ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Forty-Nine Sister States All Had Alabama In Their Eyes

[ Posted Tuesday, December 5th, 2017 – 17:59 PST ]

In one week, Alabama is going to shock the nation in one way or another. Either they will elect an accused child molester to the United States Senate, or they will elect a Democrat. Either one is pretty jaw-dropping to consider, in this day and age. The polls are as tight as can be, with several recent ones showing Republican Roy Moore up by a few points, and others that show Democrat Doug Jones up by a few points. In other words, it is all going to come down to turnout.

Before I get to speculating on that, though, we have time for a quick music-related interlude. In 1980, the Grateful Dead released a song called "Alabama Getaway." In one of those synchronistic moments, some of the song's lyrics have a clear metaphorical prescience to them, when considering Roy Moore's current campaign:

Reason those poor girls love him
Promise them anything
Reason they believe him
He wears a big diamond ring

. . .

Heard your plea in the courthouse
Jurybox began to rock and rise
Forty-nine sister states all had
Alabama in their eyes

. . .

Why don't we just give Alabama
Rope enough to hang himself?
Ain't no call to worry the jury
His kind takes care of itself

I leave it for the reader to construct their own interpretations of these lyrics, but I thought they were interesting enough to point out.

Getting back to the special election, though, the results next Tuesday are likely to be close -- or, at the very least, a whole lot closer than most partisan contests in Alabama usually are. Moore may indeed win, but likely not by the usual 20- or 30-point margins the GOP regularly racks up there.

Because the race is going to be so close, and because it is a special election to begin with, turnout is going to be the key to victory. And turnout is notoriously hard for even professional pollsters to accurately predict.

Turnout matters more in a race with a smaller electorate, and it only matters at all in a race close enough to be affected. If a surge in turnout happens from one side or another, it usually only translates to a smallish portion of the total vote -- perhaps five percentage points. This means if the race is already lopsided (where one candidate is polling 15 points ahead of his or her challenger, say), a surge in turnout numbers wouldn't be enough to make up the difference. Most polls show the Alabama race is within six points, one way or the other. This is close to the margin of error of the polls themselves, and because some have shown Moore up while others put Jones in the lead, the race is probably going to be close enough that turnout numbers could indeed swing the election.

Special elections are normally pretty sleepy affairs, as well. The overall turnout can be as low as ten percent of a normal presidential-year election turnout. Meaning the smaller the number of total votes, the more influence a surge in turnout has. If, for example, 20,000 extra people show up at the polls voting for one side's candidate (over what was expected), it means a lot less in a race where two million total votes are cast than in an election with only 200,000 votes. In both respects, Alabama's turnout is going to be critical -- because the race is otherwise too close to call, and because a small shift could have an outsized effect on a special election.

At this point, even professional pollsters aren't venturing anything more than gut-feeling guesses as to how the race will end. The more honest ones will admit this. There's a case to be made for a relatively strong turnout for both sides, so it really boils down to essentially flipping a coin.

Republicans have an overwhelming advantage in Alabama overall. One might even speak of "Yellow Dog Republican voters" there, in fact (defined as someone who would vote for a yellow dog rather than a Democrat). The GOP also has an advantage in turnout, because older voters are much more likely to have the time to vote on a Tuesday in December. Older voters skew more Republican, which gives them this edge. Add to this a growing backlash over any and all outside influences (against pretty much everyone from outside the state: the Washington Post, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party as a whole, "Washington," Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer... the list is a long one). This could provide more motivation to "send a message" to the rest of the country that Alabama voters will make up their own minds no matter what anyone else has to say about it. And finally, there's always the abortion issue, which is stronger in Alabama than in many other places (even many other red states). All this adds up to a pretty hefty set of motivations for Republican voters to actually show up at the polls.

But the Democrats have a strong case to make as well. There is the "ick factor" in play, where Republican voters might be so disgusted with the candidate that they just stay home. This likely won't show up in the opinion polls, but it will show up in the Election Day results. Beyond negative effects from the other side, though, Democrats may have the wind at their back for several reasons. The chance for Alabama Democrats to see one of their own in the Senate is a powerful motivator in a state where the final outcome of the race is usually determined by the Republican primary. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to break that mold, which could drive Democrats to the polls with a passion. There is also the overall wind at the Democrats' backs, as voters increasingly seem to want to send a clear anti-Trump message (as they did recently in the Virginia elections). The chance to send such a message coupled with the very real possibility of the Democratic candidate winning might create a surge in Democrats' turnout next week.

If this were a more-normal election, both sides would be heavily courting crossover voters. But I doubt that's going to be much of a factor in Alabama, because somehow I just don't see any meaningful number of Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for a Democrat. Or vice-versa, for that matter. If anything, Republican voters might just stay home but it's hard to see many of them switching parties, even during such a strange election.

So it's all going to come down to turnout. Who is more motivated to get to the polls? Will African-American voters provide the boost Jones needs? Or will evangelical voters be fired up enough to provide Moore the edge? There's even a chance both might happen at the same time -- which would lead to a overall surge in voting, compared to other special elections in the state. Of course, if this turns out to be the case, the race will still balance on an edge.

If I was placing a bet on the outcome, I'd have to reluctantly give Moore the win. Republicans hold such overwhelming institutional advantages in the state that it would be almost a miracle if a Democrat won this Senate seat, after all.

There are only two possible outcomes: Moore wins, or Jones wins. If Moore wins, he'll be an instant pariah within his own caucus, who may even move to expel him once he takes his seat. If they don't quickly get rid of him, then Moore is going to be a giant millstone around the neck of the GOP for the entire midterm election season. It's really a win-win situation for Democrats, because either they pull off a stunning upset and reduce the GOP majority to 51-49, or they get to use Moore as a punching bag for the entire election season, tying the Republican Party and all its candidates to the most extreme positions Moore takes. This is the "give him enough rope to hang himself" outcome -- because beyond the sexual misconduct allegations, Moore will provide all sorts of pithy quotes over all kinds of issues, one has to assume. He'll be the go-to guy for a quote on any contentious issue, and he'll likely embarrass the Republicans in ways they haven't even foreseen yet. If Moore does pull out a squeaker of a victory next week, it won't change the balance of power in Washington but it will change the flavor of the Senate Republican caucus, that's for sure.

The other possibility is that Jones rocks the other 49 states with a surprise win. This will instill a deep-seated fear among Republicans, even as they try to brush it off as a fluke loss due to a stunningly bad candidate with truckloads of baggage. Democrats will quite rightly claim a strong wind at their backs, and eagerly begin looking toward the midterms.

There's only one thing for certain in the Alabama special election, and that is that whatever happens next week, the storyline will be which side turned out their voters more effectively. This may (or may not) have repercussions throughout the midterm season, but Republicans should really be worried that the Democrat even got this close in such a ruby-red state to begin with. Especially with the threat of Steve Bannon out there trying to "primary" every Republican he finds insufficiently devoted to his own cause. In other words, Roy Moore might not wind up being the most extreme -- or even most bizarre -- candidate we see on the Republican side over the next year.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

195 Comments on “Forty-Nine Sister States All Had Alabama In Their Eyes”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    I haven't been following this Moore nonsense closely, but I have the impression that characterizing his doings as "child" molesting, might be a little strong.

    However, I've heard that molesting young women might be the official sport of AL, so you guys might be in trouble.

    I can't personally get too self-righteous on that subject. I 'molested' a 16 yr-old cutie for years back in the '50's, and she and I will be celebrating our 60th july of 2019.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    I can't personally get too self-righteous on that subject. I 'molested' a 16 yr-old cutie for years back in the '50's, and she and I will be celebrating our 60th july of 2019.

    Was she 14 and were you 32?

    Thought not.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    Plus this was 1979, not the 1950's. In the 1950's the "wrong" people couldn't sit at diners, the front of the bus or marry the "right" people.

    Maybe a 32-year-old molesting a 14-year-old was common in Alabama in the 1950's, and maybe you don't care, but let's hope, even in Alabama, you are in the minority. Sadly, I think your view will prevail - hell, she's only a woman after all.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Amusing time at the SCOTUS. The case hangs on the question "Is a cake speech"? If it is, then the baker can refuse to serve gay customers because free speech. The justices decided to test the whole "cake is speech" nonsense:

    What about ... floral arrangement? - yes;
    wedding invitations? - yes;
    menu for dinner? - yes;
    the jeweler? - possibly;
    hairstylist? - absolutely not (what do Christians have against hairstylists?);
    make up artist - no;
    chef - no!

    “Whoa!” Kagan pounced. “The baker is engaged in speech, but the chef is not engaged in speech?”

    Give it up - just say: hey, I hate gay people and want to make their lives as miserable as I can. Stop the BS. Own your vile personalities and stop hiding behind one of the decent people from history (Jesus).

  5. [5] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Neil [4]: yep.

  6. [6] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Turnout matters more in a race with a smaller electorate."

    So 15-20% of presidential year general election voters that don't normally vote in the primaries that can be as low as 10% participation in an off year election could easily have a major effect on the 2018 primaries if the 15-20% voted in the primaries for small contribution candidates and/or wrote in their own name.

    There is still time for One Demand to effect the 2018 primaries. Then maybe we won't be stuck with the majority of our races being subject to your misleading statement about the Alabama election- "There are only two possible outcomes: Moore wins, or Jones wins."

    Actually, there is only one possible outcome in the Alabama election- The Big Money interests win.

    Please stop pretending that the battle is between the Democrats and Republicans when it is between the Big Money interests (which includes BOTH the Democrats and Republicans) and the rest of us.

    It's time for Americans to stand up for Americans against the Big Money enemies of America.

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    [Posting both here and yesterday]

    Woo hoo! Our first 24 hours of the pledge drive has been more successful than any previous such effort, and we're almost at 50% of our goal already!

    :-)

    Just updated the thermometer to reflect this fact, and will be working on my thank-you notes tonight... for now, a big generic thanks to everyone who has helped in our record-breaking effort this year. At this rate, we'll be done before the budget can gets kicked down the road (later this week)... heh...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    neilm [4] -

    I almost wrote about the cake wars today. Here's the last time I tackled it:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/04/06/cake-wars-getting-stickier/

    I asked a lot more wide-ranging questions than SCOTUS did today. The one that gets me that I am actually surprised nobody else has mentioned: could a Catholic baker refuse to bake a cake for a wedding where at least one of the people had been divorced? Same exact reasoning ("my religion forbids it") and yet for some strange reason no Catholic bakers are balking at doing so, even though it must happen daily across the country, right?

    Maybe tomorrow...

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I can't personally get too self-righteous on that subject. I 'molested' a 16 yr-old cutie for years back in the '50's, and she and I will be celebrating our 60th july of 2019.

    I "molested" a 17 yr old hottie when I was a cop and we will be celebrating our 36th in March of 2018.... :D

    153

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Was she 14 and were you 32?

    Thought not.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html

    And the woman has a drug problem and a huge axe to grind against Moore AND waited almost 40 years to make the accusation right when it would be the most advantageous for the Democrats..

    Yea.. THAT's credible.. :^/

    Funny how ya'all give Clinton a pass, ya'all give Conyers a pass, give Franken a pass ya'all give ANYONE with a -D after their name a pass...

    Yea.. NO Party slavery involved here at all... :^/

    154

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sadly, I think your view will prevail - hell, she's only a woman after all.

    No, she's only a person with an axe to grind against Moore AND a person with an agenda..

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    What's so hilarious about this is if Moore had a -D after his name ya'all would be making the EXACT same arguments I am making..

    The only difference is that I would be agreeing with you...

    155

  13. [13] 
    neilm wrote:

    What's so hilarious about this is if Moore had a -D after his name ya'all would be making the EXACT same arguments I am making..

    No, we aren't. Nobody so far has defended anybody with a "-D" after their name.

    Today, in every area, the Entertainment industry, the News media, and any other industry you care to mention, allegations of sexual harassment are taken seriously.

    Today there is only one occupation where the victims who come forward are threatened and harassed, and that is Politics, and in Politics this treatment is only by Republicans like you.

    If Moore or 45 had been Democrats neither would stand a chance of winning an election.

    The Republicans are the GOP alright ... the Grand Old Perverts.

    Just own it. I'm so bored of the BS. You don't care enough to even read the allegations. If you do, it is only to fabricate lies to attack the victims. You voted for a man accused by 16 women of sexual abuse - a man who even boasted about it, and talked about surprising young girls changing so he could see them naked.

    You don't care about sexual abuse, and your first instinct is to attack victims.

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, we aren't. Nobody so far has defended anybody with a "-D" after their name.

    That is not factually accurate..

    Balthy continues to defend Al FrakIt to this day...

    If Moore or 45 had been Democrats neither would stand a chance of winning an election.

    But ya'all would STILL defend them. THAT's my point and it is completely factual..

    Just own it. I'm so bored of the BS. You don't care enough to even read the allegations. If you do, it is only to fabricate lies to attack the victims.

    They are facts... But you can't admit that because it totally destroys your argument..

    The accuser has a history of drug abuse. The person who knows the accuser best, her mother, calls her a liar..

    These are FACTS...

    You voted for a man accused by 16 women of sexual abuse - a man who even boasted about it, and talked about surprising young girls changing so he could see them naked.

    See, it is YOU who has the lies...

    You don't care about sexual abuse, and your first instinct is to attack victims.

    No, my first, last and ONLY instinct is to seek the FACTS without regard to Party affiliation..

    That's where ya'all and I differ.. For ya'all, it's SOLELY about the -D/-R after their names..

    That's why ya'all attack Moore and protect Franken and Clinton and all the rest...

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly.. YOU voted to put a rapist back in the White House..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    The special prosecutor's probe, which has already cost taxpayers some $5 million, hit a massive speed bump last week — the kind that snaps the axles and blows out the transmission. Reports emerged in both The Washington Post and The New York Times that a lead FBI investigator sent anti-Trump texts to a mistress. Weirdly, the investigator, Peter Strzok, wasn't fired, just quietly demoted to the Bureau's human resources department.

    Then the shoes kept dropping — like Imelda Marcos having a yard sale. It turns out Strzok was one of former FBI Director James Comey's top lieutenants. From that perch, he played a key role in the early probe of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    But then it was revealed that before that, Strzok led the investigation into Clinton’s email scandal and sat in on her "interview" with the Bureau (during which she was not under oath and for which no transcript or tape has ever been produced). And Strzok also led interviews with all of Clinton's top aides: Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Heather Samuelson.

    More.

    "Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as 'grossly negligent' to 'extremely careless,' the sources said," CNN reported. (Good job, Clinton News Network!)

    But wait, there's more. Much more.

    Strzok was a "key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump 'dossier' and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate," Fox News reported.

    The dossier was a compilation of rumors and lies about Trump put together by an opposition research team contracted by Democrats called Fusion GPS. Fusion's records, obtained by House investigators, show the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

    And more.

    Strzok interviewed former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who last week pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. On January 24, Strzok and another agent interviewed Flynn, according to an intelligence official.

    So Strzok just happened to be everywhere, his fingerprints on everything — Trump, Hillary, the dossier, Flynn. Quite a coincidence.
    http://www.dailywire.com/news/24322/mueller-credibility-plunges-trump-probe-imploding-joseph-curl

  17. [17] 
    neilm wrote:

    No, my first, last and ONLY instinct is to seek the FACTS without regard to Party affiliation..

    The delusion runs deep in this one. The facts. Indeed.

    You may be able to delude yourself, but you not fooling anybody else. If somebody has an -R after their name they can do no wrong and all allegations are false, otherwise you post every article you can find about any Democrat. In that regard you are unique. CRS at least admits that he doesn't follow the allegations, and to be fair, doesn't take every change to point out Democratic politicians who are accused while defending and voting for Republicans, one of whom even admitted to the charges and other demeaning behavior.

    If a Democratic politician boasted about how much he likes it when his daughters girl friends come for a sleep over because he can burst into their bedroom to see them naked you'd be having a fit. 45 does it and you vote for him.

    Sick.

  18. [18] 
    neilm wrote:

    I mean, honestly.. YOU voted to put a rapist back in the White House..

    No. I didn't. I never voted for Clinton. Not once.

  19. [19] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, when the Republican Party does its post mortem after the next political swing, they are going to look at Bannon's speech last night and the tin foil hat crowd are going to float the idea that Bannon was a deep cover infiltrator from the far left determined to seed their party with revolting candidates and hollow out the true core of the party.

    Bannon, and I'm not making this up, attacked Romney for ducking out on Vietnam, while saying that Moore had more integrity in his little finger than the whole Romney family has.

    Even Republicans must be saying "ix-nay on the dodging ietnamvay, remember the bone usrsspay."

    With thanks to the English/Pig Latin translator: https://lingojam.com/PigLatinTranslator

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    The delusion runs deep in this one. The facts. Indeed.

    Can you dispute the facts I presented?? No you cannot..

    If a Democratic politician boasted about how much he likes it when his daughters girl friends come for a sleep over because he can burst into their bedroom to see them naked you'd be having a fit. 45 does it and you vote for him.

    That is simply a lie. PRESIDENT Trump never said anything of the sort..

    You see, THAT is exactly your problem. You don't hear what was said, you only hear what you want to hear...

    No. I didn't. I never voted for Clinton. Not once.

    I find that very difficult to believe...

  21. [21] 
    neilm wrote:

    Please Bannon, give us 200 more Roy Moores in the upcoming Republican Primaries.

    I hear Joe the convicted sheriff is looking for something to do in Arizona.

  22. [22] 
    neilm wrote:

    No. I didn't. I never voted for Clinton. Not once.

    I find that very difficult to believe...

    Are you calling me a liar?

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, when the Republican Party does its post mortem after the next political swing,

    Which, given how utterly decimated the Dumbocrat Party is, will be in 2086... :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Are you calling me a liar?

    If I were, it would simply be something you have called me on a daily, sometimes hourly basis... :D

  25. [25] 
    neilm wrote:

    “You know, they’re standing there with no clothes. ‘Is everybody okay?’” he continued. “And you see these incredible looking women, and so, I sort of get away with things like that.”

    According to interviews BuzzFeed News conducted with former Miss Teen USA contestants, Trump did just that in 1997. Four women who were competing in the pageant that year?—?including one who was 15 at the time?—?recalled that Trump walked into the dressing area while they were changing.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    EX: If you do, it is only to fabricate lies to attack the victims.
    -Neil

    I also find it funny that you have yet to REFUTE any of my so-called "lies"...

    Why is that???

  27. [27] 
    neilm wrote:

    If I were, it would simply be something you have called me on a daily, sometimes hourly basis... :D

    I call you delusional ;)

    I wasn't a citizen in the 1990's so I couldn't vote.

  28. [28] 
    neilm wrote:

    Check out comment 25

  29. [29] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump did just that in 1997. Four women who were competing in the pageant that year?—?including one who was 15 at the time?—?recalled that Trump walked into the dressing area while they were changing.

    One of them called it “shocking” and “creepy” and said she rushed to cover herself. Another recalled that the contestants were “just scrambling to grab stuff… whatever garments they had.”

    Another called it “really shocking,” saying, “We were all naked.”

    “I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,’” Mariah Billado, former Miss Vermont Teen USA, said.

    Really lovely. You must be so proud of your vote.

  30. [30] 
    neilm wrote:

    Yet beauty pageant contestants had already talked publicly about being kissed unwillingly by Trump. Temple Taggart, a 1997 Miss USA contestant, told the New York Times earlier this year that he introduced himself to her by kissing her directly on the lips. “I thought, ‘Oh my god, gross,’” she said. “I think there were a few other girls that he kissed on the mouth. I was like ‘Wow, that’s inappropriate.’” Another anonymous woman has said Trump also kissed her against her will.

    Icky.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Check out comment 25

    So?? Where is the quote that says what you claim Trump said??

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I call you delusional ;)

    I wasn't a citizen in the 1990's so I couldn't vote.

    So, you didn't vote for Clinton in 2016??

    I call BS....

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Romney is considering running for the Senate, taking over Orin Hatch's seat. Romney would, it goes without saying, by a shoo-in in Utah - a state that has no great affinity for 45.

    Bannon is considering persuading Hatch to stay on because he knows that Romney is going to be a "thorn" in 45's side.

    The coalition between libertarians, evangelicals and the chamber of commerce is getting more and more stressed. Moore is helping greatly of course, and if he wins could be the trigger for all out war as one faction of the party run away from has in disgust and the other faction rally around him and 45.

    The pendulum swings, as it always does.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, you didn't vote for Clinton in 2016??

    I call BS....

    She is a rapist?

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Really lovely. You must be so proud of your vote.

    You voted in 2016 to put a rapist back in the White House..

    You must be so proud of your vote...

    You see how it works both ways?? :D

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    So?? Where is the quote that says what you claim Trump said??

    You got me. Instead of bursting in on naked teenagers on a sleep over he did it at a beauty pagent. Wow, you must be breathing a big sigh of relief on that one.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    You see how it works both ways?? :D

    You voted to put an ineligible candidate in the White House - one not born in this country and specifically banned from being in the White House.

  38. [38] 
    neilm wrote:

    You're not counting Michale ... you are at 166 by comment [35].

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    You got me. Instead of bursting in on naked teenagers on a sleep over he did it at a beauty pagent. Wow, you must be breathing a big sigh of relief on that one.

    OK, so when you said Trump said those things, you were just telling a whopper of a lie?? :D

    You voted to put an ineligible candidate in the White House - one not born in this country and specifically banned from being in the White House.

    WOW... When you bullshit, you go for the gusto!!! :D

    I thought we were discussing how you voted to put a rapist back in the White House???

  40. [40] 
    neilm wrote:

    WOW... When you bullshit, you go for the gusto!!! :D

    Melania was born in the U.S. and eligible to be in the White House?

    I'm just using your logic.

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    OK, so when you said Trump said those things, you were just telling a whopper of a lie?? :D

    I was using an analogy - next time I'll just say "if a Democrat boasted about bursting in on teenage girls when they were changing so he could see them naked" and several then teenagers, including 15 year olds, agreed with the story" I'd not vote for that person.

    Feel better not we've cleared the analogy part up ... and voting for somebody who bursts in on under 16 year old girls when they are naked?

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Melania was born in the U.S. and eligible to be in the White House?

    I'm just using your logic.

    There is no eligibility requirement to be in the White House...

    So your "logic" is nothing of the sort...

    I was using an analogy -

    You were lying and got caught..

    Trump never said ANY of the things you have attributed to him...

    As a matter of fact, the ONLY facts you have to support ANY of your lame accusations against PRESIDENT Trump is that PRESIDENT Trump is boorish, crass and politically incorrect..

    That's the ONLY accusations you can support with FACTS...

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Trump never said ANY of the things you have attributed to him...

    Oh yes he did - they were on radio and there are recordings. He is a self admitted child pervert - he boasted about it.

    You just can't handle it.

    So, Melania is eligible to be President? Interesting.

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh yes he did - they were on radio and there are recordings. He is a self admitted child pervert - he boasted about it.

    Still going with the lies, even though you have absolutely ZERO facts..

    So, Melania is eligible to be President? Interesting.

    No, what's interesting is you trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't say...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    You're not counting Michale ... you are at 166 by comment [35].

    Thanx, buddy... :D

    I keep forgetting..

    170

  46. [46] 
    neilm wrote:

    Well 45 is fulfilling yet another promise - his fanboys must be so tired of winning - peace in the Middle East!

    “We have spent a lot of time listening to and engaging with the Israelis, Palestinians and key regional leaders over the past few months to help reach an enduring peace deal,” said Jason D. Greenblatt, the president’s chief negotiator.

    And the plan! Recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the American Embassy there.

    I await the joyful singing in the streets across the Middle East with happy anticipation. It is a Christmas Miracle, and you can quote the Mullah's on that!

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Thanx, buddy... :D

    I keep forgetting..

    I'll keep reminding you ;) Where would I be without you to irritate on CW.com?

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    U.S. officials have said President Donald Trump is likely to give a speech on Wednesday unilaterally recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a step that would break with decades of U.S. policy.

    Nice... VERY nice.. It's about time...

    171

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll keep reminding you ;) Where would I be without you to irritate on CW.com?

    hehehehehehehe You just wanna cost me money! ! heheheheh J/K .... :D

    Ya wanna match my donation??? Or even 50% of my donations?? :D

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Carp!!!!

    173

  51. [51] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Polo??

  52. [52] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I see TIME took my advice and made Women their persons of the year. They focused on the 'silence breakers', the women who stepped forward to accuse Harvey Weinstein, but I would have expanded the category to include all women -

    - such as the women who marched last January,

    - the women who have been standing in the doorways of Congressional offices and in meeting rooms demanding that health care be fixed, not eliminated.

    - and the women who have been winning away Republican seats in Red states, demonstrating that they are the very core of the resistance.

    Maybe Time took the safer, less partisan approach because it is about to be under new, more conservative ownership, or maybe they just missed the boat. Dunno. I have only my opinion.

  53. [53] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Am I the only one who wonders why it took all of the 'offended'/'abused'/'molested'/'harrassed' women 40 years or more to suddenly come to the realization that they WERE 'offended', etc??

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, Justice Anthony Kennedy said Tuesday when the Supreme Court plunged into a lively debate on a Colorado baker’s claim that the First Amendment exempts him from state law outlawing discrimination against gay people. Justice Kennedy, a maverick conservative who has written major rulings in favor of gay rights, is widely believed to be the key vote in this case and his skepticism may not be good news for gay-rights activists.

    Looks like I might actually get a SCOTUS prediction right for once!! :D

    174

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Am I the only one who wonders why it took all of the 'offended'/'abused'/'molested'/'harrassed' women 40 years or more to suddenly come to the realization that they WERE 'offended', etc??

    Nope...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    “It seems to me the state has been neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views, Justice Anthony Kennedy said Tuesday when the Supreme Court plunged into a lively debate on a Colorado baker’s claim that the First Amendment exempts him from state law outlawing discrimination against gay people. Justice Kennedy, a maverick conservative who has written major rulings in favor of gay rights, is widely believed to be the key vote in this case and his skepticism may not be good news for gay-rights activists.

    Looks like I might actually get a SCOTUS prediction right for once!! :D

    What the issue here is Which "rights" takes precedence??

    The religious rights of the baker or the rights of the gay couple??

    For me, the determining factor is simple.. The gay couple can go elsewhere to get their cake made...

    Therefore, the religious rights of the baker take precedent...

    Forcing the baker to make a cake against his beliefs is like forcing the DNC to give money to a Republican's campaign..

    176

  57. [57] 
    neilm wrote:

    Am I the only one who wonders why it took all of the 'offended'/'abused'/'molested'/'harrassed' women 40 years or more to suddenly come to the realization that they WERE 'offended', etc??

    I dunno ... maybe you can read about the men who were abused by Priests who were scared to come forward when they were young but found the courage when they saw that society would not belittle them and would finally listen to their story because other people were finally coming out.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    I dunno ... maybe you can read about the men who were abused by Priests who were scared to come forward when they were young but found the courage when they saw that society would not belittle them and would finally listen to their story because other people were finally coming out.

    Of course, those men didn't take money and career boosts in exchange for their silence...

    So, you are comparing apples and alligators..

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    Am I the only one who wonders why it took all of the 'offended'/'abused'/'molested'/'harrassed' women 40 years or more to suddenly come to the realization that they WERE 'offended', etc??

    This statement is exactly why a lot of victims just bury the past and get on with their lives. Sure there are liars who are looking to score a political win, but when there are multiple people coming forward independently and the stories line up, plus there is corroborating behavior or statements, a blanket exoneration is putting politics ahead of justice.

    I don't know how society is going to change over this. This could be a societal swing in power similar to others we have seen, and Roy Moore and 45 will look like George Wallace standing in the school house door. Alternatively this could be a minor diversion because the powerful and their apologists, like yourselves, keep the door closed on abused women.

    Time will tell. If it is the former, it will be a stain the Republican Party takes a long time to recover from. They have already lost the black community, the latino community, the gay community and the non-religious. Losing women who don't safe in the workplace might be terminal.

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW (8)-
    "I almost wrote about the cake wars today."
    "Maybe tomorrow."

    Please don't.

    Let 'em read cake is not productive.

    Before you get to dessert you must first serve the main course that you have not even kept on the back burner for two years- it's still in the freezer!

  61. [61] 
    neilm wrote:

    Of course, those men didn't take money and career boosts in exchange for their silence...

    So, you are comparing apples and alligators..

    You're reading too much propaganda. The women who have accused 45 are being threatened by law suits - what a win for them.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    This statement is exactly why a lot of victims just bury the past and get on with their lives.

    OR it could be because they have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in hush money and a huge boost in their careers to "get on with their lives"...

    The women who have accused 45 are being threatened by law suits -

    Yea, it's what happens when you lie and commit perjury.. Why should they fear if the truth is on their side??

    Why did they disappear after Trump won the election and their bullshit accusations would serve no purpose???

  63. [63] 
    neilm wrote:

    Look CRS and Michale, we get it. You don't want to believe Republican men are capable of the same crimes every other powerful group of people can succumb to. And it is only a small percentage - nobody is accusing every single Republican politician, just as most CEOs, film producers, actors, comedians, Democratic politicians, etc. are decent people.

    But do you really believe just because they have an "R" next to their name they are all squeaky clean?

    The allegations against 45 and Moore are as believable in context as those against a wave of powerful men - and victims feel that this is a time when their story will actually be believed and society won't adorn them with a scarlet letter, so we should expect that some right wing politicians are going to get caught with their pants down - just from the mathematics of probability if nothing else.

    As CW says, this is a win-win for Democrats. They either get a senate seat for two years that they would never otherwise have got, or they get to label 45 and Moore as the molester monsters of the right, whose men put power over women's rights.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let 'em read cake is not productive.

    Heh

    Now THAT was funny :D

    178

  65. [65] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    As for the sexual harassment discussion, why has no one mentioned all the women that went along with the harassment to further their careers? (not the ones that were paid to remain silent that Michale mentioned)

    If someone harasses 10 women and they all complain and have to be bought off, the odds are that behavior will most likely stop. But if 10 women complain and 20,50 or 100 women go along with it willingly then the behavior will likely continue.

    This should not be viewed as deflecting blame from the perpetrators. It is merely pointing that the women that went along willingly also deserve some of the blame.

  66. [66] 
    neilm wrote:

    OR it could be because they have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in hush money and a huge boost in their careers to "get on with their lives"...

    I see, so you have evidence of this do you?

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:
  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You're reading too much propaganda. The women who have accused 45 are being threatened by law suits - what a win for them.

    Yeah, the only accuser that I saw get a 'career boost' was the conservative talk show host that accused Franken. Showed up on Hannity that same night, in fact.

    Maybe Time should have put 45's accusers on its cover instead of Taylor Swift. Would have made their point clearer.

  69. [69] 
    neilm wrote:

    This should not be viewed as deflecting blame from the perpetrators. It is merely pointing that the women that went along willingly also deserve some of the blame.

    No Don, you don't get to blame only women for not standing up for victims who happen to be women. If you knew a woman who you worked with had been attacked and didn't stand up for her, would you salve your conscience by telling yourself "Well she has XX chromosomes and I have XY, shit we are almost different species, why don't the XXs say something?"

    This isn't about whether the victims are from one group, and wether the rest of that group are banding together, this is about power overcoming justice on a systemic basis. As we move forward as a society we address more and more imbalances of power like this. It is almost the definition of civilization.

    If you want a stark lesson read Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" which follows the arc of violence through history to today.

    https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature/dp/B00YMS1MM6/

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, if we were actually TALKING about Trump's accusers, ya'all would have an argument..

    But, as usual, ya'all move the goal posts because you simply cannot stand being proven wrong..

    I don't understand that. You being proved wrong happens daily, sometimes HOURLY..

    One would think ya'all would have gotten used to it...

    :D

    180

  71. [71] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Moore accuser lied about yearbook signature.

    ..says conservative blogger with no forensics background.

    C'mon Michale, you disappoint me when you repost trash like this.

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    No Don, you don't get to blame only women for not standing up for victims who happen to be women. If you knew a woman who you worked with had been attacked and didn't stand up for her, would you salve your conscience by telling yourself "Well she has XX chromosomes and I have XY, shit we are almost different species, why don't the XXs say something?"

    And, once again, you completely IGNORE the FACTS because the facts are inconvenient to your ideological argument..

    It's not an issue as to why others don't stand up for the women..

    It's the issue that the woman took a payout and a career boost instead of pushing for justice...

    THAT, in turn, allowed the scumbags to continue to victimize OTHER women...

    Now, who in their right mind would want to stand up for a woman who was a tacit and de-facto accomplice in the victimization of other women??

    You???

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    C'mon Michale, you disappoint me when you repost trash like this.

    Can't address the facts so you attack the messenger..

    DEMOCRAT PLAY BOOK, STEP ONE CHECK

  74. [74] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "No Don, you don't get to blame only women for not standing up for victims who happen to be women."

    You are correct.

    That is why I did not in any way shape or form blame only women for not standing up for victims who happen to be women.

    I said women that willingly went along with the harassment to further their careers deserved some of the blame and clearly stated that this did not absolve the perpetrators from blame.

    You seem to have a comprehension problem.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said women that willingly went along with the harassment to further their careers deserved some of the blame and clearly stated that this did not absolve the perpetrators from blame.

    You seem to have a comprehension problem.

    Not so much a comprehension problem as their ideological blinders affect how they comprehend...

    So, I guess it would be a comprehension interference problem...

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..says conservative blogger with no forensics background.

    One doesn't NEED forensics background to simply look at the writing to know something was added to it by someone other than the original author....

    But, of course, you can't concede that.. Your ideological slavery won't allow it..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wow, no wonder they wouldn't let anyone look at the yearbook. You wouldn't need an expert to figure out what's up -- anybody could tell that it's a forgery.
    -Drowbert101

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    I see, so you have evidence of this do you?

    Yes, I do....

    Actress Rose McGowan reached a $100,000 settlement with film mogul Harvey Weinstein in 1997, according to a bombshell New York Times report that details numerous sexual harassment allegations against Weinstein.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-settlement-2017-10

    But I know your ideological slavery won't allow you to concede the FACTS..

    I forgive you...

  79. [79] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    184

  80. [80] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    crap. didn't get that up fast enough.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thanx Don.. :D

    186

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seventh woman accuses Al Franken of sexual misconduct

    The details: The woman was in her 20s when the incident allegedly happened, and she is a former Democratic congressional aide. She told Politico she was trying to leave the radio studio when she turned around to find Franken right behind her. “He was between me and the door and he was coming at me to kiss me. It was very quick and I think my brain had to work really hard to be like 'Wait, what is happening?' But I knew whatever was happening was not right and I ducked," she told Politico. “I was really startled by it and I just sort of booked it towards the door and he said, 'It's my right as an entertainer.'"
    https://www.axios.com/seventh-woman-accuses-al-franken-of-sexual-misconduct-2515346000.html

    BUT!!!! BUT!!!!! ROY MOORE!!!! RUSSIA!!!!! COLLUSION!!!! in 3.... 2..... 1.......

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Al Franken doesn't resign, ya'all will have absolutely NO MORAL foundation to attack Senator Roy Moore...

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    188 :D

  85. [85] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    It's 190. You put up two posts while I was counting and putting up 184.

  86. [86] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Will Tuesday's election in Alabama leave us Jonesing for Moore?

  87. [87] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Should I try to do some more?
    Twenty five or six to four."
    Chicago

    Speaking of addictions, it's time for an intervention for BOTH CMPs to get them off their addiction to Big Money.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Franken will be making an announcement on Thursday, his office said after the first wave of senators called for him to step down. Franken's office did not provide information about the announcement, only saying "more details to come."
    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/al-franken-accusation-sexual-harassment-2006-281049

    Al FrakIt is toast, people...

    191

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Seventh woman accuses Al Franken of sexual misconduct

    Let's review:

    Franken's first accuser said that he kissed here while rehearsing a scene in which he was supposed to kiss her. He also made a prank photo in which he did not touch her, but pretended to.

    Franken apologized to her and she publicly accepted the apology.

    Then a series of women came forward and accused him of groping them while pulling them into various pictures they wanted to take with him. He did not initiate any of these encounters, which were all very public and in full view of cameras. There is no photo evidence anywhere of Franken's hands anywhere inappropriate in any of these instances.

    Nevertheless he released a statement: "I've met tens of thousands of people and taken thousands of photographs, often in crowded and chaotic situations. I'm a warm person; I hug people. I've learned from recent stories that in some of those encounters, I crossed a line for some women — and I know that any number is too many."

    Another woman came forward with a story that Franken gave her a big wet kiss on the cheek after she was on his radio show, again, before he was a Senator. How this even got elevated to a charge of harassment is beyond me.

    And this newest accusation is that Franken 'came at her' to give her a kiss, but never did. This was before he was a Senator, she didn't work for him and both were adults. According to her own story, she deftly avoided the kiss and went on her way.

    These aren't the same type and severity of accusations being leveled against Trump, or Moore, or even Conyers. The whole thing would be absurd if some others in his party weren't swallowing whole the notion that all accusations are equal, and that a kiss on the cheek may be quite continental, but should cost you your job if it gets into the press.

    Nonsense.

    I ask again, How did Roger Stone know in advance about the first accusation against Franken?

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    I ask again, How did Roger Stone know in advance about the first accusation against Franken?

    See, this is exactly what I am talking about..

    You don't CARE that Al FrakIt has sexually assaulted women..

    You just want to know why some GOP moron maybe knew in advance...

    He also made a prank photo in which he did not touch her, but pretended to.

    We don't know that he didn't grab her tits.. All we have is a still shot that showed FrakIt going to grab her tits.. It's logical to assume he followed thru...

    Like I said.. You wouldn't be this nuanced if FrakIt had a -R after his name..

    But it's all actually moot....

    Franken is resigning tomorrow...

    192

  91. [91] 
    neilm wrote:

    Interesting article on how a town in Italy handled a Fascist era monument everybody can learn from:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/06/bolzano-italian-town-defuse-controversial-monuments

  92. [92] 
    neilm wrote:

    So Michale, you think Franken should resign, but Moore should be elected and 45 should remain President.

    And you accuse everybody else of partisanship.

    Too funny.

  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    One thing I don't understand, how does Chuck Schumer get to choose what city is the capital of Israel?

  94. [94] 
    neilm wrote:

    Oh, and we forgot about Clarence Thomas - how does he get to keep his position if Franken is forced out?

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Conyers has a history of litigation and settlements. Impossible to deny.
    Franken has photographic evidence against him. Impossible to deny.

    Roy Moore only has accusations against him. The victims have a right to be heard, but allegations don't seem to have corroboration, and what little evidence has been shared shows signs of tampering.
    -Drowbert101

    193

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, and we forgot about Clarence Thomas - how does he get to keep his position if Franken is forced out?

    Fine.. Force Clarence Thomas out.... Let President Trump have ANOTHER SCOTUS pick... :D

    194

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Michale, you think Franken should resign, but Moore should be elected and 45 should remain President.

    And you accuse everybody else of partisanship.

    Too funny.

    See comment #95

    :D

    He who laughs now, laughs best...

    BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D

  98. [98] 
    neilm wrote:

    [95] In other words: D = Guilty, R = Completely innocent.

    Got it.

  99. [99] 
    neilm wrote:

    195

  100. [100] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Franken has photographic evidence against him. Impossible to deny.

    All we have is a still shot that showed FrakIt going to grab her tits.

    See, that's the bitch about photographic evidence; if you use it, it has to show what you say it shows, or the jury just giggles at you.

    But that's pubbies for ya - tax hikes are tax cuts, russian spies are just bankers and diplomats, and photos that show a man NOT touching a woman are photos that prove that he touched her. Uh-huh.

    Stick to defending the Theocratic Perv. You're better at that.

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Roy Moore only has accusations against him. The victims have a right to be heard, but allegations don't seem to have corroboration, and what little evidence has been shared shows signs of tampering

    Let's see, we've already addressed the supposed 'tampering' issue - that's bogus as hell.

    The statements of the first set of Moore accusers were corroborated with 30 other witnesses, according to the article that broke the story.

    Since then, we've also learned that Moore's predatory habits were an issue at the local mall. That too was corroborated by witnesses.

    Most importantly, Moore is a religious nut who was thrown off of the Alabama Supreme Court twice for his refusal to uphold the law and the Constitution.

    And we haven't even mentioned his bigotry.

    But according to the GOP, this man deserves to be, nay, MUST be elected Senator, lest an evil Democrat take the seat. Uh-huh. No partisan blindness there.

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's see, we've already addressed the supposed 'tampering' issue - that's bogus as hell.

    No, you have not.. Anyone with eyes and not blind can see the added part was forged...

    The statements of the first set of Moore accusers were corroborated with 30 other witnesses, according to the article that broke the story.

    Complete and utter BS...

    Most importantly, Moore is a religious nut who was thrown off of the Alabama Supreme Court twice for his refusal to uphold the law and the Constitution.

    Which is why he is going to win his Senate race...

    Face reality... Ya'all got NO FACTS...

    196

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy, you can bitch and moan all ya like...

    But Al Frakit is going to be gone from the Senate...

    And Roy Moore is going to be a senator..

    THIS is the reality..

    Deal with it..

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    197

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a plus note, Odumbo is likely fit to be tied that PRESIDENT Trump is recognizing Israel's capital today...

    ANY day that Odumbo is pissy and whiney is a very good day indeed... :D

    198

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, you have not.. Anyone with eyes and not blind can see the added part was forged...

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38efe047e51c35ceb677ca2aebce047d3630157809bdc0857df5a94ae8b47607.jpg

    The 'M' in MERRY is completely different than the 'M' in MOORE in the forged part..

    The 77 is completely different than the 77 in the forged part...

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://admin.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-11/202212_5_.jpg

    And if you look at everything after LOVE ROY, it's in a different ink color and written completely different than the main body...

    ANYONE who is not enslaved by Party can tell the forged part....

    200

  108. [108] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Anyone with eyes and not blind can see the added part was forged..

    The hilarious part about all of your amateur forensic analysis is that it completely misses the actual point of the evidence. Moore claimed that he didn't even know his accusers. At least two have subsequently produced instances where he signed their yearbooks. (and just to remind you, he's then a 32 year old district attorney signing "Love, Roy" in an unrelated 14 year old girl's yearbook).

    It doesn't matter whether anything was later added in blue ink. The fact that he signed the girls' yearbooks at all is the evidence.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    The hilarious part about all of your amateur forensic analysis is that it completely misses the actual point of the evidence. Moore claimed that he didn't even know his accusers. At least two have subsequently produced instances where he signed their yearbooks. (and just to remind you, he's then a 32 year old district attorney signing "Love, Roy" in an unrelated 14 year old girl's yearbook).

    So?? A different place almost 40 years ago..

    Has absolutely NO BEARING on the here and now..

    Which is exactly what you would be saying if Moore had a -D after his name..

    It doesn't matter whether anything was later added in blue ink.

    It's ALL that matters because it PROVES intent to deceive...

    The fact that he signed the girls' yearbooks at all is the evidence.

    WOW.. The fact that an adult signed a girls yearbook is ALL that matters to you???

    You really understand how utterly ridiculous you sound, right??? :D

    201

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    It doesn't matter whether anything was later added in blue ink.

    It's ALL that matters because it PROVES intent to deceive...

    Put another way.. If it was a crime to sign a person's yearbook and you, as the lawyer, brought that yearbook in as evidence... You would be laughed out of court...

    It's obvious why the accuser didn't want the yearbook to be examined..

    She KNEW she was dirty..

    And you know she is dirty too.. You just can't admit it..

    202

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moore is going to be in Congress and Conyers and Franken are not...

    That's the reality... Get used to it..

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moore claimed that he didn't even know his accusers. At least two have subsequently produced instances where he signed their yearbooks.

    Can you recite accurately EVERY PERSON YOU KNEW from 40 years ago???

    Seriously, Dood.. You are so far out in left field over this...

    What part of NONE OF IT IS RELEVANT do you not understand???

    ALL of the accusers either have an axe to grind against Moore or were coached and cajoled by the Democrats in Alabama...

    This is fact...

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    203, 204

  114. [114] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Besides, all of that so-called 'analysis' is amateurish at best. No one writes characters exactly the same way every time [106]. An expert would need lots of examples of Moore's handwriting to even begin to make a determination on the validity of the script. The 'y's all match.

    The second picture [107] is even less dispositive, since the perceived variation of the colors on the page could be explained as result of the way the the glossy page of the yearbook was photographed, and the way light acts on that kind of surface. You can create a similar optical illusion yourself if you take a page in your own yearbook and bend it away from the light. See the ink appear to change color? Luckily, I've been bored enough before to have discovered that trick for myself.

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, all of that so-called 'analysis' is amateurish at best. No one writes characters exactly the same way every time [106].

    The do in the same message or close enough to the same that they aren't BLATANTLY different, as this is..

    The second picture [107] is even less dispositive, since the perceived variation of the colors on the page could be explained as result of the way the the glossy page of the yearbook was photographed, and the way light acts on that kind of surface. You can create a similar optical illusion yourself if you take a page in your own yearbook and bend it away from the light. See the ink appear to change color? Luckily, I've been bored enough before to have discovered that trick for myself.

    I guess I convinced you that the forgery IS relevant and important... :D NOW you are trying to convince yerself that it's not really a forgery..

    But it is.. ANYONE who is not enslaved by Party dogma can see plainly that it's a forgery...

    Nice try, but you lose.. :D

    205

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    The 'y's all match.

    {GIBBS SLAP}

    There are no cursive 'y's in the forged part ya numbskull...

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, no.. The 'y's do not match....

    Jeeesh...

    At least TRY and give me a challenge, eh?? :^/

    207

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ALL of the accusers either have an axe to grind against Moore or were coached and cajoled by the Democrats in Alabama...

    Evidence?? Shall I repost the quotes of all of the Republicans who have said that there is no reason to doubt the stories of any of Moore's accusers, including Sessions?

    If Alabama Republicans think that these women are lying and in cahoots with the Democrats, why not sue them all for fraud and put the issue and the evidence before a Court of Law?

    Because they'd lose and lose hard, and they know it.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Palestinians are calling for 3 Days Of Rage to protest President Trump's actions..

    I have to ask..

    How would we notice any difference???

    208

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Evidence?? Shall I repost the quotes of all of the Republicans who have said that there is no reason to doubt the stories of any of Moore's accusers, including Sessions?

    You must be in sad shape indeed if you have to quote REPUBLICANS to bail yer ass out.. :D

    If Alabama Republicans think that these women are lying and in cahoots with the Democrats, why not sue them all for fraud and put the issue and the evidence before a Court of Law?

    Because they'd lose and lose hard, and they know it.

    If Moore loses, that might just be what happens..

  121. [121] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And I have to ask..

    How many will die as a result? This action was stupid, counterproductive and unnecessary. It accomplishes no goal, except as payback to Netanyahu's right wing coalition.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Alabama Republicans think that these women are lying and in cahoots with the Democrats, why not sue them all for fraud and put the issue and the evidence before a Court of Law?

    Because they'd lose and lose hard, and they know it.

    And if they DO go to court, that yearbook will be exhibit A and be PROOF of fraud and intent to deceive...

    And it WILL be examined by experts who will conclude exactly what anyone with 2 eyes and NOT enslaved by Party will conclude..

    210

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many will die as a result? This action was stupid, counterproductive and unnecessary. It accomplishes no goal, except as payback to Netanyahu's right wing coalition.

    So, the fact that IT'S THE LAW has no bearing???

    You Democrats.. So quick to quote to be Judge DREDD "I AM DA LAW" when it suits yer agenda and JUST as quick to ignore it when it doesn't...

    211

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    be Judge DREDD "I AM DA LAW"

    Ooooooo I am gonna get my wee wee whacked for THAT one..

    :D

    212

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    1. Israel moved its capital to Jerusalem in 1980.
    2. Israel is (arguably) the USA's most reliable ally.
    3. In 1990, the US senate passed a resolution acknowledging Jerusalem as capital of Israel.
    4. In 1995, the US congress passed a law requiring the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem and affirming that Jerusalem is recognized as the capital of Israel.
    5. At no time has any of this been reversed or contradicted by US legislative or executive governance.

    -Drowbonian101

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    AND ANOTHER WOMAN accuses Al FrakIt of sexual assault..

    I Believe Franken’s Accusers Because He Groped Me, Too
    The Democratic Party needs to stand with women who have been harassed—and not defend the politicians who abused them.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/i-believe-frankens-accusers-because-he-groped-me-too/547691/

    Face reality Weigantians.. Roy Moore is going to be in Congress and Conyers and Fraken are not...

    214

  127. [127] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You must be in sad shape indeed if you have to quote REPUBLICANS to bail yer ass out.

    Translation: I have no argument. Time to deflect.

    If Moore loses, that might just be what happens..

    Of course. That's how Republicans treat their victims after all, isn't it? They don't apologize, they threaten to sue. Hey, worked for Trump.

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Conyers...

    John Conyers III arrested but not prosecuted in domestic abuse case
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/john-conyers-iii-was-arrested-domestic-abuse-not-prosecuted-n827151

    And THIS is the guy that Dumbocrats want to put in Congress in place of his sexual assaulting father???

    WOW...... You Lefties sure are taking hit after hit after hit, eh?? :D

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Translation: I have no argument. Time to deflect.

    Not at all.. I was pointing out YOU have no argument which is why you have to rely on Republicans..

    My argument was so persuasive that it caused you to contradict yourself.. :D

    Of course. That's how Republicans treat their victims after all, isn't it? They don't apologize, they threaten to sue. Hey, worked for Trump.

    It's how Republicans treat perpetrators and forgers and those who falsely accuse for political ends..

    I have no problem with that...

    216

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic lawmakers are at odds about whether the president should declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a recognition he is expected to make Wednesday.

    The Senate’s top Democrat, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD Tuesday that he had advised Trump to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided” capital.

    The capital declaration could come around the same time as an announcement about relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a move that Trump deferred six months ago by issuing a waiver.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/democrats-divided-ahead-of-trumps-expected-recognition-of-jerusalem-as-israels-capital/article/2010726

    Even Chucky boy is with PRESIDENT Trump on Israel... :D

  131. [131] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    May I suggest that you start each comment by going down a line or two, putting in the number of the comment and then going back up to the first line to begin your actual comment.

    This may keep you from getting caught up in the comment and forgetting to add the number at the end.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale-
    May I suggest that you start each comment by going down a line or two, putting in the number of the comment and then going back up to the first line to begin your actual comment.

    This may keep you from getting caught up in the comment and forgetting to add the number at the end.

    That's a smart Idea, Don.. :D I'll give it a try..

    219

  133. [133] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    AND ANOTHER WOMAN accuses Al FrakIt of sexual assault..

    Another in the 'photo-op" category:

    "We posed for the shot. He immediately put his hand on my waist, grabbing a handful of flesh. I froze. Then he squeezed. At least twice."

    That's it. He squeezed her waist while drawing her in for a photo. To illustrate her story she includes the photograph taken that day, which shows her shaken and angry. No, just kidding: the photo shows her smiling and cocking her head toward Franken, whose hands aren't visible. Her hand is clearly on his shoulder, though.

    She goes on to admit that she's a bit of a prude, even with her spouse: "I don’t let my husband touch me like that in public because I believe it diminishes me as a professional woman."

    Then she tells a long story that reveals her gradual radicalization by the #MeToo movement, particularly in regards to Bill Clinton, whom she blames, for costing Hillary the election:

    "It’s not just bad men and exhausted women," she writes, "it’s that we chose Bill over the women. And that original sin lost us the election of what we all assumed would be the first female president of the United States."

    She went so far up this rabbit hole, she says, that she ended up tweeting "sorry" to Monica Lewinsky.

    Then she wrote an article claiming that Franken 'assaulted' her by putting his arm around her waist and squeezing a couple of times, something I've done myself hundreds, maybe thousands of times.

    See, this is the problem for me. Even as Franken gets accused of lesser and lesser offenses, the sheer number of accusations produces an inevitable pile-on effect, and Franken's chance of surviving this death by a thousand small cuts diminishes.

    Reading Dupuy's article, however, made me realize, finally, that even though I think that the accusations he faces could all be challenged, it is to no avail. To the feminists, he will henceforth be a symbol of the patriarchy, and stand-in for all of the males that have ever annoyed them.

    So, while I'll mourn his sudden needless retirement, I at last can come to peace with it, knowing that it wasn't idiot Republicans that brought him down, it was self-righteous liberals.

  134. [134] 
    John M wrote:

    [8] Chris Weigant

    [4] neilm

    Maybe someone can explain why is it even any of the baker's business what the cake is used for in the first place???

    If I want to smash the cake in someone's face, feed it to the cat, or use it for a gay wedding, what concern is that of that baker???

  135. [135] 
    John M wrote:

    [10] Michale

    "And the woman has a drug problem and a huge axe to grind against Moore AND waited almost 40 years to make the accusation right when it would be the most advantageous for the Democrats..

    Yea.. THAT's credible..

    Funny how ya'all give Clinton a pass, ya'all give Conyers a pass, give Franken a pass ya'all give ANYONE with a -D after their name a pass.."

    Yeah that's so funny. Since John Conyers has resigned and Al Franken will hold a press conference Thursday where it is widely speculated that he too will resign.

    Democrats acknowledge and take responsibility for their actions.

    What is it with Republicans??? Apparently they can only issue denials and blame the victims while evading and avoiding responsibility.

    YOU, Michale, have not moral authority to criticize.

    Not until You call for Roy Moore to withdraw and Donald Trump to resign as well. CASE CLOSED.

    Oh, and by the way, NOTHING was ever proven against Franken or Conyers, or even Bill Clinton, no court of law ever issued a verdict. They were ALL JUST accusations also.

    I only point that out NOT to defend them, but to point out your OWN hypocrisy in characterizing the charges against both Moore and Trump as accusations ONLY also.

  136. [136] 
    John M wrote:

    [56] Michale

    "For me, the determining factor is simple.. The gay couple can go elsewhere to get their cake made...

    Therefore, the religious rights of the baker take precedent..."

    Again, I will ask you, what possible concern is it of the baker at all, what is done with the cake? Throw it in the garbage after purchase, feed it to the cat, use it in a gay wedding, why does the baker get to decide???

  137. [137] 
    John M wrote:

    [58] Michale

    Of course, those men didn't take money and career boosts in exchange for their silence...

    And neither did the women. To say otherwise is false. Where is your proof???

  138. [138] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    When I worked as a youth minister, we had a senior staff member who was well known for grabbing the waists of whoever he was next to when we would take group photos. It was off-putting for most, because he roughly pulled you in close so that you were hip to hip with him. He’d do this to both men and women, and it became a running joke for years with the staff; yet, no one ever let him in on the joke directly.

    When two young female staffers told me that they were very upset with him after they were grabbed by him (always on the hip, and pulled in tightly), I went with our regional director to speak with him.

    I’ll never forget that meeting: He had NO IDEA that people were bothered by that! He acknowledged pulling those next to him in tightly, because we were doing group photos and we almost always had to tell people to squeeze in to get everyone in the photo. But he was devastated to learn that this had been an issue for years and no one had ever said anything if he was making them feel uncomfortable.

    It really struck me that it will always be highly unlikely that a person will change their “bad habits” unless they are aware that their habits are “bad”! This was an incredible guy who loved people and the thought of making others uncomfortable with his grabbing them was horrible for him.

    Every group photo from then on you’d find him on the far end of the pictures, always with his arms behind his back. I hated how those pics looked because I knew that our silence over the years caused him to feel like he’d done wrong.

    This is why I support Al Franken and hope that he will stay in Congress. His accusers all claim that the actions that upset them were ones he performed in front of everyone. Most of them still aren’t sure if he realized he’d grabbed them harder than they were comfortable with. Not a single one claims that Franken acted as if his actions were sexually motivated. I can guarantee that Franken won’t take group photos the same way ever again!

  139. [139] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ,

    The problem with all of this and why Franken must go can be summed up in one word: the ever and all important context.

  140. [140] 
    Paula wrote:

    Balthasar/Listen: great posts on Al Franken. Yep. I think Al is being railroaded. The woman today writing about him squeezing her waist? And that she won't let her husband do that? Sounded like SHE has an "issue".

    If Al resigns to "help the party" I hope he goes down swinging. I hope he tells us the names of ALL the men who have had settlements for harassment in Congress. I want all the names. (I don't expect this but I think we deserve to know these things, especially if Al Franken is going to be burned at the stake.) How many of these men are still out there? At lawfirms, consultancies, lobby shops, investment banks, media outlets? They paid their way out of trouble once -- are they still harassing? Are they getting away with it?

    Separately I'm not impressed by Dem leaders (or Bernie) in this case. I think Al deserves an Ethics hearing. I agree (THIS IS A BANNER DAY!!) with Elizabeth that CONTEXT is critical in his case.

  141. [141] 
    Paula wrote:

    Also, Hello Neilm!

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    It may not be a banner day after all as the context I'm referring to may not be what you are talking about.

    It's not the limited context in Senator Franken's case that is important here but rather the broader context of this 'moment of reckoning' that seems to have taken on a life of its own in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein situation.

    Did you hear what Senator Gillibrand said today about all of this with respect to the larger context? I think she nailed it.

  143. [143] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Paula ... I just read your entire post and believe it may be a banner day after all! :)

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Although, the context here is about much more than "helping the party".

    It's a tsunami and it's going to swallow up a lot more before it's all said and done.

  145. [145] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula and Liz,

    It just bugs me that the complaints against Franken are from people who not only consented to Franken touching them, but that they physically touched him as well! There was nothing sexual about the contact — I doubt anyone gets sexual thrills from touching a person’s love handles.

    I do understand that Dems cannot call for Trumps removal from office over his alleged sexual harassment past if they don’t force Franken to go. I hate that it has come to this, because there is no damn way the Republicans will ever hold themselves accountable for anything...those days are long gone!

  146. [146] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    John M [136]

    I totally agree! The wedding cake plays no part in the actual wedding ceremony! It is food. The baker is not a part of the ceremony in any way, so he must have an issue with what he was asked to make.

    Except the baker was not being asked to create something that he hasn’t made hundreds of other times; so it isn’t the product being asked for that is a problem for the baker. He can’t claim that baking a wedding cake is against his religious beliefs, because that is not true.

    No, it is WHO asked the baker to make them a wedding cake that the baker takes issue with. If a straight couple had gone in and requested the same exact cake, the baker would have happily made it. This is discrimination.

    Had the baker simply said he was overbooked with orders on the date the couple wanted their cake, this would not have been an issue. Instead, the baker chose to inform them that he does not consider them worthy of being treated the same as other people.

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM

    Democrats acknowledge and take responsibility for their actions.

    Bill Clinton...

    'nuff said..

    YOU, Michale, have not moral authority to criticize.

    Actually, until such time as ya'all kick Bill Clinton AND his enabler to the curb, YA'ALL have no moral authority to criticize Moore..

    Not until You call for Roy Moore to withdraw and Donald Trump to resign as well. CASE CLOSED.

    Roy Moore is COMPLETELY innocent of anything.. THIS is FACT.... CASE CLOSED

    Oh, and by the way, NOTHING was ever proven against Franken or Conyers, or even Bill Clinton, no court of law ever issued a verdict. They were ALL JUST accusations also.

    Conyers settlements are well documented, as are Clintons.. Conyers confessed to the allegations by resigning.. So will FrakIt... Further, with FrakIt there is photographic evidence of his intent to commit sexual assault.. Further x2, FrakIt has never DENIED the sexual assaults...

    I only point that out NOT to defend them, but to point out your OWN hypocrisy in characterizing the charges against both Moore and Trump as accusations ONLY also.

    Moore has denied the allegations.. Conyers and FrakIt have not.. Further, it's a FACT that evidence was altered and contrived to implicate Moore which lends credibility to the political attacks claim.

    As far as Trump, there is absolutely NO FACTS to support the accusations against Trump and there are PLENTY of facts that indicate that the accusations were NOTHING but politically motivated attacks..

    Again, I will ask you, what possible concern is it of the baker at all, what is done with the cake? Throw it in the garbage after purchase, feed it to the cat, use it in a gay wedding, why does the baker get to decide???

    What possible concern is it of yours how the baker chooses to run his business and be faithful to his religion??

    You can argue all you want, but based on Justice Kennedy's statements, it's clear that the SCOTUS will side with the baker...

    And neither did the women. To say otherwise is false. Where is your proof???

    I have posted my proof.. Of course you ignore it because it totally decimates your argument..

    220

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not a single one claims that Franken acted as if his actions were sexually motivated. I can guarantee that Franken won’t take group photos the same way ever again!

    Really??

    Someone grabbing your buttcheek and squeezing is not sexual in ANY way??? :^/

    Tell me.. Would you be this nuanced if FrakIt had a -R after his name??? Of course you wouldn't.. You would be on your high horse condemning FrakIt to the high heavens..

    Don't bother to deny it, you and I both know it's factually accurate...

    221

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem with all of this and why Franken must go can be summed up in one word: the ever and all important context.

    Funny how context is *ONLY* important when the subject has a -D after their name...

    Where is yer devotion to context in the cases of PRESIDENT Donald Trump and Soon-To-Be Senator Roy Moore???

    Context is no where to be found...

    Funny how that always is, eh? :D

    Room 222 :D

    heh! That never gets old!! :D

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar/Listen: great posts on Al Franken. Yep. I think Al is being railroaded. The woman today writing about him squeezing her waist? And that she won't let her husband do that? Sounded like SHE has an "issue".

    Ahhh yes.. When women accuse DEMCORATS, *THEY* have the issue.. :^/

    Typical response around here...

    223

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden 2020 Is A Terrible Idea In A Post-Weinstein America
    Biden mishandled the Anita Hill hearing in 1991 and is known for getting too close to women. Is that what Democrats want?

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2020-harvey-weinstein_us_5a0a0ba8e4b00a6eece3a13e

    226

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sen. Al Franken will resign, Democratic official says

    A Democratic official who has spoken to Al Franken and key aides says Franken will resign his Minnesota Senate seat on Thursday, the official tells MPR News.

    The official spoke to Franken and separately to Franken's staff. A staff member told the official that Franken had gone to his Washington home to discuss his plans with family.
    https://www.mprnews.org/story/2017/12/06/senator-al-franken-to-resign

    Say goodnight, Gracie....

    You see what you people have wrought with your hyper political correctness???

    You want to impose your naive and hyper political correctness on Americans and then ya'all are FORCED to abide by it, while regular every day Americans can ignore it and laugh their asses off when ya'all get hoisted by yer own petard!! :D

    Again, a great way to start the day!! :D

    227

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm a thourough-bred
    That's what she said
    In the back of my truck bed
    As I was gettin' buzzed on suds
    Out on some back country road.
    We were flying high
    Fine as wine, having ourselves a big and rich time
    And I was going, just about as far as she'd let me go.
    But her evaluation
    Of my cowboy reputation
    Had me begging for salvation
    All night long
    So I took her out giggin frogs
    Introduced her to my old bird dog
    And sang her every wilie nelson song I could think of
    And we made love

    -SAVE A HORSE, RIDE A COWBOY

    I guess Big & Rich are confessing to sexual assault because the talked about how women LET them go about as far as they want to go...

    You guys see how utterly ridiculous ya sound???

    229

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    It just bugs me that the complaints against Franken are from people who not only consented to Franken touching them, but that they physically touched him as well! There was nothing sexual about the contact — I doubt anyone gets sexual thrills from touching a person’s love handles.

    Well, live with it.

    This is the world that you Demcorats created.. A world where women can say any damn thing they want, make ANY bogus accusation they want, no matter HOW ridiculous and not only is it believed, but it is acted upon..

    You bitch and moan about how things are??

    THIS IS WHAT YA'ALL HAVE CREATED..

    This is ya'all's UTOPIA!!

    Now you whine and bitch and moan because YOU Democrats are being held to the standards that YOU Democrats wanted to impose on everyone

    WAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAA Let me dial WHINE-ONE-ONE and call you a WAAAAAMMBULANCE....

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6cXFucXQAA3HdE.jpg

    You want to point fingers and look at the people responsible for FrakIt's and Conyer's demise??

    Look in a frakin' mirror!

    230

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope he tells us the names of ALL the men who have had settlements for harassment in Congress. I want all the names.

    Would you want ALL the names if the result would be a SUPER MAJORITY for Republicans in both the House and Senate??

  156. [156] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    As far as Trump, there is absolutely NO FACTS to support the accusations against Trump and there are PLENTY of facts that indicate that the accusations were NOTHING but politically motivated attacks..

    Nothing to support the accusations against Trump... except for his confession on tape, you mean. And if you think bragging about committing sexual assault qualifies as “locker room talk”, then you are an overweight man-baby who has never been around an actual locker room.

    Seriously, who thinks they will impress someone by bragging about sexually assaulting a person? Even if he was lying, what kind of person lies about doing that???

    Again, this was Trump bringing this on himself!

    Notice it wasn’t until Trump tried to claim that he didn’t actually do what he claimed to have done that his accusers came forward. They were pissed to hear him bragging about what he had done to them, but were even more pissed when he tried to deny it after being busted!

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothing to support the accusations against Trump... except for his confession on tape, you mean.

    Quote his exact words and I will point out exactly how yer full of kaa kaa :D

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since you obviously missed it the first time, Listen.. :D

    I'm a thourough-bred
    That's what she said
    In the back of my truck bed
    As I was gettin' buzzed on suds
    Out on some back country road.
    We were flying high
    Fine as wine, having ourselves a big and rich time
    ***And I was going, just about as far as she'd let me go.***
    But her evaluation
    Of my cowboy reputation
    Had me begging for salvation
    All night long
    So I took her out giggin frogs
    Introduced her to my old bird dog
    And sang her every wilie nelson song I could think of
    And we made love

    -SAVE A HORSE, RIDE A COWBOY

    I guess Big & Rich are confessing to sexual assault because the talked about how women LET them go about as far as they want to go... EVEN if was grabbing their pussy...

    You guys see how utterly ridiculous ya sound???

    241

  159. [159] 
    Michale wrote:

    Notice it wasn’t until Trump tried to claim that he didn’t actually do what he claimed to have done that his accusers came forward. They were pissed to hear him bragging about what he had done to them, but were even more pissed when he tried to deny it after being busted!

    And notice how they ALL disappeared after Trump won the election..

    Why, it's ALMOST like the didn't care about their accusations once they proved to be incapable of preventing Trump from becoming President..

    But naaawwww THAT couldn't be it.. Could it??? :^/

    242

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's the Rush Limbaugh/Donovan McNabb bullshit accusations all over again..

    Ya'all pay absolutely NO ATTENTION to the actual words and just make up yer own shit SOLELY because the -D/-R crap....

    FACTS mean nothing..

    ONLY ideology is important..

  161. [161] 
    John M wrote:

    [160] Michale

    "FACTS mean nothing..

    ONLY ideology is important.."

    Says the pot calling the kettle black again. YAWN

  162. [162] 
    John M wrote:

    [159] Michale

    "And notice how they ALL disappeared after Trump won the election.."

    Actually they have not disappeared at all. Multiple lawsuits against Trump are still winding their way forward. They just aren't getting the "flavor of the press" of the month at the moment.

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually they have not disappeared at all. Multiple lawsuits against Trump are still winding their way forward. They just aren't getting the "flavor of the press" of the month at the moment.

    So, they disappeared in the press...

    And WHY did they disappear???

    Because they are no longer relevant...

    I would even dispute your claim that the lawsuits are still active... But I am open to you proving me wrong.. :D

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Says the pot calling the kettle black again. YAWN

    And yet, you DON'T come back with ANY facts on Donald Trump's quote...

    Why is that??

    Because you, like Russ and Neil, know that I will prove you WRONG with FACTS...

    Like I always do.. :D

    248

  165. [165] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In [142] I mentioned Senator Gillibrand's remarks on Senator Franken and the larger reckoning that is now happening .

    Here is what she posted to her FB page:

    Senator Franken Should Step Aside

    I have been shocked and disappointed to learn over the last few weeks that a colleague I am fond of personally has engaged in behavior towards women that is unacceptable. I consider Senator Franken to be a friend and have enjoyed working with him in the Senate in our shared fight to help American families.

    But this moment of reckoning about our friends and colleagues who have been accused of sexual misconduct is necessary, and it is painful. We must not lose sight that this watershed moment is bigger than any one industry, any one party, or any one person.

    The pervasiveness of sexual harassment and the experience women face every day across America within the existing power structure of society has finally come out of the shadows. It is a moment that we as a country cannot afford to ignore.

    While a lot of the media focus has been on high-profile cases with powerful leaders in politics, Hollywood, and the media business, we must recognize that this is happening every day to women everywhere, up and down the economic ladder. For many women, including hourly workers in offices, stores, hotels, restaurants, bars, or on farms, with bosses who aren’t famous enough to be held accountable publicly, calling out their abusers is still not an option. To achieve lasting change, we will need to fight this everywhere on behalf of everyone by insisting on accountability and working to bring more women into leadership in each industry to fundamentally shift the culture.

    In politics, of course, the problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault is not limited to any one party. There have been Democrats and Republicans accused of misconduct, and I have no doubt that there will be more because Congress is not immune to this scourge. The question is what are we willing to do about it when courageous women and men come forward.

    We have to rise to the occasion, and not shrink away from it, even when it’s hard, especially when it’s hard. That is what this larger moment is about. So, I have spent a lot of time reflecting on Senator Franken’s behavior. Enough is enough. The women who have come forward are brave and I believe them. While it’s true that his behavior is not the same as the criminal conduct alleged against Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or President Trump, it is still unquestionably wrong, and should not be tolerated by those of us who are privileged to work in public service.

    As the mother of two young boys, we owe it to our sons and daughters to not equivocate, but to offer clarity. We should not have to be explaining the gradations between sexual assault, harassment and unwelcome groping. And what message do we send to our sons and daughters when we accept gradations of crossing the line? None of it is ok and none of it should be tolerated.

    We should demand the highest standards, not the lowest, from our leaders, and we should fundamentally value and respect women. Every workplace in America, including Congress, needs to have a strong process and accountability for sexual harassment claims, and I am working with others to address the broken and opaque system in Congress.

    While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn’t acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve.

    In the wake of the election of President Trump, in just the last few months, our society is changing, and I encourage women and men to keep speaking up to continue this progress. At this moment, we need to speak hard truths or lose our chance to make lasting change.

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those are nice and pretty words, Liz..

    But let me ask you and ask you to be honest..

    Would the Democrats have been so eager to help Franken out the door if the Minnesota Governor was a Republican and would have appointed a Republican to fill Franken's seat??

    I think you and I both know the answer to that...

    So, like I said.. Pretty words...

    But actions speak louder than words.. And you know what those actions would have been if a Republican would have been appointed to fill Franken's seat...

    249

  167. [167] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, Michale, we live in the here and now and the world that is.

