ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [476] -- "Everybody Fears The Perp Walk"

[ Posted Friday, March 16th, 2018 – 17:06 PDT ]

If it seems like keeping up with Donald Trump's White House antics is akin to following a soap opera, well, that's because at this point it is impossible to tell the difference.

This week's episode of As The White House Turns opened with a shock -- the handsome Rex was ousted by a tweet! How embarrassing! Then his buddy backed up his story, and he was immediately fired, too. Out West, an official administration spokesman quit in disgust over being asked to blatantly lie to the media. Then Trump's body man was frogmarched off White House grounds, over reports he was a gambler fond of making five-figure bets. By week's end, H. R. was teetering on the brink of extinction as well. Will he be pushed over the edge this weekend? Who will be the next to go? Will it be sleepy-eyed Ben? Or General John? Will Andy be fired mere hours before he can retire with a full pension? Tune in next week to find out! The answers will astound you!

Trump seems to be rediscovering the joy of "You're fired!" -- his signature phrase from his own television reality show. The Washington Post just broke the news that National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster will be fired as soon as Trump can "ensure both that the three-star Army general is not humiliated and that there is a strong successor lined up." From this article, a snapshot of what the scene is like at the White House these days:

The mood inside the White House in recent days has verged on mania, as Trump increasingly keeps his own counsel and senior aides struggle to determine the gradations between rumor and truth. At times, they say, they are anxious and nervous, wondering what each new headline may mean for them personally.

But in other moments, they appear almost as characters in an absurdist farce -- openly joking about whose career might end with the next presidential tweet. White House officials have begun betting about which staffer will be ousted next, though few, if any, have much reliable information about what is actually going on.

Many aides were particularly unsettled by the firing of the president's longtime personal aide, John McEntee, who was marched out of the White House on Tuesday after his security clearance was abruptly revoked.

"Everybody fears the perp walk," one senior White House official said. "If it could happen to Johnny, the president's body guy, it could happen to anybody."

That should really be the title of a tell-all book about life in the Trump White House, or perhaps it could be used as an epitaph for the whole administration: "Everybody fears the perp walk."

So, to recap in less snarky fashion: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is out, fired by a Trump tweet. So much for assuring he was "not humiliated," eh? The next domino to fall:

Steve Goldstein, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, said that Tillerson was "unaware of the reason" for his firing and had not spoken directly with Trump.... [Goldstein's dismissal] came just before he was scheduled to brief reporters about the shake-up at Foggy Bottom.

Next up was John McEntee, the president's "body man," who was "escorted off the White House grounds." Again, so much for not humiliating people. He was then immediately (you just can't make this stuff up) hired by the Trump re-election campaign as a top advisor.

Then a spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement quit, after refusing to lie to the public:

A spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has resigned over what he described as "false" and "misleading" statements made by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and ICE acting director Thomas D. Homan.

. . .

"I quit because I didn't want to perpetuate misleading facts," [James] Schwab told the San Francisco Chronicle. "I asked them to change the information. I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn't agree with that. Then I took some time, and I quit."

What with all the exits from Trumpland, there are now a whole lot of vacancies opening up. So who will fill them? Well, mostly talking heads from Trump's favorite network, Fox News. Of course, he couldn't get away with that to replace Tillerson, so Trump tapped Mike Pompeo, who is currently in charge of the C.I.A. Replacing Pompeo will be Gina Haspel, who will be promoted from within the ranks. So how is that news playing?

Haspel's selection faced immediate opposition from some lawmakers and human rights groups because of her prominent role in one of the agency's darkest chapters. Haspel was in charge of one of the C.I.A.'s "black site" prisons where detainees were subjected to waterboarding and other harrowing interrogation measures widely condemned as torture. When those methods were exposed and their legality came under scrutiny, Haspel was among a group of C.I.A. officials involved in the decision to destroy videotapes of interrogation sessions that left some detainees on the brink of physical collapse. Jameel Jaffer, formerly deputy legal director of the A.C.L.U., said Tuesday on his Twitter feed that Haspel is "quite literally a war criminal."

John McCain reacted to the news by tweeting: "The torture of detainees in U.S. custody during the last decade was one of the darkest chapters in American history. The Senate must do its job in scrutinizing the record & involvement of Gina Haspel in this disgraceful program."

But mostly Trump will be tapping Fox News personalities. Most prominent so far is Larry Kudlow, who will take over the job of top economic advisor, despite having no formal training in economics. What could possibly go wrong with that? Well, let's take a look at his record of prognostication, shall we? From an article titled "Larry Kudlow May Have Been More Wrong About The Economy Than Anyone Alive," here are a few choice quotes:

"Despite all the doom and gloom from the economic pessimistas, the resilient U.S. economy continues moving ahead," Kudlow wrote on Dec. 7, 2007, in National Review, predicting that gloomy forecasters would "wind up with egg on their faces." Kudlow, who previously derided as "bubbleheads" those who warned about a housing bubble, now wrote that "very positive" news in housing should "cushion" falling home sales and prices.

"There's no recession coming. The pessimistas were wrong. It's not going to happen," wrote Kudlow. "The Bush boom is alive and well. It's finishing up its sixth consecutive year with more to come. Yes, it's still the greatest story never told."

This is merely one quote from an article chock full of wrongheaded predictions issued by the man who will soon be the top advisor to the president on the economy. But hey, he looks good on T.V., which is all Trump really cares about.

What with all the soap opera drama coming from the White House, we're going to just whip through all the rest of the news this week in lightning fashion.

Democrats scored the biggest election upset since Roy Moore was defeated in a special House election in Pennsylvania this week, but we'll get to that one in more detail later in the program.

Students staged a nationwide walkout this week to protest the inaction on gun control, one month after the Florida school shooting.

Donald Trump got a bee in his bonnet speaking to some Marines this week, and pushed the idea of creating a "space force" in the American military. He apparently just liked the way it sounded, as he repeated "space force" as many times as he could in a very short span. How about we create a U.S. Space Force, make Trump its commander, but only if he'll move to Newt Gingrich's moon colony to do so?

There's still a big Stormy Daniels cloud on Trump's horizon, and 60 Minutes sounds like they're going to air her interview in a couple weeks. Last weekend, 60 Minutes aired a disaster of an interview with Betsy DeVos, as well.

Trump, after castigating congressional Republicans for being "scared of the N.R.A." showed this week that he is just as terrified of them himself. Trump initially pushed the congressmen to support raising the age to buy long guns to 21, but then dropped the issue from the agenda the White House came up with later.

In California and Virginia, guns were accidentally discharged inside of schools. So, obviously, the answer is to put even more guns in schools, just in case.

Robert Mueller has reportedly subpoenaed documents from the Trump organization, in an attempt to follow the money... perhaps right back to Russia?

Republicans on the House intelligence committee, meanwhile, issued a report which whitewashes the entire Russia question. This prompted a hilarious tweet from MSNBC host Joy Reid:

More House Intelligence Committee findings:

- The economy was surprisingly robust in October 1929

- The RMS Titanic arrived safely at port in New York City

- The Hindenburg's maiden flight went quite well

- Richard Nixon's honesty and integrity as president were unimpeachable

What else? Donald Trump Junior's wife has filed for divorce, today is the 50th anniversary of the My Lai massacre, and two notable deaths happened this week: Stephen Hawking and Representative Louise Slaughter. OK, that's enough, let's get on with the rest of the show.

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

We have to give Senator Dianne Feinstein an Honorable Mention this week, for immediately addressing the news that Gina Haspel will be named as head of the C.I.A. Feinstein's reaction was to push to declassify documents from the Senate report on "enhanced interrogation" which specifically outline Haspel's involvement.

