And then there were Three....Correction....FIVE...!!

Ana the Ist · Sep 28, 2018

AirPo said:
Yes. Feinstein had a legit reason for waiting. The republicans did not.

Her "legit reason" was to protect the identity of Ford. That apparently no longer mattered once it was close to time to confirm him. So if they decided that protecting Ford's identity was secondary to making the accusations....then there's no reason why they couldn't have made these allegations nearly two months ago.

I think that the deliberate delay of these accusations until just before his confirmation is a legit reason to not involve the FBI.

NotreDame · Sep 28, 2018

AirPo said:
That's good for a start.

Maybe, maybe not, but mere accusations should not terminate an existing nominee.

NotreDame · Sep 28, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
That would be the ideal, but failing that, less than three would be acceptable.

After all, Thomas only had one accuser (for sexual harassment, not even sexual assault) and he managed to squeak by... following an FBI investigation, of course.

What is ideal is mere accusations are insufficient to kill an existing nomination.

Allandavid · Sep 28, 2018

Ana the Ist said:
Her "legit reason" was to protect the identity of Ford. That apparently no longer mattered once it was close to time to confirm him. So if they decided that protecting Ford's identity was secondary to making the accusations....then there's no reason why they couldn't have made these allegations nearly two months ago.

I think that the deliberate delay of these accusations until just before his confirmation is a legit reason to not involve the FBI.

The remit of the FBI is to uncover facts, not to attribute political motives...

TLK Valentine · Sep 28, 2018

NotreDame said:
Maybe, maybe not, but mere accusations should not terminate an existing nominee.

"Terminate"? You have to have the job before you get fired from it.

DaisyDay · Sep 28, 2018

NotreDame said:
I’m unaware of the practice of judges determining how much a person can afford, and then setting the bond higher than what the suspect can afford, on the basis of the suspect couldn’t afford the bond.

You know that isn't what I said. The whole problem is that the judge does NOT determine how much a person can afford before setting the bond and so it gets routinely set far above what working-poor people can afford.

Just because a suspect cannot pay a bond doesn’t lead to the conclusion rights were abrogated based on wealth.

Of course it does just that.

There isn’t a right to a bond one can afford to post.

The point of bail to to ensure the person shows up. Setting it so high that the person remains incarcerated before trial is a violation of their right to liberty.

Furthermore, it is coercive as a person who can't afford bail stands to lose their job, housing and custody of their children - everything - while they await trial which if they are not guilty means they are nonetheless punished, so a bad deal if they accept a plea bargain to save what they have, but too big a gamble not to. People of wealth don't face this dilemma.

TLK Valentine · Sep 28, 2018

NotreDame said:
What is ideal is mere accusations are insufficient to kill an existing nomination.

Hypothetical situation:

You have two job applicants, both equally qualified. One has a record of multiple sexual abuse complaints against him... what's wrong with looking at the other guy?

Ana the Ist · Sep 28, 2018

Allandavid said:
The remit of the FBI is to uncover facts, not to attribute political motives...

I don't see what that has to do with my post.

DaisyDay · Sep 28, 2018

Ana the Ist said:
You're saying that people unable to post bail aren't presumed innocent when they go to trial?

Or....?

Pretty much as they are incarcerated weeks, months, even years before going to trial - if they ever get a trial. Happily, if they are found guilty, they can apply the time served awaiting trial towards their sentence. Unhappily, if they're acquitted, chances are their housing is gone, their job is gone, their children are in social services, but, oh well, they got a trial (maybe).

Of course not...but as he is being accused of a crime, he should at least be afforded the same rights as a criinal...right?

He hasn't needed bail. His life and liberty have not been put at jeopardy, right? He has been asked a few questions, during which he has been more than free to interrupt and filibuster - which criinals aren't generally allowed to do, right?

DaisyDay · Sep 28, 2018

AirPo said:
You mean like until there is a different President?

Or a new Senate...

Ana the Ist · Sep 28, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
Hypothetical situation:

You have two job applicants, both equally qualified. One has a record of multiple sexual abuse complaints against him... what's wrong with looking at the other guy?

Well...it would be suspicious if after multiple professional background investigations, they never turned up anything about the applicant being involved in any alcoholic rape gangs lol.

The main problem would be that due to the length of the hiring process, starting over could mean that you lose the opportunity to hire who you want and instead, the other manager who has very different ideas about what direction the business should take will get to hire who they want instead.

Other than that though lol, I guess there's nothing wrong with it.

DaisyDay · Sep 28, 2018

Another double post!

Ana the Ist · Sep 28, 2018

DaisyDay said:
Pretty much as they are incarcerated weeks, months, even years before going to trial - if they ever get a trial. Happily, if they are found guilty, they can apply the time served awaiting trial towards their sentence. Unhappily, if they're acquitted, chances are their housing is gone, their job is gone, their children are in social services, but, oh well, they got a trial (maybe).

What does any of that have to do with the presumption of innocence?

He hasn't needed bail. His life and liberty have not been put at jeopardy, right?

No....just his professional reputation, his marriage, and his current and future career have been put in jeopardy.

He has been asked a few questions, during which he has been more than free to interrupt and filibuster - which criinals aren't generally allowed to do, right?

No...I don't know that he's allowed to interrupt or filibuster a Senate hearing. This isn't an actual criminal proceeding. Arguably, if this was a criminal investigation, it wouldn't have gotten this far....as it's unlikely any prosecutor would actually take these accusations to court. These accusations would be dismissed outright for lack of evidence. So, given that he has to endure accusations even the average citizen wouldn't have to face, he deserves the presumption of innocence.

TLK Valentine · Sep 28, 2018

Ana the Ist said:
Well...it would be suspicious if after multiple professional background investigations, they never turned up anything about the applicant being involved in any alcoholic rape gangs lol.

One has to investigate before one finds... fortunately, Flake and Murkowski have managed to force an investigation by threatening to withhold their votes.

The main problem would be that due to the length of the hiring process, starting over could mean that you lose the opportunity to hire who you want and instead, the other manager who has very different ideas about what direction the business should take will get to hire who they want instead.

Let that be a lesson in the importance of doing it right the first time.

LostMarbels · Sep 28, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
This isn't about Donald, and it certainly isn't about God. Those two have little common ground with one another, let alone Kavanaugh.

You would have to understand that Cyrus was a Pagan King, not Jewish, and he rebuilt Israel letting the Jews free. Cyrus, like Trump, was powerful, rich, and pagan, not at all godly in appearance or action. Rude, crude, arrogant.... so on.

Our congress in the current years has had a significant role in the rebuilding Israel.

The supreme Court is almost always there to confound any attempts.

(only 2 examples given, as they themselves are not the argument)
Supreme Court: Congress Cannot Decide That Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel
By Janet McMahon

U.S. Supreme Court rules against Israeli terror victims in case against Arab Bank

So, for Trump to be able to do something as wild as rebuild the Temple on the temple mount, he will need justices that will uphold his views. Kavanaugh is such a man.

Same could be said with immigration, sanctuary cities, 1st & 2nd amendment, trade, border wall........

TLK Valentine · Sep 28, 2018

LostMarbels said:
You would have to understand that Cyrus was a Pagan King, not Jewish, and he rebuilt Israel letting the Jews free. Cyrus, like Trump, was powerful, rich, and pagan, not at all godly in appearance or action. Rude, crude, arrogant.... so on.

And was hailed as a "Messiah" for it, iirc.

Surely Donald deserves no less...

Our congress in the current years has had a significant role in the rebuilding Israel.

Be nice if they could take some time to rebuild America...

The supreme Court is almost always there to confound any attempts.

And the must be stopped, hmmm?

(only 2 examples given, as they themselves are not the argument)
Supreme Court: Congress Cannot Decide That Jerusalem Is the Capital of Israel
By Janet McMahon

U.S. Supreme Court rules against Israeli terror victims in case against Arab Bank

We have a Constitution for a reason, you know... it's not enough to do right... one must do it the right way.

So, for Trump to be able to do something as wild as rebuild the Temple on the temple mount,

Why would he want to do that? Aren't there enough issues in this country that need attention?

And why wouldn't Israel do it themselves?

he will need justices that will uphold his

views. Kavanaugh is such a man.

Indeed... Donald needs the "independent" judiciary on his side on order to do his will...

Same could be said with immigration,

sanctuary cities, 1st & 2nd amendment, trade, border wall........

Surely there's a man with fewer than three sexual assault complaints who shares these views... or is there?

LostMarbels · Sep 28, 2018

TLK Valentine said:
And was hailed as a "Messiah" for it, iirc.

Surely Donald deserves no less...

Donald Trump is not the Messiah, or the anti-Christ as you are suggesting I am stating. He is the John the Baptist that makes way for the 'messiah'. His intentions are not to do so on purpose, but his complete lack of understanding of the bible is leading him to actions to cause it. Trump genuinely wants peace, prosperity, and unity. Never the less, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

TLK Valentine said:
Be nice if they could take some time to rebuild America...

How? A vote in the senate? Congressional powers? We are in such utter turmoil nothing can be accomplished without first cleaning house.

TLK Valentine said:
We have a Constitution for a reason, you know... it's not enough to do right... one must do it the right way.

The Dems use the constitution as a weapon against those with the ideals to uphold it. They only want their way, and only use constitutional powers in a way to suppress and or obstruct their opposition. Just like you bring it up now. There is no genuine concern whether or not the constitution is upheld. Instead it is an appeal to my own ideals in order to dissuade my views and make me question whether they are, or not, contrary to my ideals.

