U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[Jambo-Jimbo]

12 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Because it isn't a criminal matter.  Criminal matters are for the state police (which is also why an FBI investigation was nothing more than a smokescreen for Flake and others).  As I understand it, this was about evidence of fitness of character for the job.  A bit like civil dispute cases, hearings of that nature aren't supposed to operate on the principle of "beyond reasonable doubt"; they should operate on the principle of "reasonable assessment of the balance of probabilities".  In reality, of course, it was a partisan political process.  The Democrats brought forward evidence to discredit the nominee; the Republicans ignored it.  In a sense, it doesn't really matter whether the evidence was true or untrue.  It should, but it doesn't.

 

Which kinda makes what Susan Collins said all the more incredible when she said that she believed that Dr. Ford had been sexually assaulted but that there wasn't enough evidence that it was Brett Kavanaugh.

As Dr. Ford had only named Brett Kavanaugh as her abuser, then what Senator Collins said can't be true, you can't say you believe a crime had taken place but the only person in the frame had done nothing wrong, unless you were following partisan party lines and what Senator Collins said is at total odds with the facts as she has agreed with both Dr. Ford & Brett Kavanaugh.

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Which kinda makes what Susan Collins said all the more incredible when she said that she believed that Dr. Ford had been sexually assaulted but that there wasn't enough evidence that it was Brett Kavanaugh.

As Dr. Ford had only named Brett Kavanaugh as her abuser, then what Senator Collins said can't be true, you can't say you believe a crime had taken place but the only person in the frame had done nothing wrong, unless you were following partisan party lines and what Senator Collins said is at total odds with the facts as she has agreed with both Dr. Ford & Brett Kavanaugh.

Well if Ford was drunk it isn't really that incredible. I am not saying she was but that is so.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Well if Ford was drunk it isn't really that incredible. I am not saying she was but that is so.

 

But we are on about Collins here and her statement not whether Ford or anybody else was drunk or not.

What it boils down to is whether Collins believed Ford or Kavanaugh as the two gave completely opposite and different stories, but Collins in the best traditions of a politician fudges the issue and somehow states that she believes both sides.

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

But we are on about Collins here and her statement not whether Ford or anybody else was drunk or not.

What it boils down to is whether Collins believed Ford or Kavanaugh as the two gave completely opposite and different stories, but Collins in the best traditions of a politician fudges the issue and somehow states that she believes both sides.

If she believes both sides equally or disbelieves them equally, or simply doesn't know who to believe, I am with her.

Edited October 8, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Ulysses]

42 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Which kinda makes what Susan Collins said all the more incredible when she said that she believed that Dr. Ford had been sexually assaulted but that there wasn't enough evidence that it was Brett Kavanaugh.

As Dr. Ford had only named Brett Kavanaugh as her abuser, then what Senator Collins said can't be true, you can't say you believe a crime had taken place but the only person in the frame had done nothing wrong, unless you were following partisan party lines and what Senator Collins said is at total odds with the facts as she has agreed with both Dr. Ford & Brett Kavanaugh.

 

Of course, which kind of reinforces the point that the truth of the evidence didn't matter even though it should have.  And it's still the case that the Committee hearing wasn't a criminal matter.

 

Listening to Senator Collins' explanation for her position, one could form the impression that she was having real difficulty getting to grips with what three people thought: Mr. Kavanaugh was one, Dr. Ford was another.........

 

 

 

 

.......and Senator Collins was the third.

 

 

[Ulysses]

51 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

Which is appalling tbh.

 

 

There was a discussion about this earlier on in the thread, and about how and when confirmation hearings became so partisan.  However they got that way, they definitely are now and I doubt there's any going back.

 

Up until maybe 25 years ago, there were people in both parties who were capable of crossing the aisle depending on the issue being debated or the circumstances.  The House and the Senate both had Republicans who took liberal positions on some issues, Democrats who were conservatives or conservative on some issues, and members of both parties who could be pragmatic and reach agreements with their opposite numbers if there were benefits in doing so because of the political situation.  But that's not the case these days.  I doubt there's a single Republican in Congress with a view that is more liberal than any Democrat in Congress, and vice versa.

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

12 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

There was a discussion about this earlier on in the thread, and about how and when confirmation hearings became so partisan.  However they got that way, they definitely are now and I doubt there's any going back.

 

Up until maybe 25 years ago, there were people in both parties who were capable of crossing the aisle depending on the issue being debated or the circumstances.  The House and the Senate both had Republicans who took liberal positions on some issues, Democrats who were conservatives or conservative on some issues, and members of both parties who could be pragmatic and reach agreements with their opposite numbers if there were benefits in doing so because of the political situation.  But that's not the case these days.  I doubt there's a single Republican in Congress with a view that is more liberal than any Democrat in Congress, and vice versa.

 

 

But the point I'd make is that it's astonishing an issue like rape can be raised without it becoming a criminal matter. The question here isn't the rape itself but Kavanagh's appointment to the supreme court. It's honestly bizarre and I can't quite get my head around it.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

But the point I'd make is that it's astonishing an issue like rape can be raised without it becoming a criminal matter. The question here isn't the rape itself but Kavanagh's appointment to the supreme court. It's honestly bizarre and I can't quite get my head around it.

How often do 40 year old allegations become a criminal matter? Anyone who watched Channel 4's documentary last night (Where are the Police?) will know that in the UK  many serious crimes (including violent and sexual assaults) are now either not investigated at all by the police or are closed within hours, despite in some cases there being useful CCTV footage which the police don't bother to look at.

 

One thing that I can't get my mind round is the repeated assertion that Ford must be telling the truth because she has so much to lose. Where does that leave the majority of  victims who have nothing to lose? With a much higher burden of proof? 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

How often do 40 year old allegations become a criminal matter? Anyone who watched Channel 4's documentary last night (Where are the Police?) will know that in the UK  many serious crimes (including violent and sexual assaults) are now either not investigated at all by the police or are closed within hours, despite in some cases there being useful CCTV footage which the police don't bother to look at.

 

One thing that I can't get my mind round is the repeated assertion that Ford must be telling the truth because she has so much to lose. Where does that leave the majority of  victims who have nothing to lose? With a much higher burden of proof? 

 

It's by no means unheard of for people to get done for historical sex crimes going back years - and it would seem thoroughly reasonable to me that if she was claiming rape, the police might think "er, hang on, maybe we should look into this."

 

It's like someone having a job interview and me stepping in and saying 'no no, hold on, this guy murdered three people in 1977.' And then people having an argument about it before deciding to give him the job anyway.  Isn't the priority in all this the actual allegation?

 

 

[Sharpie]

I am not sure of the system now, but I believe there are a couple of things to be considered. I am not sure it was ever alleged that she was raped, it seemed that she was forced on her back by a male person, he lay on top of her, and put his hand over her mouth, this I seem to recall was the most traumatic part of the incident. To be blunt I am not sure there was a claim that any penetration took place, which I am sure is required for the crime of rape.

With regard to police action, the incident I believe was conducted in the State of Maryland. For the police there to take action they would have to receive a complaint from the victim, or her legal representative. There would now be no forensic evidence, no DNA evidence, only one witness who states that the sexual assault did not take place. In considering prosecution for this incident as a crime, the possibility of achieving a conviction beyond reasonable doubt is very small, it would then be adjudged by the prosecutorial staff that proceedings were not justified. The situation as is to me is more damaging to Kavanaugh than going to Court and being adjudged not guilty, this stain on his character is irremovable and will follow him for the rest of his life.

[Unknown user]

"Every single democrat in the US Senate has signed up for open borders and its a billed called The Open Borders Bill and it's written by, guess who, Dianne Feinstein. Remember the leaking, right? The leaking Dianne Feinstein. If the democrat's bill ever becomes law, a tidal wave of drugs and crime will pour into our nation like never ever before"

 

 

 

Guess which president said this, and which bill doesn't exist and never has. The isn't a bill even close to what he claims. 

 

How can anyone defend this lying piece of shit? How can anyone say a president who'll stand there and make up a fact is to be trusted as the most powerful man on earth with his finger on the ******* button?

 

And of course, Breitbart not only reported it, they added more made up shite to the made up shite.

 

 Beyond parody

Edited October 9, 2018 by Smithee

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

Nikki Haley has resigned as US Ambassador to the UN. Haley is a very savvy politician, so I’d love to know the real story here.

[Maple Leaf]

44 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

Nikki Haley has resigned as US Ambassador to the UN. Haley is a very savvy politician, so I’d love to know the real story here.

 

It probably has nothing to do with the fact that her boss is a misogynist prick, and the Kavanaugh thing, and all Trump's comments about Dr.Ford, was the last straw for her.

 

It must be something else.

[milky_26]

49 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

Nikki Haley has resigned as US Ambassador to the UN. Haley is a very savvy politician, so I’d love to know the real story here.

she has denied she is thinking about running for president for 2020

[milky_26]

6 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

But the point I'd make is that it's astonishing an issue like rape can be raised without it becoming a criminal matter. The question here isn't the rape itself but Kavanagh's appointment to the supreme court. It's honestly bizarre and I can't quite get my head around it.

i dont know much about american law but dont a lot of their crimes (including very serious ones) have a statue of limitations so it might be that the case is too old to be tried/investigated?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

"Every single democrat in the US Senate has signed up for open borders and its a billed called The Open Borders Bill and it's written by, guess who, Dianne Feinstein. Remember the leaking, right? The leaking Dianne Feinstein. If the democrat's bill ever becomes law, a tidal wave of drugs and crime will pour into our nation like never ever before"

 

 

 

Guess which president said this, and which bill doesn't exist and never has. The isn't a bill even close to what he claims. 

 

How can anyone defend this lying piece of shit? How can anyone say a president who'll stand there and make up a fact is to be trusted as the most powerful man on earth with his finger on the ******* button?

 

And of course, Breitbart not only reported it, they added more made up shite to the made up shite.

 

 Beyond parody

 

And just yesterday Trump announced that if the Democrats win the mid-terms they'll turn America into another Venezuela, then later in Orlando it was Florida would be turned into another Venezuela etc etc.

From 1min 15 on this video https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-45790511/brett-kavanaugh-caught-up-in-a-hoax-trump

 

And still the faithful will turn out in their droves to cheer on this lying sack of..................

Edited October 9, 2018 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

It's by no means unheard of for people to get done for historical sex crimes going back years - and it would seem thoroughly reasonable to me that if she was claiming rape, the police might think "er, hang on, maybe we should look into this."

 

It's like someone having a job interview and me stepping in and saying 'no no, hold on, this guy murdered three people in 1977.' And then people having an argument about it before deciding to give him the job anyway.  Isn't the priority in all this the actual allegation?

 

 

Not unheard of but rare unless you are the alleged victim of a celebrity or of a retired or preferably dead politician in which case you can freely destroy the reputation of the alleged perpetrator even if the allegation turns out to be a pile of crap.

I would say the priority is not the actual allegation but whether the allegation is true or not.

 

I may have missed it but has Ford actually made a formal complaint to the police? I think that is what usually triggers (though as I have said it by no means always follows in the UK at least) the police "looking into" things.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

22 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And just yesterday Trump announced that if the Democrats win the mid-terms they'll turn America into another Venezuela, then later in Orlando it was Florida would be turned into another Venezuela etc etc.

From 1min 15 on this video https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-45790511/brett-kavanaugh-caught-up-in-a-hoax-trump

 

And still the faithful will turn out in their droves to cheer on this lying sack of..................

And at our next election the Tories will undoubtedly claim Corbyn will turn the UK into another Venezuela, perhaps (unlike Trump's claim) with some slither of justification given Jeremy's previous expressions of admiration for the Venezualan Socialist government. It's what politicians do. It is the Democrats job to demolish Trump's claim as it is for Labour to achieve the slightly more difficult task, given Jeremy's record,  of demolishing the Tories' claim.

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

43 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

she has denied she is thinking about running for president for 2020

 

Interesting. I feel there may be an opportunity for a somewhat moderate conservative to position themselves as an anti-Trump and shore up moderate and some millenial support for the long-term. 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

44 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It probably has nothing to do with the fact that her boss is a misogynist prick, and the Kavanaugh thing, and all Trump's comments about Dr.Ford, was the last straw for her.

 

It must be something else.

 

42 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

she has denied she is thinking about running for president for 2020

 

I think it may be simple. First - she wants out while her reputation is still largely intact. Her credibility hasn't taken the hit that others close to Trump have - partly because she's managed to keep some physical distance between herself and the White House given that she's based in New York (I doubt she'd take a D.C. based cabinet job). Second - she has a chance to make some serious money if she leaves politics for a while. As for future Presidential bids, I think she'll wait and see which way the wind is blowing, but I struggle to see her going up against Trump unless his popularity is seriously tanking (e.g. due to an economic crisis).

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

8 minutes ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

 

I think it may be simple. First - she wants out while her reputation is still largely intact. Her credibility hasn't taken the hit that others close to Trump have - partly because she's managed to keep some physical distance between herself and the White House given that she's based in New York (I doubt she'd take a D.C. based cabinet job). Second - she has a chance to make some serious money if she leaves politics for a while. As for future Presidential bids, I think she'll wait and see which way the wind is blowing, but I struggle to see her going up against Trump unless his popularity is seriously tanking (e.g. due to an economic crisis).

 

 

 

Maybe she's too embarrassed to face her UN colleagues after Trump's laughter-inducing speech there recently.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

38 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And at our next election the Tories will undoubtedly claim Corbyn will turn the UK into another Venezuela, perhaps (unlike Trump's claim) with some slither of justification given Jeremy's previous expressions of admiration for the Venezualan Socialist government. It's what politicians do. It is the Democrats job to demolish Trump's claim as it is for Labour to achieve the slightly more difficult task, given Jeremy's record,  of demolishing the Tories' claim.

 

I think it's already been done to death about how much Corbyn admired the socialist government of Venezuela, so I think it'll be more along the lines of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian leanings against Corbyn.

 

You are right it's up to the Democrats & the media to take Trump to task when he makes statements such as this, but they rarely ever do, which is something I for one am completely mystified by their lack of confronting, exposing & taking Trump to task for the lie after lie after lie that tends to come out of his mouth day after day after day. 

[Maple Leaf]

19 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I think it's already been done to death about how much Corbyn admired the socialist government of Venezuela, so I think it'll be more along the lines of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian leanings against Corbyn.

 

You are right it's up to the Democrats & the media to take Trump to task when he makes statements such as this, but they rarely ever do, which is something I for one am completely mystified by their lack of confronting, exposing & taking Trump to task for the lie after lie after lie that tends to come out of his mouth day after day after day. 

 

The Democrats need an in-your-face populist who will call Trump for what he is, a liar, a misogynist, and a con-man.  But that will take someone with fire in his/her belly and a backbone, and I can't think of anyone in the Democratic party who fits that description.  Maybe Cory Booker from New Jersey, but the rest of those Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee are timid as mice.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

29 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The Democrats need an in-your-face populist who will call Trump for what he is, a liar, a misogynist, and a con-man.  But that will take someone with fire in his/her belly and a backbone, and I can't think of anyone in the Democratic party who fits that description.  Maybe Cory Booker from New Jersey, but the rest of those Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee are timid as mice.

 

And imo that is why he's getting such a free ride politically, there is nobody who is strong enough to call out Trump for what he is.

But I do believe there will be someone, but they are probably sitting in the background awaiting their chance and for the right time to come forward.

[Maple Leaf]

4 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

And imo that is why he's getting such a free ride politically, there is nobody who is strong enough to call out Trump for what he is.

But I do believe there will be someone, but they are probably sitting in the background awaiting their chance and for the right time to come forward.

 

Right now I'd choose the lawyer Avenatti over any Democratic Senator as the Democratic nominee.  But that won't happen. 

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

9 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Right now I'd choose the lawyer Avenatti over any Democratic Senator as the Democratic nominee.  But that won't happen. 

 

Avenatti would be a disaster. He also accidentally helped the Republicans get Kavanaugh through thanks to his antics. No thanks.

[Justin Z]

2 hours ago, milky_26 said:

i dont know much about american law but dont a lot of their crimes (including very serious ones) have a statue of limitations so it might be that the case is too old to be tried/investigated?

 

Some states that's true for sexual assault. Not Maryland.

 

If you think it's nutty having English/Welsh, Scots and Norn Irish laws, try having federal, 50 states, DC, US territory and local (city-level) bylaws all interacting with each other, with various jurisdiction questions based on the issue.

 

Great fun being an American lawyer

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

4 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

Right now I'd choose the lawyer Avenatti over any Democratic Senator as the Democratic nominee.  But that won't happen. 

 

4 hours ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

 

Avenatti would be a disaster. He also accidentally helped the Republicans get Kavanaugh through thanks to his antics. No thanks.

 

Kamala Harris for me. She'll run rings around him in a campaign. 

[Ulysses]

5 hours ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

The Democrats need an in-your-face populist who will call Trump for what he is, a liar, a misogynist, and a con-man.  But that will take someone with fire in his/her belly and a backbone, and I can't think of anyone in the Democratic party who fits that description.  Maybe Cory Booker from New Jersey, but the rest of those Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee are timid as mice.

 

Sorry to be so disagreeable, but no they absolutely do not.

 

They need someone who will completely ignore Trump and focus on the issues that matter to voters, especially the economic issues.

[Maple Leaf]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Sorry to be so disagreeable, but no they absolutely do not.

 

They need someone who will completely ignore Trump and focus on the issues that matter to voters, especially the economic issues.

 

I'm quoting off the top of my head, so I might not be completely accurate, but in the last 6 years the Democrats have .....

 

- lost control of the House

- lost control of the Senate

- lost the White House

- have seen the Supreme Court swing to the Right

- watched the economy continue to boom, with some of the best numbers in generations.

 

I suppose the Democrats could keep on doing the same old same old.  But I think they should try a different approach.

 

 

 

[ri Alban]

54 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

I'm quoting off the top of my head, so I might not be completely accurate, but in the last 6 years the Democrats have .....

 

- lost control of the House

- lost control of the Senate

- lost the White House

- have seen the Supreme Court swing to the Right

- watched the economy continue to boom, with some of the best numbers in generations.

 

I suppose the Democrats could keep on doing the same old same old.  But I think they should try a different approach.

 

 

 

The American economy boom(Obama legacy) has nothing to do with Trump. But the bust, which is just around the corner, is all his.  Let's see him fake news himself out of that shite when the people realise he's the biggest monster thing in the swamp. 

[Sidelight]

 

 

 

 

[Cade]

Trump's actually touting Ivanka as the new UN ambassador

 

 

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

The American economy boom(Obama legacy) has nothing to do with Trump. But the bust, which is just around the corner, is all his.  Let's see him fake news himself out of that shite when the people realise he's the biggest monster thing in the swamp. 

It owes something to the Trump tax bill whether you like it or not and whether it is sustainable or not or "fair" or not  Pretending it doesn't would be another Democrat delusion.

[Seymour M Hersh]

19 hours ago, Kalamazoo Jambo said:

Nikki Haley has resigned as US Ambassador to the UN. Haley is a very savvy politician, so I’d love to know the real story here.

 

I think when she took the job she said she'd do two years max. There may not be a story which no doubt will upset a fair few on this thread.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Seymour M Hersh

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 hours ago, Cade said:

Trump's actually touting Ivanka as the new UN ambassador

 

 

 

He said she'd make a dynamite ambassador. She has said she would not accept the role. So not really touting her is he. Rick Grenell, Dina Powell, Jon Huntsman and Heather Nauert are certainly possibilities though. 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

I read that the Russian loving son-in-law was being touted to replace haley, too. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I think when she took the job she said she'd do two years max. There may not be a story which no doubt will upset a fair few on this thread.

She has nade it clear that the resignation is as you say, Trump although you cannot trust antyhing he says , denies that Ivanka will be considered as he does not want to look like he agrees with nepotism. He is how ever looking towards  h

is son in law.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I think when she took the job she said she'd do two years max.

 

I can't find any evidence of that, but willing to be proved wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

There may not be a story which no doubt will upset a fair few on this thread.

 

As I mentioned in another post yesterday, I think it's smart timing for her, politically, and I think she needs the money that a private sector job would bring. That's probably it. Personally I'd find it a pleasant change to have a Trump nominee have a scandal-free exit from their job.

 

 

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 hours ago, bobsharp said:

She has nade it clear that the resignation is as you say, Trump although you cannot trust antyhing he says , denies that Ivanka will be considered as he does not want to look like he agrees with nepotism. He is how ever looking towards  h

is son in law.