    I don't know what would have happened differently if a Republican was in the governor's office.

    The reason I posted the Gillibrand comments is because I think she points the way forward on how this 'reckoning' should proceed with respect to responding to bad behavior.

    I'm looking at the broader context of all of this and not through partisan eyes.

    I would hope that you might start to see things the same way without always harping on the crass politics of everything ...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since ya'all don't have the balls to bring Trump's Access Hollywood quote up, because you KNOW I'll rake you over the coals for it, I'll just do it for you..

    "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy."

    And when you are a star, they LET you do it... you can do ANYTHING....

    They LET you do it..

    They LET.....

    LET..... LET.... LET...... LET.....

    You see why ya'all's case is TOTALLY fraked up???

    If they LET you do it, it's not sexual assault..

    If ANYTHING is bad here it's that Trump is attacking gold-digging and shallow women who LET (there's that word again) men have their way because they are rich men....

    Women like Rose McGowan who "LET" (there's that word again) Harvey Weinstein get away with sexual assault in exchange for a hundred thousand dollars and a career boost...

    So, ya'all's claim that Trump is confessing to sexual assault is totally and completely bogus, based on NOTHING but Party Slavery induced spin...

    I can see why none of ya'all wanted to bring up Trump's quote...

    Because I just STOMPED yer arguments to oblivion....

    "Give my regards to oblivion.."
    -Dr Smith, LOST IN SPACE

    250

  169. [169] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Michale, we live in the here and now and the world that is.

    I don't know what would have happened differently if a Republican was in the governor's office.

    Yes you do, you just don't want to admit it..

    "If I drop a hammer on a high gravity planet, I don't need to see it fall to know that it has fallen. So it is with humans. Humans who have certain basic characteristics can have their actions predicted with a high degree of accuracy."
    -Commander Spock, STAR TREK, Court Martial

    I would hope that you might start to see things the same way without always harping on the crass politics of everything ...

    You get people here to stop harping on Roy Moore, who is COMPLETELY innocent of all accusations, and I'll be happy to oblige...

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    But if you want the way to go forward, it's easy??

    Here is what Franken SHOULD have said..

    "Yea, I might have squeezed here or there.. Yea, I am a huggy kind of person.. Yea, I even put my arm on some woman's waist.. Big Fucking Deal!!! Cry my a river!!! Have we gotten so politically correct that minor flirtations are worthy of execution!!!! I am what I am and fuck ya'all... I am staying put and going to continue to do the good work that I do!! Fuck ya'all!!"

    THAT is what Al Franken SHOULD have said.

    And if Al had said that, as much as I hate his politics, I would have jumped to my feet and cheered until I was hoarse....

    Because THAT is the way, the ONLY WAY, forward...

    252

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pardon the french of the afore mentioned comment. But that is exactly how Al should have done it..

    253

  172. [172] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Maybe you're right, Michale and, maybe I'm extremely naïve when in comes to US politics.

    Maybe, all else being the same, if the Governor of Minnesota were Republican, then Franken wouldn't have resigned.

    But, I have always been honest with my comments - responding to you and to everyone else.

  173. [173] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe, all else being the same, if the Governor of Minnesota were Republican, then Franken wouldn't have resigned.

    I can guarantee you that Franken wouldn't have resigned and I can guarantee you that Democrats would have fought tooth and nail to protect Franken...

    I think ANYONE here who is honest about things will concede that this is factually accurate.....

    But, I have always been honest with my comments - responding to you and to everyone else.

    I apologize... It's not that I question your honesty, it's just that I don't think you took into account all the factors...

    To prevent the increase of the majority of the Republicans over the Democrats?? I think the Democrats would avoid that at *ANY* cost... Including defending Franken who, let's face it, is guilty of nothing more than crass and boorish flirting...

    Much the same as Trump has done in the past...

    254

  174. [174] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.

    Spin away! His words...”I just start kissing them...I don’t even wait.” That’s an admission to a crime.

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Spin away! His words...”I just start kissing them...I don’t even wait.” That’s an admission to a crime.

    It's ONLY a crime if the woman SAYS it's a crime...

    Have ANY women said it's a crime after the fact??? Did ANY women go to the police right then and there after it occurred??

    NO..

    Ergo, it's NOT a crime..

    Give it up, people....

    You got NOTHING....

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    What part of "THEY LET THEM DO IT" is unclear to you???

    258

  177. [177] 
    Michale wrote:

    On our first date, I just started kissing my future wife.. I didn't ask permission, I just went for it..

    By YOUR reasoning, I committed a crime!

    Can't you comprehend how utterly ridiculous you sound!???

    Because you DO sound REALLY ridiculous... And SOLELY based on Party slavery....

    259

  178. [178] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, imagine the world that you people want us to live in..

    You must get a signed and notarized affidavit from a girl you like before you are allowed to flirt with her or make ANY kind of spurious contact to see if she is interested...

    THAT is the kind of world that Democrats want...

    Frakin' ridiculous...

    TOTALLY frakin' ridiculous....

    260

  179. [179] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [123, 124] -

    Please. Don't quote the lame-ass American movie, with (shudder) Sly Stallone. Judge Dredd had no speech impediment. None.

    "I AM the law!"

    is the only way that line should be quoted. Period. Watch the British Judge Dredd movie to see what he was really all about...

    Hmmph. I mean, I wouldn't quote John Travolta as Terl in Battlefield Earth, because the original was so much better than the movie!

    -CW

  180. [180] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    Ask, and ye shall receive:

    =====
    Unknown: "She used to be great, she's still very beautiful."

    Trump: "I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her, and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her, she was married."

    Unknown: "That's huge news there."

    Trump: "No, no, Nancy. No this was [inaudible] and I moved on her very heavily in fact I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said I'll show you where they have some nice furniture. I moved on her like a bitch. I couldn't get there and she was married. Then all-of-a-sudden I see her, she's now got the big phony tits and everything. She's totally changed her look."

    Bush: "Your girl's hot as shit. In the purple."

    Multiple voices: "Whoah. Yes. Whoah."

    Bush: "Yes. The Donald has scored. Whoah my man."

    Trump: "Look at you. You are a pussy."

    Bush: "You gotta get the thumbs up."

    Trump: "Maybe it's a different one."

    Bush: "It better not be the publicist. No, it's, it's her."

    Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."

    Bush: "Whatever you want."

    Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

    Bush: "Yeah those legs. All I can see is the legs."

    Trump: "It looks good."

    Bush: "Come on shorty."

    Trump: "Oh nice legs huh."

    Bush: "Get out of the way honey. Oh that's good legs. Go ahead."

    Trump: "It's always good if you don't fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?"

    ====

    As for "they let you do it," that's not a defense against sexual assault. If a woman freezes when being attacked, that doesn't mean the attack didn't happen. Especailly when it involves grabbing a woman by the crotch, as Trump fully admits. Ask any prosecutor if that's a crime, whether the woman vocally protested at the time or not.

    Nice try, but no dice.

    -CW

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for "they let you do it," that's not a defense against sexual assault.

    If they LET you do it and there is no filing of charges afterwards, then it's not sexual assault..

    Ask any prosecutor if that's a crime, whether the woman vocally protested at the time or not.

    Bullshit..

    NO MEANS NO

    If "NO" is not articulated, how is the person supposed to know???

    The ONLY thing Trump is guilty of is being crass and boorish and saying it like it is with gold-digging women..

  182. [182] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If "NO" is not articulated, how is the person supposed to know???

    Well, the person wouldn't know if he's a moron ...

    You can't be serious, Michale. And, if you are, you have serious problems that need to be addressed.

  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    How does it make you feel to have made Chris post that entire exchange on his blog?

    Think about that before answering.

    No amount of funding will rectify that. It's here and it's a stain.

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    How does it make you feel to have made Chris post that entire exchange on his blog?

    How should it make me feel??

    I feel vindicated that CW had the integrity to post the FACTS... Granted he used the facts to SPIN things his way, but he didn't shy away from posting...

    Well, the person wouldn't know if he's a moron ...

    So, in lieu of an answer, you go with a blatant ad hominem...

    Having investigated thousands of rape accusations in my career, I can tell you with complete authority that the very first question an alleged victim is asked is, "Did you say no" or stop or variations thereof. If the alleged victim indicates that they did NOT say no or stop, then the next question asked is "Were there any conditions or circumstances where you felt that saying 'NO' or 'Stop' would endanger your life?".

    If the alleged victim answers NO to THAT, then there is no case and the investigation is concluded..

    I know, I know.. It's an emotional topic.. But it has to be handled dispassionately and objectively to protect ALL parties involved...

    270

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, in lieu of an answer, you go with a blatant ad hominem...

    Really, Michale? That's what a girl would say. :)

  186. [186] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... an emotional girl, at that ... Heh.

  187. [187] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, in lieu of an answer, you go with a blatant ad hominem...

    Really, Michale? That's what a girl would say. :)

    [185] should read like the above ... :(

  188. [188] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, in lieu of an answer, you go with a blatant ad hominem...

    Where??

    271

  189. [189] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What?

  190. [190] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sure there is a better word than moron to describe a person who doesn't not right from wrong and requires instruction to avoid engaging in very bad behavior.

    What word would you use?

  191. [191] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm sure there is a better word than moron to describe a person who doesn't know right from wrong and requires instruction to avoid engaging in very bad behavior.

    What word would you use?

  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It doesn't take much to confuse you does it ... :)

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm done here.

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's really simple..

    Anyone who is going to engage in sexual activity has the right of refusal..

    But with that right comes the RESPONSIBILITY of actually ARTICULATING that refusal..

    You can't remain silent to hedge your bets on whether or not you want to scream RAPE after the fact...

    Which HAS been known to happen..

    272

  195. [195] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sure there is a better word than moron to describe a person who doesn't not right from wrong and requires instruction to avoid engaging in very bad behavior.

    So, you are saying that sexual relations = "very bad behavior"???

    Now I am REALLY confused...

    273

Leave a Reply

[If you have questions as to how to register or log in, to be able to post comments here, or if you'd like advanced commenting and formatting tips, please visit our "Commenting Tips" page, for further details.]

You must be logged in to post a comment.
If you are a new user, please register so you can post comments here.

[The first time you post a comment (after creating your user name and logging in), it will be held for approval. Please be patient (as it may take awhile). After your first comment has been approved, you will be able to post further comments instantly and automatically.]