Sow doubt. Confusion.

TLK Valentine said:
Surely there's a man with fewer than three sexual assault complaints who shares these views... or is there?

This tactic is commonly used. Again, intended to appeal to peoples morals, and shame them into standing by their own morals concerning false allegations. The purposed argument is that 'if you were so moral' then you would not allow/abide by this individual/situation. Well the problem with that is the allegations are false, politically motivated, and bare no reference to the morals of any individual that questions there credibility.

To reference the point that God has a hand in this, the world, in it's 'infinite wisdom', decide it would be a good idea to murder the Son of God. How well did that work out for them? It is nothing new for the world to rail against those chosen by God to fulfill a purpose. It is nothing new for the religious to contend with God thinking they are being faithful either. All such situations have precedents in the bible. Multiple arrests, tortures and even executions of those who have followed God in the bible.

There is nothing new under the sun.

ToddNotTodd · Sep 28, 2018

LostMarbels said:
Well the problem with that is the allegations are false, politically motivated, and bare no reference to the morals of any individual that questions there credibility.

Would you please site your sounces for the statement of fact you’ve made?

LostMarbels · Sep 28, 2018

ToddNotTodd said:
Would you please site your sounces for the statement of fact you’ve made?

Unfortunately, even on christian forum we have devolved into constant use of secular and/or carnal reasoning in an attempt to explain everything. However, we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. We are not in contention with the people themselves. This is a spiritual (metaphysical) fight/battle that carnal explanations are not able to 'prove' in every instance.

This is not even a fight about Kavanaugh's character. This is a fight against what Kavanaugh will enact as SCOTUS. That is what scares people. What if they no longer have control over the supreme court to rule against the wall, and immigration? What if abortion became sates rights and was voted on instead of written into law? Same could be said about the LGBTQ movement. How many people freek out at the mere thought of their movement becoming a states rights issue where the people vote on LGBTQ legislation. Why? Because the majority of people don't want it.

So even in a purely secular sense, were not falling for it.

TLK Valentine · Sep 28, 2018

LostMarbels said:
Donald Trump is not the Messiah, or the anti-Christ as you are suggesting I am stating. He is the John the Baptist that makes way for the 'messiah'.

That could be problematic -- Donald's not one to suffer being upstaged.

His intentions are not to do so on purpose, but his complete lack of understanding of the bible is leading him to actions to cause it. Trump genuinely wants peace, prosperity, and unity. Never the less, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

He also wants praise, power, and wealth. Don't think his intentions are all good...

How? A vote in the senate? Congressional powers? We are in such utter turmoil nothing can be accomplished without first cleaning house.

Clearly such impediments to the will of Donald must be swept away...

The Dems use the constitution as a weapon against those with the ideals to uphold it. They only want their way, and only use constitutional powers in a way to suppress and or obstruct their opposition. Just like you bring it up now. There is no genuine concern whether or not the constitution is upheld. Instead it is an appeal to my own ideals in order to dissuade my views and make me question whether they are, or not, contrary to my ideals.

Sounds like the Constitution also is an impediment to the will of Donald... it, too, must be swept away.

Sow doubt. Confusion.

That would be redundant.

This tactic is commonly used. Again, intended to appeal to peoples morals, and shame them into standing by their own morals concerning false allegations.

Or true allegations. Nothing short of the threat of failure has convinced those in power to seek the truth.

The purposed argument is that 'if you were so moral' then you would not allow/abide by this individual/situation. Well the problem with that is the allegations are false, politically motivated, and bare no reference to the morals of any individual that questions there credibility.

Only now, however, will we seek the truth.

To reference the point that God has a hand in this, the world, in it's 'infinite wisdom', decide it would be a good idea to murder the Son of God.

Who came to this world explicitly to be murdered for the si s of the world.

How well did that work out for them?

Considering how Christianity wouldn't exist without it, I'd say it worked out pretty well for all involved.

It is nothing new for the world to rail against those chosen by God to fulfill a purpose. It is nothing new for the religious to contend with God thinking they are being faithful either. All such situations have precedents in the bible. Multiple arrests, tortures and even executions of those who have followed God in the bible.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Are you suggesting that Donald and/or Kavanaugh are chosen by God to fulfill a purpose?

If so, would you suggest that that purpose is to restore Israel and raise it to power and prominence in the world?

And then there were Three....Correction....FIVE...!!

Aggressively serene!

Domer

Domer

Well-Known Member

I've already read the books you want burned.

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

I've already read the books you want burned.

Aggressively serene!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Aggressively serene!

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Aggressively serene!

I've already read the books you want burned.

All-Lives-Matter

I've already read the books you want burned.

All-Lives-Matter

Iconoclast

All-Lives-Matter

I've already read the books you want burned.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency