this photo. - Cathie Coward , The Hamilton Spectator ​

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/...d-in-scotus-nominee-kavanaugh-vandalism-hoax/

 

[X-it]

Post #525 Ron

 

[52weekbreak]

So you are suggesting a person applying for a job that sets the legal direction for all US citizens in how they can live their lives can, during his interview, tell his interviewers what a f'd up process the interview is, cry at certain points and refuse to answer questions by turning them around on the person asking it should still get the job? If I was interviewing anyone for a position and they displayed even a few of those traits I would pass them by and you likely would too.

That he is accused, unfairly perhaps, but that goes with the territory in US politics these days. If you can't just ride that through, you are not the person for the job because you do not have the right temperament for politics.

1. tem·per·a·ment
a person's or animal's nature, especially as it permanently affects their behavior.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"she had an artistic temperament"[/COLOR]

synonyms:

disposition, nature, character, personality, makeup, constitution, mind, spirit;

OTE=DaveB;2532066]Don’t be a left wing useful idiot. “Temperament”? Really? Piss off. If someone wrongly accused you of something heinous I’d love to witness your “temperament”.

Here's some thoughts by a guy who is NOT right wing.... http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/10/01/episode-242-scott-adams-fentanyl-flake-canada-and-other-stuff/[/QUOTE]

 

[52weekbreak]

More interesting poll information:

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...e-worldwide-survey/ar-BBNRlsC?ocid=spartandhp

 

[imdoo'n]

Don’t be a left wing useful idiot. “Temperament”? Really? Piss off. If someone wrongly accused you of something heinous I’d love to witness your “temperament”.

Here's some thoughts by a guy who is NOT right wing.... http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/10/01/episode-242-scott-adams-fentanyl-flake-canada-and-other-stuff/

come on Dave

lol some smuck drawing satirical cartoon funnies may be your source of info, but has he any qualifications for his opinion(psychology, human behaviour etc.) look where a part time drama teacher has gotten us. lol,

Why Do People Get So Upset When They Are Caught Lying?

Why do people get so upset when the truth is exposed?
While everyone lies, no one likes view themselves as a liar.
Everyone works very hard to maintain a positive self-image, even when such an image is hard to justify (see self deception).
We all have the tendency to see the world from our own point of view and put the best possible spin on what happens. This is a universal feature of human behavior.
This type of behavior is easiest to see with kids when they are caught fighting. Children see their actions from their own perspective: “I was just responding—I didn’t start it, she did.”
While adults are more sophisticated in their reasoning, their underlying behavior is much the same. When negative events occur people like to think that they are just reacting to events rather than causing them.
On the other hand, when positive things happen people often try to take credit for it (see self-serving bias – Wikipedia).
And while most people strive to maintain a positive identity, everyone lies from time to time (see how often people lie).
Lying is part of our human nature. In fact, most lying occurs with little thought, effort, or planning—in the spur of the moment. And often people tell the same lies so often that they forget what the truth really is—they start to believe their own lies (see facts about deception).
Not only do people lie on a regular basis, but they also tend to be hypocritical about lying. Society views deception and lying in the worst possible light—telling lies is viewed as evil, sinister, and evidence of a character flaw (see Solomon).
When a person’s dishonest behavior is pointed out, it can be very difficult to for that person to accept it. There is a contradiction between how a person views him- or herself (I’m honest) and their actual deceptive behavior (lying).
This creates dissonance or stress (see cognitive dissonance – Wikipedia). Many people react to the contradiction between their image and their behavior by attacking the person or persons who pointed out the inconsistency.
It is very difficult for most people to accept the idea that they sometimes engage in deceptive and unethical behavior. Unfortunately, it's easier to attack the person who is exposing the truth.
Additionally, attacking someone for pointing out the truth often stops that person and others from raising the issue again in the future. Attacking a critic is a great way to silence him

Dave the jist of the text is liars or liars getting caught, tend to portray intense anger, in an attempt to deflect/discredit the accuser. typical narcissistic behaviour

just what kavanagh is portraying, Guilty /Innocent ? ford( political activist background) truth or lies?

 

[Bnorth]

No wonder things are in the state they are. Partisanship above all seems to be the current flavour and plays right into the divide and conquer model that is the goal of the handlers of all the political puppets. Seems everyone just wants to believe every meme they see or every opinion piece on MSM and even obscure blogs. Quit being retards.

 

[DaveB]

So you are suggesting a person applying for a job that sets the legal direction for all US citizens in how they can live their lives can, during his interview, tell his interviewers what a f'd up process the interview is, cry at certain points and refuse to answer questions by turning them around on the person asking it should still get the job? If I was interviewing anyone for a position and they displayed even a few of those traits I would pass them by and you likely would too.

That he is accused, unfairly perhaps, but that goes with the territory in US politics these days. If you can't just ride that through, you are not the person for the job because you do not have the right temperament for politics.

If I was having a job interview with you and you suggested that, "hey, you come highly recommended, and clearly you're the best guy for this job.....but some guy who says he knows you from when you were 17 says you knocked over a liquor store with a 12 gauge and raped the cashier....but he doesn't have any proof....and all the people he says know about it say they don't know about it...so I'm not going to hire you".............I'd likely come across the table and show you my temperament. You have a clear case of TDS. If this guy was a demonrat, you'd have no problem with him.

https://www.breitbart.com/big-gover...ghteous-indignation-in-the-face-of-injustice/

 

[imdoo'n]

so looks like fords accusations or story came out in 2012, she may have been lying then and now, only kavanagh wasn't looking to advance his political career in 2012.
i'm leaning towards ol kavanagh being the liar.


i found this interesting

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

i find this very interesting-- ford lists 3 people in the room/house.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/18/former-sex-crimes-prosecutor-analyzed-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-heres-her-take/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.674edd4e63cf

 

[LennyR]

Doesn't look to me Kavanagh has the temperament for that role regardless of his education, experience or political affiliation. He was belligerent, evasive and too emotional. That's OK though because the Republicans have enough seats to vote him in if they want regardless of the Democrats. We'll see I guess.

So you are suggesting a person applying for a job that sets the legal direction for all US citizens in how they can live their lives can, during his interview, tell his interviewers what a f'd up process the interview is, cry at certain points and refuse to answer questions by turning them around on the person asking it should still get the job? If I was interviewing anyone for a position and they displayed even a few of those traits I would pass them by and you likely would too.

That he is accused, unfairly perhaps, but that goes with the territory in US politics these days. If you can't just ride that through, you are not the person for the job because you do not have the right temperament for politics.

1. tem·per·a·ment
a person's or animal's nature, especially as it permanently affects their behavior.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"she had an artistic temperament"[/COLOR]

synonyms:

We all have our opinions. Mine is , attitude like yours and a few others on here , epitomize what's wrong with our world today.

 

[LennyR]

I thought this was kinda funny , you I imagine will think it's totally true and reasonable . Right ?

 

[Cdnfireman]

so looks like fords accusations or story came out in 2012, she may have been lying then and now, only kavanagh wasn't looking to advance his political career in 2012.
i'm leaning towards ol kavanagh being the liar.


i found this interesting

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/09/how-we-know-kavanaugh-is-lying

i find this very interesting-- ford lists 3 people in the room/house.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/18/former-sex-crimes-prosecutor-analyzed-fords-allegations-against-kavanaugh-heres-her-take/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.674edd4e63cf

The rumination of female psychologists or sex crime prosecutors are hardly non biased sources. To them men are not to be believed under any circumstances, and that women HAVE to be believed in circumstances of he said/ she said. If that is the new standard of proof, then all us men are in trouble. There’s a reason that innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of British common law and the western justice systems.
Imagine you as an employer or supervisor had a meeting with a female employee 10 years ago. She later says that you made advances, grabbed her teats and threatened her job if she didn’t put out and calls the cops. She can’t recall the date, place, or time or any other pertinent details other than it was you. You are now in Judge Kavanaughs shoes. How do you prove you didn’t say it? It won’t matter anyway, because you’re automatically guilty. You’re now a sex offender in everyone’s eyes, and you’ll probably bankrupt yourself defending an unproven accusation that you have no way of proving your innocence of.
Would you be outraged and defend yourself? Or just meekly surrender and give up everything you’ve worked for all your life?
The idea that if you defend yourself vigorously proves your guilt even more because you don’t frame your Defense in a certain way is even more preposterous.
The progressives that are advancing this idea of automatic guilt or guilt by association are dangerous people. It’s the legal standard in dictatorships where you’re charged,found guilty, sentenced and taken away all in one motion. If you’re one of the elite ruling class or their friends, no big deal. If you’re not, watch out!

 

[LennyR]

The rumination of female psychologists or sex crime prosecutors are hardly non biased sources. To them men are not to be believed under any circumstances, and that women HAVE to be believed in circumstances of he said/ she said. If that is the new standard of proof, then all us men are in trouble. There’s a reason that innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of British common law and the western justice systems.
Imagine you as an employer or supervisor had a meeting with a female employee 10 years ago. She later says that you made advances, grabbed her teats and threatened her job if she didn’t put out and calls the cops. She can’t recall the date, place, or time or any other pertinent details other than it was you. You are now in Judge Kavanaughs shoes. How do you prove you didn’t say it? It won’t matter anyway, because you’re automatically guilty. You’re now a sex offender in everyone’s eyes, and you’ll probably bankrupt yourself defending an unproven accusation that you have no way of proving your innocence of.
Would you be outraged and defend yourself? Or just meekly surrender and give up everything you’ve worked for all your life?
The idea that if you defend yourself vigorously proves your guilt even more because you don’t frame your Defense in a certain way is even more preposterous.
The progressives that are advancing this idea of automatic guilt or guilt by association are dangerous people. It’s the legal standard in dictatorships where you’re charged,found guilty, sentenced and taken away all in one motion. If you’re one of the elite ruling class or their friends, no big deal. If you’re not, watch out!

well said and so true !

 

[eclipse1966]

I have to agree with this statement as we are definitely going down a slippery slope in some cases. Hwvr, one has to be very careful to make final conclusion until all the facts are out so yes, he is innocent until proven otherwise. I just don't think he or she can be guilty/innocent just because it suits the particular political parties best interest. No one knows the truth at this point and like I said in a previous comment, I feel for both being put in the spotlight during this crazy situation. Wouldn't want it for all the tea in China.

The rumination of female psychologists or sex crime prosecutors are hardly non biased sources. To them men are not to be believed under any circumstances, and that women HAVE to be believed in circumstances of he said/ she said. If that is the new standard of proof, then all us men are in trouble. There’s a reason that innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of British common law and the western justice systems.
Imagine you as an employer or supervisor had a meeting with a female employee 10 years ago. She later says that you made advances, grabbed her teats and threatened her job if she didn’t put out and calls the cops. She can’t recall the date, place, or time or any other pertinent details other than it was you. You are now in Judge Kavanaughs shoes. How do you prove you didn’t say it? It won’t matter anyway, because you’re automatically guilty. You’re now a sex offender in everyone’s eyes, and you’ll probably bankrupt yourself defending an unproven accusation that you have no way of proving your innocence of.
Would you be outraged and defend yourself? Or just meekly surrender and give up everything you’ve worked for all your life?
The idea that if you defend yourself vigorously proves your guilt even more because you don’t frame your Defense in a certain way is even more preposterous.
The progressives that are advancing this idea of automatic guilt or guilt by association are dangerous people. It’s the legal standard in dictatorships where you’re charged,found guilty, sentenced and taken away all in one motion. If you’re one of the elite ruling class or their friends, no big deal. If you’re not, watch out!

 

[whoDEANie]

An angry response to being falsely accused is more natural that maintaining a calm temprament. It is the guy who shows no sign of frustration is the one I'd truly worry about. Then, following an arguement that signs of frustration or anger are confirmation of guilt, how can violent rage not be considered an appropruate response for someone who is not guilty of the accusation?

It's impossible for any of us to asserain the validity of her claim with KNOWING the whole story, but I do think it's utter bullchit that a claim like this would be entertained after so much time had elapsed. If she was in that much distress, she owed it to society to out this guy at the time it happened. Not doing so is selfish and a diservice to society if this guy was in fact capable of such horrific acts. I don't give a chit what someone's done, if you choose not to act on it you should live with the consequences of that decision instead of waiting for an opportune time to use it as leverage. What is the point of a statute of limitations if you can use non legal mean to punish an offender at your discretion.?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk