MrBum comments

Posted in: Senate confirms Kavanaugh for Supreme Court by vote of 50-48 See in context

What candidate would the Democrats have supported that the Republicans would even consider putting forward? Even a female conservative would have struggled.

Neil Gorsuch got through. At the very least not someone accused of attempted rape and who doesn't lie in hearings. Lying should be a deal breaker for judges.

Never convicted of rape, not even charged with it.

He didn't have to be. It was a job interview, not a criminal case. The exact accusations would have denied him a job at McDonalds. But a lifetime position on the Supreme Court? GOP says OK.

No solid evidence suggesting he enabled it.

Well, an accused attempted rapist getting a job on the highest court in the country doesn't exactly send a strong rebuking message toward rapists.

2 ( +13 / -11 )

Posted in: Senator's dramatic demand spurs panel to seek FBI Kavanaugh probe See in context

I think this FBI investigation gives us a chance to learn more about Ford. According to her high school yearbook it turns out that she was a heavy drinker who did not live the lifestyle of a nun.

So rape is ok if the girl was a heavy drinker?

The difference between Ford and Kavanaugh is that Ford never claimed to be a nun. Kavanaugh on the other hand tried to portray himself as a virgin bible-studies bookworm when his yearbook entry clearly indicates otherwise. If he can't even be honest about being a partier in high school or lies about the meanings boof, Devil's Triangle, Renate Alumnius, etc., he has zero credibility in my opinion.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump's Supreme Court nominee tearfully denies woman's sexual assault allegation See in context

That being said, if he is found to be innocent of the allegations, should all Dems on the senate then vote Yes for Kavanaugh? Not likely, eh?

They should concede if it's proven without a doubt. But I honestly don't expect that it will be proven without a doubt. However, an investigation WILL add to the believably of one side or the other. Like it or not, that's all that we're going to get in my opinion. Without definitive proof, we have to decide who to believe because one of them is telling the truth.

In addition, should Ford then be charged with perjury for destroying his name, integrity and family?

Again, that would depend on if it's proven that she intentionally lied and chose Kavanaugh as the perpetrator in her otherwise seemingly factual account. IF that happened, Kavanaugh's name would be restored anyway.

I think this all about hating on Trump and the Dems still have poopy pants over 2016 election.

I have no doubt the Dems hate Trump and they have justifiable motive to do everything they can to block the GOP pick. But putting aside their political motive, not appointing a justice with this much baggage and with a credible accuser happens to be the most logical thing to do too. Ford came to the Dems, not the other way around.

The Republicans are in the stronger position as far as votes here. Ask yourself if appointing Kavanaugh over another conservative judge without this much baggage really shows that they have the country's best interest in mind.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump's Supreme Court nominee tearfully denies woman's sexual assault allegation See in context

Wow! Incredible hate from the left on here. Anti due process, automatically guilty based on allegations and left wing media refering to him as a sexual predator.

Anti due process? The "left" is pushing for an FBI investigation that would at the very least get us closer to the truth.

Why wouldn't Kavanaugh and the right want to clear his name is the most thorough way possible? Why appoint a Supreme Court justice with so much doubt hanging over him? Is that really good for the country?

They're always happy to investigate when it's not concerning their own. Kavanaugh was an eager participant in the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Another example of inconsistency and hypocrisy from the right.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump's Supreme Court nominee tearfully denies woman's sexual assault allegation See in context

Not even Republicans are disputing that someone tried to rape Ford after that testimony and are focusing on a mistaken identity defense.

As far the details that she does and doesn't remember, victims who are afraid to come forward for years don't remember details with the intent to incriminate, they remember the details that traumatized them. She might not remember the exact when and where after more than 30 years, but she most certainly remembers the what and who.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump, Iran's Rouhani exchange threats, insults on U.N.'s world stage See in context

Yeah because getting laughed at by others long after elementary school is like really important.

"We need a president who isn't a laughing stock." - Donald Trump in 2014

Trump was just parroting the GOP talking point of the time, and now the GOP is defending Trump who's literally being laughed at. Typical Republican hypocrisy. Completely in line with a supposed party of family values that unwaveringly supports a philandering conman.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

Thanks for admitting the democrats are full of crap and are just out for revenge, not the best interests of the people.

I didn't admit democrats are full of crap, I admitted they have a reason to fight back for a spot on the bench that the GOP robbed from them. Whatever their reasons, putting a left-leaning justice on the bench is in the best interests of the people, at the very least for their constituents.

Who is the GOP serving by rushing a potential attempted-rapist onto the bench? Republican voters? Or is it something to do with the fact that Kavanaugh believes a sitting president should be immune to investigations and indictment?

Typical tactic of leftists: conflate separate issues in order to deflect. "Trump and Kavanaugh"... "Thier accusers..."

My comment was in response to a typical right-wing attempt to deflect. I didn't bring up Ellison in an article about Kavanaugh, YOU did. Hypocrisy?

Trump is not under scrutiny for sexual misconduct at the moment

He should be along with Ellison, because none of the president's misconduct was settled. These cases become harder to pursue once the accused enters office, more so when the office is higher. Which is exactly why it's important to settle this before Kavanaugh is confirmed.

And yes, attorney general is just as important--if you're not a big-government believing socialist--if you believe in states' autonomy.

We should be looking at misconduct cases at every level. But you're being dishonest if you say that SCOTUS and POTUS aren't at the top of the list for places you don't want a sexual abuser/harasser.

But a great try to dodge the blatant hypocrisy of the democrats by dismissing the whole Keith Ellison issue.

I don't live in Minnesota, so I've only followed this story recently. It seems to have only come out fairly recently too. There's time for it to be thoroughly investigated, and I hope it is. I certainly wouldn't vote for him if the allegations seemed true.

But your talk of hypocrisy? You don't even know the meaning of the word.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

Concerned Citizen:

Thanks for the correction.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

The position in question does in no way negate Judge Kavanaugh's human rights.

What human rights? His right is to have his guilt or innocence proven in a court of law? That's not possible.

The duty of the Senate is to confirm a justice with impeccable character for the American people. Questions about a justice's attempted rape are not good for the American people. If Kavanaugh is innocent and had any decency, he'd decline the nomination while continuing to claim his innocence. His getting a job is not more important than the country.

I'm sorry to hear of your position and hope you suffer negative consequences due to an unproven allegation.

Gee, same to you buddy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

Your prospective employer rejecting you 'even on a chance you are guilty' as you put it. Is that OK with you Mr. Bum?

This isn't just any job, it's the Supreme Court, so it's one man or the country. It's subjecting one innocent man to the injustice of not getting a job vs. subjecting the country to a lifetime of SCOTUS decisions made by a man who refused to admit to attempted rape...

Of course I'm OK with dumping Kavanaugh. His image would be damaged, but he probably wouldn't loose his entire career, because he wouldn't be proven guilty in a court of law. And the rest of us would get a justice we don't have to wonder about.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

I'm concerned enough to want to avoid seeing a Supreme Court position possibly be decided and a person's reputation shredded based on an accusation without due process.

So a victim who lets the statute of limitations run out doesn't at least get to call out his/her abuser? You think a potentially guilty person should become a Supreme Court judge because his crime can't be proven anymore?

Our persronal politics and opinions aside that seems the only lawful conclusion. Don't you agree Mr. Bum?

No, I don't agree. If there's even a chance he's guilty, how is choosing him to be on the highest court of law in the country lawful??? It's well within Trump's power to make another pick. Don't give me some crap about Democrats constructing some accusation about the next nominee. If it was so easy to find credible accusers it would be happening more often. It would've happened with Gorsuch, for instance.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

Do a lot of things that I don’t like about this, I don’t like the timing that Feinstein set on this information for over 45 days and did nothing,

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some delaying strategy involved. So what? Merrick Garland.

I don’t like it that this woman has a history of activism and is a far left supporter of Hillary Clinton, that since bells in my head.

She's a Democratic voter. So what? BTW as a far leftie, Hillary Clinton is not far left.

I don’t like it that the Republicans are trying everything they can to make sure this woman can testify and give her the respect that she is due And she decides to decline...gee, wonder why.....

Everything except push for an FBI investigation. I wonder why? She wants FBI involvement because it'll make it harder for Republicans to sweep under the rug like they're trying now. Regardless, the FBI is declining (what happened to the deep state?), and I get the feeling she'll testify without them.

if the Democrats are serious like they say they are, they should immediately Start looking into and investigate Mr. Ellison.

I agree, and there's really no indication that they aren't. You understand why a Supreme Court appointment gets more attention though, right?

And there’s a 70/30 chance she’s not being honest here.

That's your opinion, and my opinion is it makes much less sense for her to be lying. Hence, the 50/50.

Out of the 136...none that the Democrats would like and let’s face it, if Kavanaugh doesn’t make the cut, with the next nominee the Democrats will find something with that individual.

I'm sure they will. So what? Merrick Garland. And Gorsuch got through, so there's that.

so we don’t need to play this stupid game as Chuck Grassley said if she doesn’t report in by tomorrow the vote goes forward.

Republicans have a political motive to rush the confirmation, Democrats have a political motive to delay it. But let's remember it's the Republicans that are rushing to confirm a potential attempted-rapist onto the Supreme Court.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Until then this is a non issue. Let's move on.

It's nearly impossible to prove in a court of law. There's still a good 50/50 chance he's guilty. This is the Supreme Court for Christ's sake. Are you telling me the Republicans have nobody better?

Let's move on.

Some concerned citizen you are.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

How little you know or care about Keith Ellison is that you don’t even know that his ex-wife wants his congressional seat. so she issued 2 statements of support for him. Support for him beating up his ex girlfriend.

My mistake. I admit I didn't know about it until you told me, but I'll keep up with it from now. If it's true, he's lost my support, but then again, I don't vote in Minnesota.

You still haven't explained your support of Kavanaugh and Trump. Their accusers (a dozen in Trump's case) are just liars but we should worry about Ellison?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

Keith Ellison. Recently. Libs don’t care at ALL.

His and his ex-wife's story is still unfolding, as is Kavanaugh's. You got to admit a lifetime post to the highest court tops a state attorney general candidate in coverage priority though, especially when you consider that voters will get to judge Ellison directly.

Also Donald Trump. Recently. Conservatives REALLY don't care at ALL.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

Democrats don't even want a serious investigation into allegations against Kavanaugh; they just want Kavanaugh blocked.

Can you blame them? Republicans blocked Merrick Garland with no allegations or valid reasoning at all. Hypocrisy?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

I thinks it's disgusting the way the democrats are trying to air Kavanaugh out, especially since they've turned their backs on and won't even listen to Keith Ellison's former girlfriend who says he beat her. I thought the democrats really cared about women and victims of violent crimes.

Don't pretend hypocrisy doesn't exist on both sides. Many Republicans supported Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, Roy Moore, Rob Porter, etc. to the very end, and still support Donald Trump despite accusations from multiple women.

I guess it's all a big show just to get political leverage. Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy!

Again, it's political on both sides. There's absolutely no reason to rush through the appointment of a potential attempted-rapist if the Republicans weren't worried about the November elections.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump defends Supreme Court nominee; accuser faces deadline See in context

She doesn’t remember where this supposed party was; She doesn’t remember what year, month nor date the alleged attack happened;

At the very least, she remembers the year. The article says 1982. What other information are you getting wrong, and where are you getting them from?

She never told any of her closest friends; She never told her parents; No police report was ever filed;

This doesn’t help her case, but it doesn’t hurt it either. Feelings of shame and fear of not being believed are common among abuse victims.

The psych notes taken by the therapist in 2012 states there were 4 males in the room at the time of ref alleged attack. Now, the number is two;

The psych confused 4 people at the party as 4 males in the room. It’s completely conceivable. The fact that Ford places any witnesses at the party at all actually makes her story more believable. Why would she include people who might deny everything in a made-up false accusation? It would've been easier for her if it was simply he said she said.

Brett Kavanaugh's name is never mentioned in any of the therapist's notes;

This makes sense if she didn’t want to come out with the story. She kept it to herself until she realized that her abuser might be appointed to a lifetime position in the highest court of the land.

Just a few days before she went public, she scrubbed all her social media accounts.

Wouldn’t you if knew how toxic social media and the public can get when you come out with accusations of this nature?

I agree that it’s a difficult case to prove either way in a court of law, but this is a Supreme Court position. When you have a witness as credible as Ford, even a shadow of the behavior she describes should be enough to disqualify. It would in other lower positions.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Posted in: Republicans dodge, weave around Trump's hurricane tweets See in context

How come Puerto Rico Secretary of State Luis Rivera Marin doesn't have any huge complaints about the federal response to last year's Hurricane Maria? Oh my...

The Puerto Rican people have huge complaints.

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/09/13/puerto-rico-reacts-trump-claim-santiago-dnt-lead-vpx.cnn

I don't know much about Puerto Rican politics. Maybe there was corruption and poor infrastructure to begin with, and I do think it's unfair to put all the blame for all those deaths on the Trump administration's response.

That said, the point that Trump defenders seem to miss is that just one death is enough to make it in poor taste to use the situation as an opportunity to boast. To double down and question death tolls from a reputable source without providing evidence of his own is plain disgusting.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans dodge, weave around Trump's hurricane tweets See in context

Not sure what happened with the edge of my previous post but here it is again.

A study that we can easily know wants to link as many deaths as related to the storm as possible

The study is much more in depth, but even if you simply compare the number of deaths in that specific time frame and compare it to a year without a massive hurricane you'd get a rough idea. Again, they wouldn't risk their reputation on such an easily verifiable figure. The same can't be said for Trump.

But if you're that convinced they're lying, take a look at the report and point out which specific parts are false. It's open to the public, again unlike Trump's methodology for his wild claims.

https://publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/projects/PRstudy/Acertainment%20of%20the%20Estimated%20Excess%20Mortality%20from%20Hurricane%20Maria%20in%20Puerto%20Rico.pdf

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans dodge, weave around Trump's hurricane tweets See in context

A study that we can easily know wants to link as many deaths as related to the storm as possible.

The study is much more in depth, but even if you simply compare the number of deaths in that specific time frame and compare it to a year without a massive hurricane you'd get a rough idea. Again, they wouldn't risk their reputation on such an easily verifiable lie for any amount of money. Same can't be said for Trump.

But if you're that convinced they're lying, take a look at the report and point out which specific parts are false. It's open to the public, again unlike Trump's methodology for his wild claims.

https://publichealth.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/downloads/projects/PRstudy/Acertainment%20of%20the%20Estimated%20Excess%20Mortality%20from%20Hurricane%20Maria%20in%20Puerto%20Rico.pdf

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans dodge, weave around Trump's hurricane tweets See in context

Yes the fact that the people who did the report say 3000 people died but can’t produce a list of who those 3000 people are or their date or cause of death.

Do you really think a reputable research university would risk making up 3,000 dead people? Unlike our current POTUS, being caught is a lie like that would hurt their credibility among their peers and "base."

Those people are dead. It's whether their deaths can be attributed to the storm that's in question.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump boasts of response to deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico See in context

All the liberals want is to bring everything back to “but Trump”.

Like all criticisms, it started with Trump. HE used a natural disaster in which people died as an opportunity to boast. Just like his tweet telling us former mayor and current Trump personal lawyer Giuliani's "leadership, bravery and skill must never be forgotten. Rudy is a TRUE WARRIOR!" before even mentioning the victims of 9/11, his comments in the article show that he's completely tone deaf and only concerned with himself. The article and criticism isn't about the number of people that died, it's about the presidents complete lack of empathy.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump boasts of response to deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico See in context

I think about Hurricane Sandy, not a fine moment, wherecwas he again?

I was talking about the fist pump at crowds before a 911 memorial, but since you asked....

“He [Obama] has worked incredibly closely with me since before the storm hit.” - Then New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump boasts of response to deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico See in context

Even better, I guess people can “un-die ” now.

Researchers make new assessments based on overlooked or new information that wasn't available previously. That's how science works.

Explain to me how Trump's assertions are better formulated or how they're not politically/egotistically motivated?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump boasts of response to deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico See in context

Well once the media decided to push the “revisions” in how it was calculated to support a political narrative. We are also listening to our old friend the mayor of San Juan who was found to have lied about not having relief supplies?

We're not listening to the media or the mayor, we're listening to researchers from George Washington University. They came up with the revised death toll based on a study. You know, facts, numbers, data? Something beyond simple claims of "incredible unsung success."

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump boasts of response to deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico See in context

I wonder how the response will compare when a non-Spanish speaking area is hit?

Regardless of language, they'll be working with less money because apparently the Trump administration took $10 million from FEMA and diverted it to ICE.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/11/femas-budget-cut-10-million-support-ice-documents-show/1274723002/

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump boasts of response to deadly Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico See in context

So what?

Every time you ask yourself that, ask yourself how you and other conservatives would react if Obama did it. Try to be honest with yourself too.

As an Island nation everything bad that happens in on the mainland, but everything good that happens is on them?

That's not what he was saying at all. He was saying that Trump is needlessly insulting to Puerto Ricans when they're hurting and boasting about the administration's response adds to the lack of class and empathy displayed.

I can you you 2 dozen reasons.

I doubt it. But there are at least a dozen reasons not to like him. I gave two of them above.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan proposes end to commercial whaling ban See in context

@Disillusioned

Thanks for the clarification.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan proposes end to commercial whaling ban See in context

Putting aside arguments on both sides about tradition, humane slaughter, and endangered status, why is eating whale meat even being considered in Japan? According to studies by their own researchers, whale/dolphin meat contains 25 to 900 times (depending on body part) above safe mercury and toxin levels. Those are safety limits defined by their own government.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.