 

Nepotism is not illegal in the White House but is in other areas of US Government. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Seymour M Hersh

[milky_26]

he may as well just appoint barron to the position

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 06/10/2018 at 23:24, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I posted that to show how polar opposite the views on this alleged incident are and as a possible rebuttal to the quote by the poster.  I have no idea if this guy is worthy of the post or not and really don't care tbh. American politics is a cess pit and has been for decades. However I seem to remember similar sort of fuss with Clarence Thomas and that he'd be so right wing etc etc. I could not tell you who all the SCOTI (arf) are or their political affiliation but I don't remember outcries to democratic nominees (although I am sure there might have been some). As for his credibility have you examined his record as a Judge of the DC appeals court circuit? I've not and I'm not going to but it might give a clearer idea if he is going to act as you suggest. As for the drinking under age it depends what state he was in as they did not align to all being 21 until 84. When I lived in NC (81) they had 2 age limit believe it or not. 18 for beer and wine and 21 for hard liquor! Iirc Reagan's administration threatened to pull federal funding if the states did not go to a universal 21 age limit. 

 

Just to speak on Thomas, he's widely considered one of the three most if not the most right-wing Justice on the court since he was nominated, with Scalia and Alito being the only two that give him competition. He also effectively never speaks from the bench, although he has an extensive written record of opinions.

 

I'm not making an argument in this post, just saying that the "fuss . . . that he'd be so right wing" has been largely borne out by history.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

On 09/10/2018 at 13:00, milky_26 said:

she has denied she is thinking about running for president for 2020

 

IMO based on nothing other than the little bits of news we're all reading, I this is accurate. I think she's looking at 2024 when the GOP is looking to pick up the pieces.

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Nepotism is not illegal in the White House but is in other areas of US Government. 

Yes I understand that I was just really commenting that with Trumps reputation for making statements and changing after that I just no longer believe anything he says, and if he nominate Ivanka I would not be surprised. However the fact that she would have to attend a nomination hearing and the questions she could be asked may seem a likely reason why he would not nominate her.

[Seymour M Hersh]

10 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Yes I understand that I was just really commenting that with Trumps reputation for making statements and changing after that I just no longer believe anything he says, and if he nominate Ivanka I would not be surprised. However the fact that she would have to attend a nomination hearing and the questions she could be asked may seem a likely reason why he would not nominate her.

 

When he made the comment she tweeted saying she would not accept the role. 

[Sharpie]

20 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

When he made the comment she tweeted saying she would not accept the role. 

You point out that nepotism is not illegal in the White House, would an ambassadorship be considered another area of goverment. Only asking.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, bobsharp said:

You point out that nepotism is not illegal in the White House, would an ambassadorship be considered another area of goverment. Only asking.

 

No idea tbh. If it's a White House appointment then perhaps that is enough. 

[ri Alban]

21 hours ago, bobsharp said:

Yes I understand that I was just really commenting that with Trumps reputation for making statements and changing after that I just no longer believe anything he says, and if he nominate Ivanka I would not be surprised. However the fact that she would have to attend a nomination hearing and the questions she could be asked may seem a likely reason why he would not nominate her.

Any updates Bob? Your coverage is better than the news. 

[Sharpie]

16 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Any updates Bob? Your coverage is better than the news. 

 I would not claim to have better coverage than the news, they do a good job of providing the material from which I make my sometimes reasonable comments.

 Not much on the Trump scene due to the major damage in Florida from the hurricane. Trump on the programs I watched, all fake news of course were critical of Trump going to a rally during such a c risis. Trumplike he managed to get even more criticism calling the Democrats the dims and saying they are wackos. What was interesting was that the rally of course was aimed at the November elections, and he commented on numerous occasions that a vote in November and they should all get out and vote was for him. I wonder how the Republican delegates feel knowing that they are only in their position because of the president and nothing to do with their if any accomplishments. There was quick comment on prison reform, a subject he is having a meeting to discuss with Kanye West today. I did not see the question, but it seems someone mentioned Sessions regarding prison reform, and Trump advised, Sessions done what he was told to do by Trump. Usually I would feel sorry for someone treated that way by a boss, I know I personally I would not have taken it and by doing so Sessions deserves all he gets.

One thing about being a couple of days from entering your twenty eighth year of retirement a person has lots of time to keep up with current affairs.

 

[Cade]

USA votes against a UN resolution condemning the death penalty for homosexuality.