What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[crazy canuck]

I am glad Trump hasn't affected the level of political discourse in general, and people can concentrate on the real issues facing their country. Like the shape of the President's penis.

What is the issue today, or this afternoon, or this hour.  The US has descended into craziness.

[DGuller]

It's a pretty important penis for our country.  Some discussion is warranted, I would think.

[Tamas]

Does that mean that Hillary would have been a worse President? Lacking a penis and all?

[grumbler]

Does that mean that Hillary would have been a worse President? Lacking a penis and all?

What about Bill?  She has him, and he can be a dick.

[Tamas]

Does that mean that Hillary would have been a worse President? Lacking a penis and all?

What about Bill?  She has him, and he can be a dick.

What shape must his dick be to compensate for him being only the Presidential Spouse and not the President itself?

[Barrister]

You know I'm kind of fascinated by this whole Kavanaugh rape allegation story.

Now, probably because of my job, I'm generally inclined to believe accusations.  And I believe this one.  Her not remembering certain details are not surprising after 30+ years.  Her not disclosing this for many years is similarly not surprising.  But her allegations to have a lot of specific details.  It sounds credible.  To a limited extent it is backed up by the friend, Mark Judge, when he wrote an autobiography about drinking heavily in high school (and mentions a "Bart O'Kavanaugh" also drinking heavily).

But as I said, I don't think a misdeed, in particular a terrible one like attempted rape, would necessarily disqualify someone from being a Supreme Court judge.  Youth criminal actions are worrying for what they tell us a person might do as an adult.  If Kavanaugh has gone on to live a pro-social life in the years since high school then this was truly just an aberration from long ago.

But as pointed out, his abject denial does tell us something about his credibility and trustworthiness today.

But now we hear that Prof. Ford doesn't want to testify before the Senate.  Or, at least, she wants the FBI to investigate first.  And this is where it gets all political.  The Senate Democrats want to delay the vote as long as possible.  Elections are coming up, and they have some hope of flipping the Senate.  Or in any event, the longer they delay things they can use this to try and motivate voters.  And the Senate Republicans of course want a vote held as soon as possible.

And I'm not clear how much help an FBI investigation would help.  These are 35 year old allegations.  The reporting done on this story seems to me like it's turned up every last bit of evidence that can be turned up.

And finally - you can't entirely rule out fabrication here.  I don't think there is - but I don't know for sure.

I think there has to be some kind of hearing.  Prof Ford should testify, under oath, and face cross-examination.  As should Kavanaugh and Judge.  And I expect that after that hearing the Senate should not accept Kavanaugh's nomination.

But what if Ford doesn't want to testify?  That is absolutely her right and I wouldn't hold that decision against her.  But without testing her story, I don't think it can be much of a consideration in deciding whether to accept Kavanaugh on the USSC.

[PDH]

I think I can understand about why someone would not want to testify in a highly charged political atmosphere, one in which there have been three ringed circuses (and Long Dong references) in the past.

[Barrister]

I think I can understand about why someone would not want to testify in a highly charged political atmosphere, one in which there have been three ringed circuses (and Long Dong references) in the past.

I can understand someone not wanting to testify even without the highly charged political atmosphere.

[garbon]

I think I can understand about why someone would not want to testify in a highly charged political atmosphere, one in which there have been three ringed circuses (and Long Dong references) in the past.

True, but then she also has chosen to enter the political fray.

[Barrister]

I think I can understand about why someone would not want to testify in a highly charged political atmosphere, one in which there have been three ringed circuses (and Long Dong references) in the past.

True, but then she also has chosen to enter the political fray.

Well, kind of.

She wrote to the Democrats a letter with her allegation, and requested anonymity.  The Dems (and Feinstein specifically) gave her that anonymity, but realized (correctly) there wasn't much they could do with an anonymous complaint.

But the story leaked.  Reporters started calling her trying to speak with her.  So she chose to go public so that she could control the story.

[Syt]

On comparing Trump's dick to Toad from the Mario games, Buzzfeed published this correction:



I'm going to switch off the internet for a year or so. This timeline is too crazy.

[crazy canuck]

I think there has to be some kind of hearing.  Prof Ford should testify, under oath, and face cross-examination.  As should Kavanaugh and Judge.  And I expect that after that hearing the Senate should not accept Kavanaugh's nomination.

The problem is you are treating a Senate hearing like a quasi judicial hearing. But that is not how it works.  There is no prosecution proving the case.  There is no effective cross examinations.  There is no defense lawyer trying their best to poke holes in the case.  There are a bunch of Senators playing to the camera while using their alloted time.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for her to want a law enforcement agency to conduct an investigation of what is a criminal allegation.

[Barrister]

I think there has to be some kind of hearing.  Prof Ford should testify, under oath, and face cross-examination.  As should Kavanaugh and Judge.  And I expect that after that hearing the Senate should not accept Kavanaugh's nomination.

The problem is you are treating a Senate hearing like a quasi judicial hearing. But that is not how it works.  There is no prosecution proving the case.  There is no effective cross examinations.  There is no defense lawyer trying their best to poke holes in the case.  There are a bunch of Senators playing to the camera while using their alloted time.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for her to want a law enforcement agency to conduct an investigation of what is a criminal allegation.

Well for starters the FBI doesn't investigate those kinds of offences.  But in any event Prof. Ford has not reported this offence to police, nor has she asked for Kavanaugh to be charged.  She specifically brought it up in order to influence Kavanaugh's nomination.  So it should be dealt with in that context.

The Washington Post article where she was interviewed was about as thorough as you could be in investigating the story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.d859b66a7f2b

There's not really a lot of room left for further investigations.  You could try to interview Kavanaugh and Ford, but a blanket "this never happened" doesn't give much room to expand upon.

[Syt]

This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water. Rarely have we had an experience like it and it certainly is not good.

[Admiral Yi]

No other country produces political theater this entertaining.

Her lawyers' letter requesting an FBI investigation (and declining to appear at the hearing) mentioned her not wanting to be asked questions by people who have already decided she's lying.

Noticed on youtube that several prominent Democrats have gone on record saying they believe her.