[Feinstein] wrote in a letter Thursday that senators need "the complete picture" of Haspel's involvement to "fully and fairly" review her fitness for the job.... "The American people deserve to know the actual role the person nominated to the director of the C.I.A. played in what I consider to be one of the darkest chapters in American history."

Well done, Senator Feinstein! You are uniquely qualified to raise this issue and shine a spotlight on Haspel's history, so we are pleased to see you immediately doing so.

But the big news of the week for Democrats came from southwestern Pennsylvania, where Conor Lamb pulled off an incredible upset in a special election in the 18th congressional district. This was a real nail-biter of an election, but when the dust settled (the next morning), Lamb had a 627-vote lead over Republican Rick Saccone, in an election with over 225,000 total votes. This, in a district that Donald Trump won by 20 points.

Democrats have been itching for just such a special election victory for a while now, but each time they tried they got close but didn't actually win. Lamb broke this losing streak and emerged victorious, much to the delight of Democrats everywhere.

Republicans threw everything but the kitchen sink at Lamb, spending over $10 million in ads, but none of it stuck. The most interesting part of this is ominous news for Republicans hoping they can make the tax cuts a central part of their midterm campaign:

For the weeks of Feb. 4 and Feb. 11, roughly two-thirds of the broadcast television ads from Saccone's campaign, the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC and the National Republican Congressional Committee mentioned taxes.... For the week of Feb. 18, that dropped to 36 percent, and to 14 percent the week after.... Since the beginning of March, tax ads have been essentially nonexistent.

This was supposed to be the central pillar of the Republican platform this year, but as this election shows, it might just not work out as well as GOP candidates think. Also worth rethinking are the non-existent coattails of Donald Trump. Trump personally visited the district twice to hold rallies -- one mere days before the election -- but it didn't move the needle at all. Also deployed to aid Saccone: Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, Kellyanne Conway, Mike Pence, and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. Make no mistake about it, this was a full-court press from the White House. And it didn't work. Trump's last rally may have even energized more Democrats to get out and vote. Sad!

Speaking of energizing Democrats, the chair of the D.C.C.C. is now reportedly thinking of expanding the map of targeted Republican House districts to contest this fall, up from the current 100 or so. After Lamb's victory, the D.C.C.C. chair "will re-contact a number of potential recruits in numerous districts who are not yet willing to take the plunge, but might be more inclined after last night." Hey, if Lamb can win in a plus-20 Trump district, then anything's possible!

Republicans immediately began searching for excuses, and laughably latched onto the idea that Lamb was really "Republican-lite." The GOP spent the entire campaign calling Lamb an ultra-liberal -- "one of Nancy Pelosi's sheep" -- so it's a bit hard to take them seriously now when they claim Lamb as (kind of) one of their own. Trump even pushed this narrative, stating (incorrectly, of course): "[Lamb] said very nice things about me. I kept saying, is he a Republican? He sounded like a Republican to me.... 'Oh, I'm like Trump. Second Amendment, everything. I love the tax cuts, everything.'" A veteran reporter who spent a lot of time covering the race shot back:

None of that is true. Lamb did not run as a Trump supporter. He ran against the tax cuts, not for them. His abortion stance was a lot like that of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) -- while personally opposing abortion, he was against new restrictions on the procedure, a position that inspired a Family Research Council ad comparing him to Kim Jong Un.

In fact, just before Election Day, Rick Saccone pushed the demonization of Democrats even further, stating: "Many of them have a hatred for our country. I'll tell you some more. My wife and I saw it again today. They have a hatred for God." Nothing like calling the voters unpatriotic atheists to get people to the polls, eh?

Conor Lamb is the first Democrat to successfully surf the incoming blue wave, in a gerrymandered Republican district that Democrats should not have had a prayer of winning. This has stoked terror among House Republicans, and given rise to growing enthusiasm from Democrats over their chances in the upcoming midterms. For doing all of that, and for his razor-thin 627-vote victory, Conor Lamb is easily the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[You won't be able to publicly congratulate Representative-Elect Conor Lamb until he is sworn in and creates an official House contact page, but hopefully that won't take too long.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

Donald Trump, in a rambling speech this week given at (as he tweeted it) a "Marine Core" base in California, came out with a bizarre statement. Actually, there were more than one bizarre statement in his speech (as usual), but the one that took the cake was when he swore that Americans would soon be going to Mars -- and that Hillary Clinton would never have done such a thing. He just can't let the election go.

Sadly, neither can she. In a speech she gave in India this week, Clinton also had to rehash the election in several cringeworthy ways. Revisiting (why not?) her "deplorables" campaign gaffe, Clinton took a look back at what happened:

If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the middle where Trump won. I win the coast. I win, you know, Illinois and Minnesota -- places like that. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.

The impossible-to-ignore corollary being that Republican states are pessimistic, monocultural, sluggish, and moving backward. Clinton gave this speech just before the Conor Lamb election happened -- the worst possible time to insult voters from red districts, in other words. Thankfully, the PA-18 voters ignored her.

Clinton also demeaned white women, who she claimed faced "ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should." Nothing like telling the ladies that they are so impressionable that they can't make their own minds up in an election, and have to turn to some man nearby to help them figure it all out.

Sigh.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the smartest thing any Republican candidate could do in the midterm elections is not to invite President Trump to campaign for them. But it's also becoming equally clear that Democrats should also stay far away from the Clintons, and all their baggage.

For disparaging red-district voters and women, right before an election where they proved crucial to a Democratic win, Hillary Clinton plainly deserves this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Enough with the whole "deplorables" storyline, Hillary! Please!

[Hillary Clinton is a private citizen, and it is our policy not to provide contact information on such persons, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 476 (3/16/18)

Most of these are of the "spiking the ball in the endzone and doing a happy dance" variety, for obvious reasons. Hey, Democrats have been waiting to do this for a long time now, and suffered disappointments in special House elections in Montana, Kansas, South Carolina, and Georgia. In Pennsylvania, Conor Lamb finally brought home the bacon. If that's not a reason to celebrate, we don't know what is!

 

1
   Big blue wave

This phrase is guaranteed to get under the skin of Republicans. With good reason.

"After Conor Lamb's victory in a district that went for Trump by 20 points, it's pretty hard to ignore the big blue wave forming on the horizon. Democrats are determined and motivated heading into the midterm election season, while Republicans are staying home and not bothering to vote. What with Trump's daily antics, it's hard to blame them, really. Democrats are eagerly looking forward to that big blue wave washing out a whole lot of Republicans from Congress, and Lamb's victory has expanded the playing field considerably. More than half of the Republicans in the House come from districts that are less Republican than the one Democrats just picked up. Paul Ryan's home district is a lot closer politically than the one Republicans just lost in Pennsylvania, for instance. Maybe even Ryan will be swept away in the big blue wave, who knows?"

 

2
   Trump doesn't help, he hurts

This is really just playground taunting, but it'll certainly make GOP candidates think twice, that's for sure.

"The other thing the Pennsylvania election showed is that Donald Trump has no coattails. He supported Roy Moore in Alabama, and the Democrat won. He went all-in on Rick Saccone, and it did absolutely no good. He even announced steel tariffs a few weeks before the election, in a naked move to sway the voters in the Pittsburgh area -- a move that fell completely flat. In fact, Trump's final campaign rally for Saccone may have even backfired, and motivated more Democrats to get out and vote. It's a sad fact, but the leader of the Republican Party -- the President of the United States -- can no longer be seen as helpful to any Republican's chances of being elected. Trump's support doesn't help, in fact it hurts Republican candidates. If I were a Republican running for office in November, I would turn down any offer by Trump to campaign with me, because I know my campaign will be better off without him."

 

3
   Harvey the reporter

This one is just for fun.

"It wasn't just Trump, either, it was members of his family as well. Donald Junior appeared in Pennsylvania with Rick Saccone, at a candy store. If the photo is to be believed, Junior was interviewed by a giant chocolate bunny. Seems Junior can be just as much of a punchline as dear old Dad. Twitter instantly reacted to the image, with the funniest response being a suggested caption: 'Don't bite my head off, I'm just asking a question.' Just in time for Easter!"

 

4
   Tax cuts didn't work

Seriously, though, this one is likely to induce the most fear in Republican campaigns.

"The GOP had a grand strategy for the midterm elections: they would run on their one single legislative achievement of the past year. The wonderfulness of the Republican tax cuts would be so exciting that the voters would reward Republicans with their support. This was literally the only thing they had to pin their 2018 hopes on. But a funny thing happened in Pennsylvania's 18th district -- the tax cut issue did not work the way it was designed. The voters didn't care. Perhaps the fact that the lion's share of the tax cuts went to big corporations and the wealthiest of the wealthy had something to do with it? Oh well, I guess it's back to the drawing board at Republican headquarters, because their big campaign strategy for the midterms just landed with a belly-flop."

 

5
   Another county heard from!

Some Republicans already realize what is happening.

"Mike Murphy, a well-respected Republican campaign consultant, had the following to say about the Pennsylvania election: 'We should be able to elect a box of hammers in this district. If we're losing here, you can bet there is a Democratic wave coming.' Remember, this is a man who made a career out of helping Republicans get elected. Republicans can now be split into two groups: those who are smart enough to see what is coming, and those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand. Either way, the big blue wave will sweep over them in November."

 

6
   Makin' stuff up

A rare admission from Trump was heard this week.

"Donald Trump, in a fundraiser this week, came out and just flat admitted that he is a serial liar. He told the story of a meeting with Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau, where Trudeau told Trump that Canada actually ran a trade surplus with the U.S., not a deficit. Trump contradicted Trudeau, falsely claiming that a trade deficit existed. He was wrong, and Trump even admitted while telling the story that "I didn't even know" whether what he was saying was right or not. So now it is not just members of Congress who have to ignore everything that comes out of Trump's mouth, but world leaders have been put on notice that Trump is the king of 'just makin' stuff up.' Facts be damned, if Trump believes it, then it must be true!"

 

7
   Severing your country

And finally, we end where we began, with the soap opera that the Trump White House has become.

"Boy, it must be tough to work in Trump's White House. I've heard that there is even a gallows-humor 'dead pool' where people are betting who will be fired next by a Trump tweet. As one staffer memorably put it: 'Everyone fears the perp walk.' As well they should! The Washington Post has now created a helpful page which counts how many days it has been since a high-level firing, for those who find it hard to keep up. The satirical site The Onion ran an amusing headline that must be pretty close to the truth: 'White House Now Just Holding Continuous Going-Away Party For Departing Staffers.' As if all of that weren't funny enough, Sean Spicer tweeted a farewell to the last man fired by a tweet, where he made a rather large Freudian slip: 'Secretary Tillerson is a true patriot that has severed our nation well.' Um, yeah -- that's one thing the Trump administration excels at! Trump himself severs our nation well on a daily basis!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

180 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [476] -- "Everybody Fears The Perp Walk"”

  1. [1] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Even an agile news operation like CW.com can't keep up up with all the parts falling off the Trumpmobile.

    Don Junior divorce.

    Stormy D. asserts her life was threatened by Trump supporters.

    I suspect some additional Trump chaos will break out before I hit Submit Comment.

  2. [2] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    These special elections have demonstrated one clear fact:

    Trump did not win the 2016 election...Hillary lost it.

    Trump is nothing more than an understudy who has been forced to play the leading role that he never thought he’d have to play and that he is no where near qualified to play!

    Trump seems to be removing anyone who has ever had an opinion that differed from his own so that he can only have brilliantly intelligent and successful people who know better than to disagree with any opinion Trump comes up with.

    The Washington Post just broke the news that National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster will be fired as soon as Trump can "ensure both that the three-star Army general is not humiliated and that there is a strong successor lined up."

    So announcing to people that you are definitely firing McMaster before you have his replacement found; thus crippling any authority he might have in the eyes of those who work under him is Trump’s way of NOT humiliating him??? Anything McMaster approves could be disapproved the second his replacement is found.

    I hear Gil Gerard (TV’s Buck Roger) is a front-runner for the position. I guess Trump thinks his time in the 25th century should prove invaluable.

    What the heck is a “body man”? Did Trump hire a male stripper just to watch how uncomfortable Pence gets when receiving a lap dance? Is that the new term for “body guard”?

  3. [3] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Joy Reid is mistakenly correct when she reports the Hindenburg's maiden voyage went well. Voyage number 62 was the disater. I think Joy still had Titanic in her head when she went to the next line about Hindenburg..

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    White House staff is all over The Media downplaying the mess at the White
    House. This is called "pouring snake oil on troubled waters." It doesn't seem to be working that well. Denial fatigue is taking hold.

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: the Hillary-hate. Every goddamn time she says anything the spooges come out and put the worst possible spin on it.

    Greg Sargeant tweeted: Politifact just posted the full transcript of Hillary's "controversial" remarks, and it shows conclusively that she was talking about Trump's *message,* not his *voters,* despite the widespread and obviously deliberate misreading to the contrary.

    He follows with a screen capture of much of this piece:http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2018/mar/14/context-did-hillary-clinton-call-wisconsin-backwar/

    Fuck Bernie since I'm here. He rolls up to the rallies with the kids and tries to grab the limelight. Why doesn't he learn how to knit and remove his may-have-colluded-unknowingly-with-Russians-because-he-was-an-obtuse-geezer-in-a-bubble-ass from the public sphere?

    That way we don't have to relive the Bernie-Hillary wars that get re-ignited every time a Berniac decides to diss HRC out of spite, and out of a desire to repress the fact that they were fooled by Russian-bots and did Putin's work to help "elect" the worst POTUS in U.S. history.

  6. [6] 
    Paula wrote:

    McCabe fired on a Friday night because Blotus is a petty, vindictive criminal. Hope McCabe sues; gets a fat book deal, testifies to Mueller and helps bring the orange-stench-of-treason out of the oval office.

  7. [7] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Paula-

    I think the motive is simpler than that...He just wanted to wait until CW had posted FTP.

  8. [8] 
    Paula wrote:

    [7] goode: :-)

  9. [9] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Gotta keep up!

  10. [10] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Sessions just won himself an extra life.

  11. [11] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    ''If wishes were horses, beggars would ride'' I'll get back to that.

    Prior to the last general election here in 'the nice apartment' Our hapless Harper, leader of the the federal conservatives, announced a wonderful tax break for families, $2000cdn per household. He did so in the hope we'd see fit to overlook his dubious relationship with big oil and the tearing up of ecological protection for west coast Salmon stocks, old growth lumber etc...Harper was soundly thrashed and sent into shame. Tax breaks, once inaugurated, don't ensure votes.

    We here know where we stand in the big scheme of things, Trump loves canada and is fond of Justin, whom he sees as an apprentice statesman. Trump continually bullshits to the US about how Canada is mistreating the American people through ''one-sided trade agreements'' and imaginary trade deficits...He forgets, we get all the same news, plus our own unvarnished updates on the state of our relationship. NAFTA works well for both countries because it's a good deal (a good deal is defined as, an agreement that satisfies the agenda of the parties concerned) Canada supplies car parts to the US, US companies have a few car plants in Canada (Oshawa.) We ship/pipe railway crude oil to the US, the US refines it and sells it back and everyone is happy...To bald-bollocky lie to the world that Canada is anything more that a dutiful trading partner is simply beyond the pale. The only positive thing to come from this debacle is, Doug Ford (the newly elected Ontario Progressive Conservative Party leader) has had to backtrack on a few of his glowing remarks about Trump, his honesty and Ford's eagerness to enter into mutually beneficial and even handed trade agreements with the US...

    FYI, it's Canada's unofficial policy to deal directly with States, and not Washington, in matters of trade, it has been since Feb 2017.

    RIP Stephen Hawking. My mind, opened by Douglas Adams, expanded with A brief History of Time.

    LL&P

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Students staged a nationwide walkout this week to protest the inaction on gun control, one month after the Florida school shooting.

    And promptly rioted, tore down an American flag and trashed a police car and a Walmart..

    Yea.. GREAT kids.. :^/

    In California and Virginia, guns were accidentally discharged inside of schools. So, obviously, the answer is to put even more guns in schools, just in case.

    Many many pot smokers have died and have killed other people.. So, obviously, the answer is to make pot legal everywhere...

    You see how ridiculous that sounds?? :D

    It's becoming increasingly clear that the smartest thing any Republican candidate could do in the midterm elections is not to invite President Trump to campaign for them. But it's also becoming equally clear that Democrats should also stay far away from the Clintons, and all their baggage.

    For disparaging red-district voters and women, right before an election where they proved crucial to a Democratic win, Hillary Clinton plainly deserves this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Enough with the whole "deplorables" storyline, Hillary! Please!

    Just when ya thought things couldn't get worse in the People's Republic Of Weigantia, ya go and do something so logical and so rational.. :D

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is what ya'all simply don't get about Hillary Clinton..

    She is not a "bug" in the Democrat Party software...

    She's a feature..

    Ya'all think of Republicans in EXACTLY the same way that Hillary does... Especially Republican women...

    When Hillary speaks, she is speaking for the entire Democrat Party...

    So, this begs the question. Why do ya'all jump on Hillary when she says EXACTLY what ya'all are thinking...

  14. [14] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    She is not a "bug" in the Democrat Party software...

    She's a feature..

    Well, no sh*t, Einstein!!! Anyone who has been as integral a part of any organization for as many years as Hillary has been for the DNC is going to be a key “feature” of that organization. For people to think she can just disappear from the public eye and that would keep people from associating her with the party is ludicrous.


    Ya'all think of Republicans in EXACTLY the same way that Hillary does... Especially Republican women...

    Ooohhh goody, Michale has put on his Theresa Caputo wig and can read all of our minds. Please tell my Mom that I need to know her iTunes password if she comes forward!

    When Hillary speaks, she is speaking for the entire Democrat Party...

    When you speak, its like hearing every anus on the planet “speak” at once!

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, no sh*t, Einstein!!! Anyone who has been as integral a part of any organization for as many years as Hillary has been for the DNC is going to be a key “feature” of that organization. For people to think she can just disappear from the public eye and that would keep people from associating her with the party is ludicrous.

    So, you agree that the Democrat Party is as bigoted and as sexist as ya accuse the Republican Party of being..

    Glad we have agreement. :D

    Ooohhh goody, Michale has put on his Theresa Caputo wig and can read all of our minds.

    Have you condemned Hillary's words???

    No, you have not..

    And, as ya'all have PROVEN beyond any doubt...

    **SILENCE GIVES ASSENT**

    When you speak, its like hearing every anus on the planet “speak” at once!

    And yet, here you are.. Talking to an anus...

    How does that make you feel?? :D

  16. [16] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    While I definitely agree that Mr Lamb deserves 'Most Impressive Democrat', I wish you had emphasized more his campaign strengths, instead of the Republican Party's weaknesses.

    A major reason that the Republican-controlled Congress is ineffective IMO is because they were the party of NO from President Obama's inauguration. Over those 8 years, they had no need to define what they stand for and advocate (other than the time-honored 'less government, less tax).

    The Democratic party is not yet in that state (I hope), but they need to analyse these victories, not being distracted by the anti-Trump fervor. Lamb was not a liberal and did not run a progressive campaign. But that would have almost certainly been a losing campaign. Instead, Lamb remained "on message", focusing on his constituents.

    I am certain that many Democratic leaders and operatives devour the FTPs as greedily as I. And they need to be reminded that every election is 'local'. The 'Blue Wave' may be coming, but that cannot be the calculation of the 2018 election. Each and every candidate must speak to his/her voters, even if some positions are uncomfortable to those of us who are more progressive than the electorate in much of the country.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    A major reason that the Republican-controlled Congress is ineffective IMO is because they were the party of NO from President Obama's inauguration. Over those 8 years, they had no need to define what they stand for and advocate (other than the time-honored 'less government, less tax).

    The Democratic party is not yet in that state (

    Despite all the facts that show that they ARE in that state..

    Look at the Lamb win.. He won because he ran as a Republican.. Pro-Life Pro-NRA...

    I am certain that many Democratic leaders and operatives devour the FTPs as greedily as I. And they need to be reminded that every election is 'local'. The 'Blue Wave' may be coming, but that cannot be the calculation of the 2018 election. Each and every candidate must speak to his/her voters, even if some positions are uncomfortable to those of us who are more progressive than the electorate in much of the country

    Very wise words...

  18. [18] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    I also nominate for an "Most Impressive Democrat honorable mention" the Democratic Governors Association for their clever strategy in the Illinois race.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/15/illinois-rauner-jeanne-ives-primary-democratic-ad-419484?lo=ap_a1

    Would this be 'hanging him by his own petard'? 'Define your opponent before he can define himself'?

    Or, following trend these days turn a person's name into a verb, Gov Rauner is getting "Akin-ed":
    'The strategy is more reminiscent of the Missouri Senate primary in 2012, when Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill paid for ads calling then-Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) — whom she viewed as her weakest possible opponent — "too conservative" for the state.

    "Using the guidance of my campaign staff and consultants, we came up with the idea for a 'dog whistle' ad, a message that was pitched in such a way that it would be heard only by a certain group of people," McCaskill wrote later in her memoir. "I told my team we needed to put Akin’s uber-conservative bona fides in an ad — and then, using reverse psychology, tell voters not to vote for him. And we needed to run the hell out of that ad."'

  19. [19] 
    italyrusty wrote:

    I also nominate for an "Most Impressive Democrat honorable mention" the Democratic Governors Association for their clever strategy in the Illinois race.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/15/illinois-rauner-jeanne-ives-primary-democratic-ad-419484?lo=ap_a1

    Would this be 'hanging him by his own petard'? 'Define your opponent before he can define himself'?

    Or, following trend these days turn a person's name into a verb, Gov Rauner is getting "Akin-ed":
    'The strategy is more reminiscent of the Missouri Senate primary in 2012, when Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill paid for ads calling then-Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) — whom she viewed as her weakest possible opponent — "too conservative" for the state.

    "Using the guidance of my campaign staff and consultants, we came up with the idea for a 'dog whistle' ad, a message that was pitched in such a way that it would be heard only by a certain group of people," McCaskill wrote later in her memoir. "I told my team we needed to put Akin’s uber-conservative bona fides in an ad — and then, using reverse psychology, tell voters not to vote for him. And we needed to run the hell out of that ad."'

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:
  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    quote from CW-
    "Republicans can now be split into two groups: those that are smart enough to see what is coming, and those that prefer to bury their head in the sand."

    quote from Listen-
    "Trump did not win the 2016 election- Hillary lost it."

    Democrats need to split into two groups: those that are smart enough to seize the opportunity to purge the Big Money Hillary type Democrats from the party and those that prefer to bury their head in the sand by pretending that somehow the Big Blue Wave will make everything rainbows and unicorns when it is polluted by Big Money.

    If the smart Democrats don't win this battle then the Democratic Party is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Do think it would benefit the Democratic party and, quite frankly, American democracy, if Hillary could find her inner voice and learn how to keep it quiet when appropriate?

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I agree. Hillary should never speak publicly again.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    If Haspel is a war criminal, she ain't the only one.

    There are all kinds of US government officials in the Bush II era, from the president on down, and including US congressional representatives and senators from both parties who are in line ahead of Haspel.

    I'm looking forward to the testimony she gives at her nomination hearing and will be looking to see what lessons she learned from her experience surrounding the use and condoning of torture by the US government.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Don,

    What you agree with is not what I said.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    How about we create a U.S. Space Force, make Trump its commander, but only if he'll move to Newt Gingrich's moon colony to do so?

    Yes, I'm all in for that. Seriously.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    50 years since the My Lai massacre and Stormy Daniels' birth day ...

  28. [28] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    If SpaceX can send one dummy careening through the inky blackness of space, surely they could send another?

    LL&P

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When Hillary speaks, she is speaking for the entire Democrat Party...

    Not anymore.

    She is working hard to keep it that way.

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    When Hillary speaks, she is speaking for the entire Democrat Party...

    Not anymore and she seems to be working hard to keep it that way.

  31. [31] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (24)-
    I guess that depends on how you define appropriate. :D

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I suppose you're right about that.

    And, I agree with you - I just want her to go away.

  33. [33] 
    neilm wrote:

    Italyrusty [16]:

    And they need to be reminded that every election is 'local'.

    There was a god podcast from 538 where they tried to allocate the 20% swing between "Trump is a moron" and "Lamb is a good candidate".

    They tortured the statistics and decided that there is a 13-14% swing to generic democrats, but that Lamb himself accounted for 6-7% of the win.

    If there is an average swing of 13-14% and an individual candidate has a +/-5% effect, then any Republican in a district under 20% is in potential trouble.

    If this keeps up it should be interesting.

  34. [34] 
    neilm wrote:

    Italyrusty [16]:

    And they need to be reminded that every election is 'local'.

    There was a god podcast from 538 where they tried to allocate the 20% swing between "Trump is a moron" and "Lamb is a good candidate".

    They tortured the statistics and decided that there is a 13-14% swing to generic democrats, but that Lamb himself accounted for 6-7% of the win.

    If there is an average swing of 13-14% and an individual candidate has a +/-5% effect, then any Republican in a district under 20% is in potential trouble.

    If this keeps up it should be interesting.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Neil,

    Do you post over at Matters of Principle?

  36. [36] 
    neilm wrote:

    EM [34] - no.

    But I'll check it out.

  37. [37] 
    neilm wrote:

    No EM, I'm not Neil McCarthy :) He's another good neilm tho' ;)

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

    Well, just to let you know, MOP is the THE MOST CIVIL BLOG ON EARTH.

    Which is a good thing but, it doesn't always provide the best platform for a ... how shall I put it ... robust debate. It's moderated by Senator Hart, himself.

    It's my second favourite place.

    Speaking of which, have you been able to find William Bradley's latest pieces? Because they don't show up anymore at Huffington Post ...

  39. [39] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Italyrusty

    A major reason that the Republican-controlled Congress is ineffective IMO is because they were the party of NO from President Obama's inauguration. Over those 8 years, they had no need to define what they stand for and advocate (other than the time-honored 'less government, less tax).

    I agree, and would take it even further that the Republicans do not know WHAT it takes to create successful legislation! They spent 8 years demanding everything and compromising on nothing, and that now translates into them not even being willing to work with members of their own party to create passable legislation. Many Republicans got elected on their promise to never compromise, and sadly it’s what they still believe they have to do to stay in office!

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the PA election proved is that Democrats CAN win elections...

    If their candidates are moderate, middle of the road Republican lite candidates..

    Democrats will LOSE and LOSE BIG if they have candidates that are extreme Left Wingers..

    Which is the candidates that Democrats have...

  41. [41] 
    neilm wrote:

    What the PA election proved is that Democrats CAN win elections...

    If their candidates are moderate, middle of the road Republican lite candidates..

    In a deep red district I wasn't expecting a Bernie look-alike to run.

    Take a look at some of the Republicans from California (quick, while you still can) who are basically Dem-lite Republicans. This story is as old as politics.

    What is new is that a centrist Democrat can win in a district that went 20 points for the Republicans only 16 months ago. And a Democrat from Alabama is in the Senate.

    The Republicans got whipped on Tuesday. They got taken behind the woodshed. It was a massive humiliation, and coming after losing in Alabama makes it even more painful.

    And remember, a lot of the gerrymandered districts were designed to withstand up to 10% swings, if it is any more than that then the Republicans might discover what we call in statistics a "fat tail".

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, ya'all are OK with electing Pro-Life, Pro-NRA Democrats???

    Well, guess what??

    So am I.. :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pro-Life, Pro-NRA Democrats who think Pelosi is way way WAY past her shelf-life... Who think Hillary should just fade away and shut up??

    Looks like we found some common ground.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Conor Lamb candidates who support the NRA, support Pro-Life and support President Trump's tariff's...

    THOSE are the Democrat candidates who can get elected...

    THAT is the ONLY future the Democrat Party has..

    "I love this plan!! I'm excited to be a part of it!!"
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Conor Lamb candidates who support the NRA, support Pro-Life and support President Trump's tariff's...

    THOSE are the Democrat candidates who can get elected...

    THAT is the ONLY future the Democrat Party has..

    "I love this plan!! I'm excited to be a part of it!!"
    -Peter Venkmen, GHOSTBUSTERS

    :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aww right... Let's all be honest here..

    https://youtu.be/hQbyra1zKo0

    WHo is NOT looking forward to that!!! :D

  47. [47] 
    neilm wrote:

    Michale [41]-[44]

    Please, please keep believing this all the way thru November. Convince all your right wing friends that it's all OK and they can relax, why even bother to vote if all you are doing is choosing between two flavors of Republican? You win no matter what, so why bother getting in the car, driving to the polling station, standing in that line that seems longer yet younger and less white than the lines usually are for midterms. I'm sure they are only making the effort because they want to show their support for Trump by voting for the democratic candidate (who is really a secret Republican like Conor Lamb).

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Neil,

    If you think that a Conor Lamb is going to be the quintessential candidate in the mid-terms, yer more deluded than I thought..

    And THAT says something...

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    [21] Elizabeth: There is nothing on earth HRC can say that will cause Hillary-haters to stop their criticisms. The vast majority of your criticisms are based on nonsense, deliberately and relentlessly served up by republican/rightwing/conservative slanderers and propagandists and spread by misogynists, Berniacs, third-party-fans, beltway prigs, et al. They rail against the fantasy of her they've constructed. Repubs and their mouthpieces rail against her because demonizing popular Dems is of a piece with their overall strategy of trying to make being a Democrat a crime. Some deride her because they are lazy and comfortable in their habits. And Berniacs, in particular, rail at her because in 2016 they were dupes and tools and that is the very last thing on earth they want to admit.

    HRC is an imperfect human who has made errors during her long years of service. It is perfectly reasonable to disagree with some of her choices. It is reasonable to prefer others over her, or to have done so in the past. It entirely unreasonable to demonize her.

    I continue to be interested in what she has to say, as are many other Americans. If you or CW or anyone else isn't, then don't read/watch/listen. No one forces you too.

    But don't pretend there's anything she can say that will meet with your approval. You don't want to approve of her, just as CW doesn't want to approve of her. So you won't.

  50. [50] 
    neilm wrote:

    If you think that a Conor Lamb is going to be the quintessential candidate in the mid-terms, yer more deluded than I thought..

    Houses for courses Michale - Conor Lamb would lose to a Green candidate if he ran here in Happy Valley, but for rural PA he is on target.

    Your point, I presume, is that you think all the Democratic nominees are going to be rabid liberals who want to kill all the babies and take away your guns. These people only exist in the right wing echo chamber where you are spoon fed your opinions.

    As I said, keep up the complacency, and encourage it in your right wing friends.

    We've had many years of angry right wingers, so many in fact that many people have forgotten that progressives can be angry too. And they are. And they live in rural PA. And Alabama. And a lot of places in between.

  51. [51] 
    neilm wrote:

    Horses for courses ... of course!

  52. [52] 
    neilm wrote:

    Wonder why the Republicans dropped the whole "Tax Cuts are Great for the Economy" malarky?

    https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx

    1.8% - one point eight freaking percent.

    What a dud - the clown in the White House can't even give away money and grow the economy.

    However all those share buybacks and increased dividends are going to help the rich get richer.

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: Robert Mueller has reportedly subpoenaed documents from the Trump organization, in an attempt to follow the money... perhaps right back to Russia?

    Yes, sir. Bobby "Three Sticks" has now subpoenaed documents from the "Trump Organization, Inc.," and that is notable for a very good reason (among many) that is not remotely lost on Mueller and his crack team of high-powered prosecutors: While individuals enjoy a constitutional right to 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, corporations... in fact... do not. :)

  54. [54] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Lamb is not Pro-Birth, he is Pro-Choice. He admits that he believes that life begins at conception, but he still believes in a woman’s right to choose.

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [48]

    I’m with you! My view of HRC has done a full 180 from where I was before 2008. I realized that my opinion of her wasn’t based on actual events or crimes that could be tied to her; my opinion was based on hearing how awful of a human being she is for over twenty years. I could tell ya, “She’s a crook!”, but ask me to specify the legal charges she was guilty of and I’d have no answer... but she was still a crook!

    It wasn’t until she lost to Obama that I started to look at her differently. She accepted the Secretary of State position from the person who had just beaten her out for the presidency! How humbling that had to be — and she did it without any visible signs of resentment or grudge towards Obama. That spoke a lot about her character to me. It was then that I started looking at her record on legislation she supported and that I chose to support her.

  56. [56] 
    neilm wrote:

    Paula [48]: Yup

  57. [57] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I don't think that the CW knock against Hillary or his suggestion to stay away from the Clintons and said baggage is borne totally out of disapproval, or at least that's how it read to me, but rather more about the current times and the traps set forth by the GOP to demonize.

    I for one would like to see Hillary stop talking about the 2016 election. It falls right into the hands of the Republicons who only have tax cuts, wholesale resource transfer to the wealthy, Hillary, Pelosi,and Obama. The only thing that scares a republicon more than a minority president is a strong woman, or losing power. Everytime Hillary talks the 2016 election she is just creating more ads for the republicons to use.

    Is it a bitter pill to swallow? Yes, and one I cannot imagine the feelings of. That being said if Hillary was to take the road of the past is the past and we need to be the party of the future and always looking forward to the betterment of our fellow citizens and the world. Hillary would over time come out on top, she would rob the GOP of it's rabid red meat of "Hillary is a loser, she is stupid, look at her whine" and would eventually make the republicons look the fools.

    I think that Hillary, just like Bernie, or Biden all have a place in the party and have positive contributions left. It's just when she talks about 2016 in any detail she is letting her message be shot in the foot and that far over shadows anything positive she may be saying.

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hillary talking about the election isn't good politics, and i think CW's point is limited to that domain...

    but the trouble with her staying silent is that there is a significant subset of the population who genuinely want to hear about it from her, for their own peace of mind. think of it from a human perspective and put yourself in her position; when there are millions of people who want to hear a certain message from you, it's tough to tell them, "gee, sorry you feel that way, but for the good of the party and the nation i have to keep my mouth shut..." her supporters would go ballistic!

    JL

  59. [59] 
    neilm wrote:

    but the trouble with her staying silent is that there is a significant subset of the population who genuinely want to hear about it from her

    I assume Hillary was being paid to speak in Mumbai - and so she is speaking about things that she knows will interest the audience - if you are being paid to speak you want to be interesting and if possible controversial to ensure you get more speaking fees. Nobody is going to pay her to talk about policy - they want some red meat.

  60. [60] 
    neilm wrote:

    And how can anybody who voted for a man whose slogan was "Make America Great Again" protest that they aren't "backward looking"?

    I mean they even wore hats that said they wanted to return to an imaginary utopia.

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't understand ya'all's pushback on Conor Lamb..

    We are in complete agreement..

    Isn't it heartening that we can agree that a politician who supports the NRA and agrees with me that new gun laws are NOT the answer to Crowd Based Mass Shootings is a really great guy??

    I just think it's awesome that ya'all have finally come around to my way of thinking regarding the issue of guns in America... :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL

    hillary talking about the election isn't good politics, and i think CW's point is limited to that domain...

    but the trouble with her staying silent is that there is a significant subset of the population who genuinely want to hear about it from her, for their own peace of mind. think of it from a human perspective and put yourself in her position; when there are millions of people who want to hear a certain message from you, it's tough to tell them, "gee, sorry you feel that way, but for the good of the party and the nation i have to keep my mouth shut..." her supporters would go ballistic!

    And yet, if you change Hillary to President Trump and 'her' to 'him', your claim is ALSO 100% valid...

    Think about that and all of it's ramifications.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't understand ya'all's pushback on Conor Lamb..

    We are in complete agreement..

    Isn't it heartening that we can agree that a politician who supports the NRA and agrees with me that new gun laws are NOT the answer to Crowd Based Mass Shootings is a really great guy??

    I just think it's awesome that ya'all have finally come around to my way of thinking regarding the issue of guns in America... :D

    And Lamb even supports President Trump on the issue of tariff's!!

    I mean, honestly.. What's not to like about this guy!?? :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lamb is not Pro-Birth, he is Pro-Choice.

    I never said he was pro-birth. Once again, you have to put words in my mouth, make up a phone position so you can knock down that fantasy position...

    Conor Lamb is pro-life... This is fact..

    Anything else is spin..

  65. [65] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    lamb also supports the classic liberal staples, unions and progressive taxation. so perhaps his success isn't just about guns and abortions.

    as to donald and hillary both having a public to serve, it's true they're acting the same at the moment, throwing red meat to the basest of the base. the difference of course is that private citizen hillary is currently only responsible to herself and her audience, while POTUS is responsible for serving every single citizen, including those who didn't vote for him.

    JL

  66. [66] 
    John M wrote:

    [63] Michale

    "Conor Lamb is pro-life... This is fact..

    Anything else is spin.."

    Conor Lamb is pro-life PERSONALLY, but that is NOT his PUBLIC POLITICAL POSITION. That is the FACT. His POLITICAL position is that he is AGAINST further restrictions on abortion and supports leaving it up to INDIVIDUAL CHOICE on the matter.

    But anyway YOU need to SPIN it for YOURSELF Michale in order to make it PALATABLE for YOU is O.K> by me.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    lamb also supports the classic liberal staples, unions and progressive taxation. so perhaps his success isn't just about guns and abortions.

    In a heavily red area??

    I would say it's a forgone conclusion that Lamb's pro-gun, pro-NRA and anti-abortion stance figured prominently in his win...

    as to donald and hillary both having a public to serve, it's true they're acting the same at the moment, throwing red meat to the basest of the base. the difference of course is that private citizen hillary is currently only responsible to herself and her audience,

    A distinction without a difference..

    while POTUS is responsible for serving every single citizen, including those who didn't vote for him.

    I would point out that Obama set the standard for ignoring people who didn't vote for him..

    No one here had a problem with it then...

    Further, I am constrained to point out that President Trump is castigated SOLELY for his base... NOT because he is not paying attention to other Americans..

    Look, it's a simple point.. Hillary is applauded and worshipped for feeding her base.. "It's natural.." "It's no problem..." "It's what she SHOULD do...."

    Trump does the EXACT same thing and Trump *AND* his base are attacked...

    Kinda hypocritical, wouldn't ya say??? :D

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hi JM!!! Good ta see ya!!! :D

    Conor Lamb is pro-life PERSONALLY, but that is NOT his PUBLIC POLITICAL POSITION. That is the FACT. His POLITICAL position is that he is AGAINST further restrictions on abortion and supports leaving it up to INDIVIDUAL CHOICE on the matter.

    Conor Lamb is PRO-LIFE...

    Anything else is political spin...

    Conor Lamb is PRO-NRA and PRO-GUN and ANTI-GUN CONTROL

    I notice how no one wants to touch that.. :D

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I'm not a Hillary-hater. Hating just isn't my thing.

    Actually, the word that best describes my feelings, politically speaking, toward Hillary Clinton is disappointed ...

    Disappointed that she can't be more productive in her remarks. Instead of condemning and generalizing about a huge group of people, I would rather see her speak to the issues in ways that might resonate with some of these voters.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I think the worst thing about how Hillary continues to talk about the 2016 election is that she is contributing to the enabling of scandalous propaganda machines like Cambridge Analytica and of people like Steve Bannon and his ilk.

    All of which does not bode well for the future of American democracy ... at least, the American democracy I know.

  71. [71] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I don't hate Hillary, either. I don't even hate Trump.

    It is possible to disagree with or not like someone without hating them. And while you may find this hard to believe- sometimes I even disagree with some people I do like!

    And I really don't care if Hillary talks, sometimes a joke is just a joke.

    And can she talk about whatever she wants and if she is ever right I will agree with her when she is and disagree with her when I believe she isn't.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very well said, Don. :)

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Lamb's opponent was also pro-gun and anti abortion, but anti union and supply side. I'd say the points of difference would logically be more of a deciding factor than the points of similarity.

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's see how and why he votes.

  75. [75] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "A distinction without a difference.."

    I'd say there's a huge difference between a private citizen being self serving in business and a public servant being self serving in office.

  76. [76] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Other point of fact, obama did not ignore his opponents, he tried very hard to include them in policy decisions, often to a fault.

  77. [77] 
    neilm wrote:

    Hillary is going to be a bogeyman to scare the little children for as long as possible. Obviously Nancy Pelosi is their next theatrical villain - as November comes, start counting the number of times Michale gets heated up by Nancy as he is spoon fed hatred to channel.

    I listened to Bill Maher on Friday, and he made a good point - when the Republicans start to demonize one of our leaders, and the trolls try to split the Democrats into factions (Hillary vs. Bernie) it is good to remember the point nypoet22 makes in [72] and focus on what Democrats agree on instead of our differences.

    Conor Lamb stood as the Democrat and he won. If he has been a Bernie-Bro or a Hillaryite he might have lost. I want winners and if that also includes Michale squirming to pretend that Lamb is really a Republican because he can't handle defeat, then that is just icing on the cake.

  78. [78] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's also a good idea to remember that not every critic of Hillary or any other pol is motivated by an urge to demonize.

    That, of course, SHOULD go without saying.

    Criticism is often motivated by an urge to make something or someone better, after all. That's why it's often referred to as constructive.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    I want winners

    In other words, you don't care HOW much a candidate is with Trump and with guns and with the NRA...

    You are loyal to the Democrat Party and that is *ALL* that matters to ya...

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    Frak principles...

    PARTY UBER ALLES

    :D

  80. [80] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Conor Lamb is pro-life... This is fact..

    Incorrect... as per your usual.

    Conor Lamb, a moderate Democrat vying to win the special election for Pennsylvania’s 18th District, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD on Monday that he does not support proposals to ban abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which fetuses can feel pain.

    “I’d have voted against it,” Lamb answered when asked how he would vote on such a bill. Lamb added that he would not describe his beliefs as “pro-life.”

    “I just want to say, I don’t use the term ‘pro-life’ to describe what I personally believe, because that’s a political term. It’s not one that you learn in Catholic school or anywhere else in the church,” he said.

    ...

    Lamb has said throughout the campaign that he is personally opposed to abortion due to his Catholic faith, but he has indicated that belief would not translate into legislative action.

    “We believe that life begins at conception,” he said, “but as a matter of separation of church and state, I think a woman has the right to choose under the law, so I would vote against” a ban on abortion after 20 weeks.

    https://tinyurl.com/ya6kjoy7

    Conor Lamb is "pro-choice" and supports a woman's right to choose. Speaking of "choice," you do know that rather than believing the utter nonsensical BS being spoon-fed to the minions by the right-wing fabricating spinners, you could learn things for yourself so as not to make yourself appear as though your head is up your ass, right?

    Look at the Lamb win.. He won because he ran as a Republican.. Pro-Life Pro-NRA...

    Conor Lamb is a Catholic who believes in separation of Church and State and would vote against legislation to ban abortion after 20 weeks... not remotely the "pro-life" candidate the righties are claiming he is and you're spewing back here on cue.

    Pro-NRA?

    “I’d be willing to look at proposals that would strengthen our background check system, but I want to start where the broad agreement already is, and the broad agreement already is that we’re not doing a good enough job keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental health conditions and with criminals.” ~ Conor Lamb

    So perhaps, Michale, you are equating the fact that a veteran who is pro-gun is also a supporter of the NRA... or are you just spewing back a right-wing talking point on cue? Sounds to me like he'd likely close the gun show loophole and doesn't exactly meet the GOP's "pro-NRA" talking point.

    If you keep repeating the utter nonsensical right-wing BS that Lamb "ran as a Republican," people will think you're an anus and not just because you admit to being one.

    And yet, here you are.. Talking to an anus...

    How does that make you feel?? :D

    Russ didn't say you were an "anus." He said that "when you speak, its like hearing every anus on the planet 'speak' at once!" The reason it's like hearing all the anuses speak simultaneously is because it's like every idiot has their head planted firmly up their own ass; although, it was very big of you to admit to being an anus. :)

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    70

    Yes, very well said, Don. Although, I will say it does seem that "gentleman" persons (and indeed some women) are so much more quickly to judge women politicians in harsher terms than they do their male counterparts.

  82. [82] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    69

    I think the worst thing about how Hillary continues to talk about the 2016 election is that she is contributing to the enabling of scandalous propaganda machines like Cambridge Analytica and of people like Steve Bannon and his ilk.

    Why is it that Hillary et alia keep being blamed as "enablers" for the men's actions? I think it would serve people well to consider the possibility and begin to catch on to the fact that the propaganda machines like Donald Trump, Cambridge Analytica, and Steve Bannon and their ilk (the "shitheads") will drag Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Rogers, Elizabeth Warren and __________ <--- {insert woman politician's name here} through the mud if it serves their ends of scaring a particular type of menfolk who seem to be terrified of the prospect that a woman might gain some political power in America.

    Ladies (and gentlemen too), please understand that blaming Hillary, Nancy, Maxine, Elizabeth et alia for not "shutting up" and "sitting down" so as not to provoke the shitheads is exactly what the shitheads want you to do. Believe me when I tell you that if all of these women listed above were to "shut up" and "sit down," they would quickly be replaced with other ones that would be accused of enabling the shitheads because that's the object of the exercise.

    Enough said. :)

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    75

    Other point of fact, obama did not ignore his opponents, he tried very hard to include them in policy decisions, often to a fault.

    ^^^^^ This! ^^^^^ :)

  84. [84] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    76

    Perfectly stated and what I was meaning with my post at [81], which I typed and posted before I read yours.

    Well done, sir... exactly right. :)

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    78

    Frak principles...

    The guy who voted for Benedict Donald is lecturing about principles.

