smjjames

Hardly a fourth since the third is just a rumor by the creepy porn lawyer. Theres very little information to go on for the said fourth one, and the third one hasn't spoken out yet. Though if the anonymous person is filing a police report, that is something the FBI can act on since they need a police filing to act on. Again, this fourth one is even less information than the Avenatti one which at least has a rumor attached to it. Given that it was a frat house, I'm not surprised at the behavior. So far though, everything that's come out has been in relation to the party culture of his high school and the frat house at Yale. He was under oath recently Dems could ask him anything including the accusations that they sit on for weeks. I meant while being questioned by the FBI.

And he's had six FBI background checks over the years for various positions, so, if there was anything, any one of those six sweeps might have caught something. Not that the allegations should be dismissed entirely, and it seems to speak more of the party culture at the highschool and the, well, you know, college frat house, than anything Kavanaugh did. Also, IMO, if he admitted to doing stuff that he now finds embarrassing and does a sincere apology, he'd still have a chance at being confirmed because being honest is a lot better than lying about it.

The whole confirmation is a political hack job, I agree there. For my part, I'm half-waiting for stuff more recent than 30 years ago to come up. Yes, college and highschool sheneinighans are a thing and Kavanaugh has plenty of other reasons to be denied confirmation, but if he is a sex pest (or maybe just when drunk), then where are the incidents after college?

A thorough investigation would at least be able to sift through some of the lies.

Kavanaugh apparently said, unprompted, that he was a virgin in high school and college, https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kavanaugh-second-sexual-allegation-latest/h_1e7966334b3e234d7f6f55a4bcb2b256 should we start asking his girlfriends whether they had consensual sex? In all seriousness, this is exactly where an FBI investigation would best be deployed because they can privately get statements and Kavanaugh would be under oath.

Hard to tell sometimes, sorry. A bit of background: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/rod-rosenstein-fired-resigns-dle/h_547cb0aa5bdbeb64206bda39e2b8fecb Adam Schiff tweeted a statement that Rosenstein should 'under no circumstances rresign' and instead force Trump to fire him. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/408102-schiff-calls-on-rosenstein-not-to-step-down

How is that a good thing?

As Mark Twain once said (at least I think it was attributed to him?), "History never repeats (exactly), but it can rhyme." This doesn't seem like following the Watergate script (not this particular moment anyway), but the similarities are uncanny. Not surprised Trump changed his mind (or whatever is going on), he's so mercurial that he makes Mercury jealous.

I'm seeing that too. There may be a bit of conflicting information whether he voluntarily went or he was summoned. We'll just have to see what happens. As I noted in the previous post, Trumps allies and the GOP really didn't want to deal with the firing before the midterms, now they may have no choice.

No, he's pre-empting Trump waiting until after the midterms to fire him., he's on the way to the WH to give his resignation rather than have Trump fire him outright. So much for Trump and allies wanting to wait for the midterms. Basically, it looks like he's calling Trumpworlds bluff: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/23/politics/donald-trump-rod-rosenstein-brett-kavanaugh/index.html

Some further information: https://www.axios.com/michael-avenatti-tweets-kavanaugh-woman-credible-dc3e1cd0-c03e-410b-b6ec-6a54c53e8873.html and I believe the Ronan Farrow one mentions the same type of incident. So, really, it's an indictment on the party culture. Gotta wonder how no less than six FBI background checks missed this, or maybe they did and people chose to ignore them.

As someone said, with those sexual predators, it's almost never just one. Also, ktchong, it's the identity of the woman Avenatti is representing that hasn't been revealed yet, the New Yorker one has the womans name right in there.

It's fuelling the nationalism though.

Probably of more interest to New Yorkers, looks like Gov. Cuomo is having a his own version of 'bridgegate'. It's not as egregious as what former NJ Gov. Chris Christie was accused of, but it's certainly become an issue leading up to the election.

Bad Spanish chuich art restoration attempt strikes again! Maybe they should like, start hiring the modern day equivalent of Picasso or Michelangelo to do those restorations, or maybe just an expert, to do those restorations, heh.

That's one person out of, how many millions? Theres going to be bad apples in any group or society.

Heh, Rand Paul suggested that they use lie detector tests. While I guess that sounds reasonable on it's surface, theres a huge amount of people they'd have to ask and it's just going to feed into Trump's paranoia.

Doubt it. It seems to be someone who has access to top officials and top officials talk to them on a regular basis. It's only a matter of time before the identity of the author of that gets released @gfted1: He might have been relying on Grassley and the others not knowing that it was cleared, which would have been risky if his bluff got called.

What do you think about going Parliamentary system? Theres already a foundation for it (Congress was modelled after the British Parliament after all), though I'm not knowledgeable in how picking a PM works in two chamber Parliaments (varies from country to country), so, that specific would have to be worked out. Anyways, as I mentioned earlier, Congress is going to have to assert itself first, which means that a Republican (just for example) controlled Congress would have to actively assert themselves against a Republican President. Also, the State governments already ignore the Federal government to a good extent (marjuana legislation anybody?) and they definetly fight back at Presidents they don't like (California under Trump and Texas under Obama), but The Constitution only allows them so much power. So, I'm not sure what you mean by 'State governments ignoring the Federal government', or rather, I'm not sure what actions you're referring to that State governments should ignore. The land use rights by ranchers comes to mind as probably the primary complaint, along with eminent domain. I'm not saying that you're wrong that the State governments should ignore the Federal government, just asking what you mean specifically as they already do to a good extent.

I know it's not great now, but I don't want it to get worse either. Learning some humility would certainly be healthy for the foriegn policy though. I suppose part (or maybe all) of the problem is that the Democrats foriegn policy ideas aren't all that different from the Republicans (maybe a legacy of the Cold War when both would have had similar policy anyway? dunno) and really don't have their own foriegn policy idea engines like the way the Republicans do. As a result, there aren't really any foriegn policy ideas other than the Republicans.

Not surprised... (I wanted to split the post up, but as you all know, this forums quote system is a real PITA) "He is, in short, the greatest American President of my lifetime. No, you didn't misread that. We finally have a complete fool in office that everyone can clearly see IS a fool. We have had fools before. Many, many, many of them. And worse. Barack Obama was no fool. He was worse. He KNEW the limitations of the office and ignored them anyway. Obama in hos soul is mean. He thinks poorly of those he finds beneath him and carries a chip over wrongs real or perceived. George W Bush was a fool. A decent, moral, thoughtful man true. And a fool. His failure to understand the way the middle east and it's people work has cost us a lot of blood and treasure. Bill Clinton was not a fool. He was the consummate politician. Try to be all things to all people. But he was not decent, or moral. You would be a fool to believe any word he ever spoke, or believe in him for that matter. All of them have flaws and redeeming qualities. But their flaws that drive bad decisions that cause harm and even their errors are given legitimacy because they are the President. To many that makes them above reproach. The prestige and power of the office IS it's own shield. Now we have Trump who, aside from entertainment value, has so far demonstrated no redeeming qualities. His very presence and buffoonery in the office lessens the power and prestige of the office. Already Congress is remembering they can work around him when they want to. That they are in fact a co-equal branch of the government. States are beginning to ignore him and by extension the Federal Government. And they should. We are a union of 50 sovereign states. Those states have been in thrall to Sodom-on-the-Potomac for far too long. In just two years Trump has accomplished something that none of his 44 predecessors has: the debasement and diminishment of the office. Something that NEEDED to be done IMO. There have been times in the last twenty years that Presidents have actually frightened me with usurpation of power. And think, we have at east two years to go! Plus imagine what he could do with a second term! I know most folks here don't like him. I can hardly find fault with you there. But every cloud does have a silver lining and in he long run we may actually be better off having had a fool that could not hide behind the fig leaf of the office because he wadded it up and burned it. We may look back on Donald Trump's time in office and think he did us a real favor, even if that wasn't his intention." The only problem as far as reducing the Presidents power is that Congress has to actually assert it's own power and take back the Presidents power since it's supposed to be a check and balance against the Executive branch. If Congress doesn't reduce the Presidents power in some way, the next President is just going to have the same power. I'm not saying you're wrong in debasing and diminishing the office, it's just that Congress has to actually do it's part. "Plus imagine what he could do with a second term!" Like the US not having a positive reputation anymore in international dealings? I get what you're saying as far as reducing the power of the President, but we shouldn't have to commit seppuku as a country to do so.

You know, just out of curiosity, is Gary Johnson to the left (towards centrist) or right of Rand Paul (the only Libertarian in the Senate, though he wears the Republican jersey) on the Libertarian spectrum? Seems like he has some views that are more moderate than Rand Paul with others roughly aligning with Rand Paul. edit: I suppose it's not actually a clear cut 'left or right of Rand Paul' given that Rand Paul is a reference point and that things are complex....

Is that like having the option to do Republican or Democrat only ballots? I've always used the Independent voting ballot here in California (because I like having the options, though I lean Dem), so, I'm not completely sure what 'straight ticket device' means here. I get what straight ticket voting is, but the only definition I seem to have come across (neither Google or Wikipedia weren't of much help in defining 'straight ticket device') seems to be either using images to indicate parties or as shown in a California statute thing from 1912 https://books.google.com/books?id=ucVGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA245&lpg=PA245&dq=%22straight+ticket+device%22&source=bl&ots=dlOoefgmJX&sig=AZLG7cLyEPqlVVeOtNK3fd4H9y4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjv75D375fdAhXAGzQIHZUfDpE4ChDoATACegQICBAB#v=onepage&q=%22straight%20ticket%20device%22&f=false , something about voting machines. Also, California isn't listed as one of those that repealed it in the last 50 years or as still having one, and I can't find when California repealed it (after 1912 maybe?). Which contributes to my confusion.

Eh? They're a business and have a right to support whoever they want.

Trumps tweets just make him look like he's trying to distract from the Mueller investigation. Maybe if he didn't cry wolf so often, he'd be taken credibly.