    Well, isn't that precious!? :) *LOL*

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    Why is it that Hillary et alia keep being blamed as "enablers" for the men's actions?

    Because some of things she says serve to keep the electorate divided.

    And, you have misread and/or misunderstood my comments today if you think they were to mean that certain women should "shut up and sit down". Because they were rather meant to say that Hillary should stop saying stupid stuff - seated or standing - that further divides the country.

  87. [87] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    77

    It's also a good idea to remember that not every critic of Hillary or any other pol is motivated by an urge to demonize.

    Yes, Elizabeth, but in Paula's defense, some people actually do so often sound similar to the scandalous propaganda machines like Cambridge Analytica and people like Steve Bannon and his ilk, thus contributing to the enabling of those who are motivated by an urge to demonize.

    Of course, the statement above is less a statement of fact and more an attempt at me simply trying to make a point... as I am wont to do. :)

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    85

    Because some of things she says serve to keep the electorate divided.

    Consider the fact that those who wish to keep the electorate divided are going to spin whatever is said in order to do it... regardless of what is actually said in response to a question.

    And, you have misread and/or misunderstood my comments today if you think they were to mean that certain women should "shut up and sit down". Because they were rather meant to say that Hillary should stop saying stupid stuff - seated or standing - that further divides the country.

    When pretty much everything one says in answer to a question is quickly spun into a statement equivalent to "stupid stuff" by those who wish to demonize, the only way to avoid all that is to stop speaking at all, and if you'll review that comment, you'll easily discover that I blamed the "shitheads."

    Unless you consider yourself one of the "shitheads," you needn't be the least bit offended by any of it... and be thankful too that it's not your country. :)

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What Hillary says or doesn't say is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless she decides to run for office again. We should be far more concerned about what out current elected and appointed government representatives are doing. She's a snipe the Fox guys keep pointing at, to keep us distracted while they gut the State Department and the EPA, dismantle the CFPB, and defang regulators from OSHA, EEO, USDA, FDA and the SEC.

    The irony is that the much-vaunted tax cut that added so much to the deficit was just "meh" for so many people that the GOP is starting to shy away from leaning on it as a mid-term issue.

    Some folks could have predicted as much. If you want to boost the GNP, you have to prime the economy from the bottom, not the top, because wealth flows up, not down. Conservatives reject that because it contradicts their premise that the bottom of the economic ladder is a black hole into which money is wasted and lost, not invested. They believe that cash infusion at the top spurs investment in heavy industry, which boosts employment and spreads wealth.

    Well, the numbers are coming in, and they prove the former, rather than the latter is true, at least in this economic environment. Besides, with a trillion dollars now sloshing around on dark markets, it's hard for bankers to plead that there isn't enough investment money looking for projects already out there. An properly written infrastructure bill could soak some of that up.

    By the way, whatever happened to the 'repatriation' project the GOP was going to embark on to bring money in from offshore accounts? Could it be that their donor class is suddenly a lot less interested in surrendering their Caribbean tax shelters?

  90. [90] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    Have you read about the Christopher Wylie revelations?

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's the link to the story about Cambridge Analytica and its ties to the Brexit situation in the UK and to Team Trump and the US presidential election ... the data war whistleblower:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Here's hoping you will write about this because it's a topic that invites the MEGO factor as mine eyes glaze over ...

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's the link to the story about Cambridge Analytica and its ties to the Brexit situation in the UK and to Team Trump and the US presidential election ... the data war whistleblower:

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/data-war-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-faceook-nix-bannon-trump

    You mean!!! Candidates use INFORMATION to try and sway voters to vote for them!!!??????

    Say it ain't so!!! :D

    What HAS this world come to!!???

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I hope you accept that sarcasm as the good-natured ribbing it was intended to be.. :D

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrats’ Only Hope: Give Up Leftism for Lambism

    Conor Lamb was plenty liberal—Obamacare, union support, more. But he didn’t check every box or play the identity politics game.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-democrats-only-hope-give-up-leftism-for-lambism

    If Democrats want ANY chance in winning the House & Senate, they need to nominate candidates who are pro-gun, pro-NRA, pro-life and who spit on the identity politics bullshit..

    The facts are clear...

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Obviously, you need to take a good look at this issue as it goes far beyond the art of political persuasion ... AND, Russian linkages are involved.

    This is a very serious issue and deserves a serious discussion, not misplaced sarcasm.

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    M [92] Candidates use INFORMATION to try and sway voters to vote for them!!!?????

    There are such things as rules. From the article:

    Most damning of all, he had a letter from Facebook’s own lawyers admitting that Cambridge Analytica had acquired the data illegitimately.

    And to the extent that they might have used this information during the US election, they probably broke a few US campaign laws as well.

    The whole thing turns, appropriately, on the issue of theft. Hillary might have paid for part of the Dossier, but it seems the folks around Trump preferred to just take what they wanted, from Facebook, from the DNC, from private emails, and weaponize it. Cambridge offered to help distribute the stolen stuff that Wikileaks had, that's a part of the record.

    Liz is right [89]. This (as Biden says) is a BFD.

    Going public involves an enormous amount of risk. Wylie is breaking a non-disclosure agreement and risks being sued. He is breaking the confidence of Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer.

  98. [98] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That last paragraph is a quote from the article, to illustrate a point that I didn't get to: I think that the fact that the result of the act was illegal, even if the actual theft of Facebook profiles wasn't, because it apparently skirted campaign finance laws in two countries, that the non-disclosure agreement is likewise null and void, because you can't sign away your legal right to report a crime.

    Just like you can't enforce a non-disclosure agreement that you've forgotten to sign. There are rules.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Obviously, you need to take a good look at this issue as it goes far beyond the art of political persuasion ... AND, Russian linkages are involved.

    This is a very serious issue and deserves a serious discussion, not misplaced sarcasm.

    I really don't think it does...

    It's ONLY a problem for the Left because the Right candidates won...

    If Hillary had won, we wouldn't be hearing a THING about it from the Left..

    Ya'all are honest enough to admit that this is fact..

    This is nothing but after-action justification for a loss that no one here can accept..

    It's NOTHING but partisan politics in play..

    That's why I can't get excited about it.. Because I *KNOW* that ya'all would be making MY same argument if Hillary had won and it was the Right who was bringing up all this felgercarb...

    The only difference is, in that case, we would all be in agreement..

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are such things as rules. From the article

    Yea, rules.. Rules Democrats don't follow when it's to their advantage not to...

    The whole thing turns, appropriately, on the issue of theft. Hillary might have paid for part of the Dossier, but it seems the folks around Trump preferred to just take what they wanted, from Facebook, from the DNC, from private emails, and weaponize it.

    Any facts that prove this??

    No??? Of course not..

    It's nothing but propaganda...

    The kind of propaganda we wouldn't hear a PEEP about if Hillary had won the election....

    So, how can anyone take this as nothing else but partisan machinations, sour grapes and sore luser whinings????

  101. [101] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Any facts that prove this?

    Plenty. There are now dozens of witnesses who have spoken publicly, and probably dozens more that Mueller has talked to, but not made public yet.

    What we know from the public record is that the Russians hacked the DNC and Podesta. We know that Papadopolis heard about the hack, told a diplomat about it in a London bar, then flew back to the US and told a whole room full of people in Trump Tower about it, including Trump and Sessions. We know that a group of Russians met with Manafort and Don Trump, Jr., among others to offer the "dirt" to the Trump campaign, and that the hacked material eventually made its way to Wikileaks. We know that Roger Stone, who had been business partners with Manafort and Gates, and has an ongoing political relationship with Trump, somehow knew ahead of time when Assange would release that material (which had already been released in uncurated format by an actor who called himself "Guccifer", whom Stone claims to have also communicated with).

    We know that Cambridge Analytica made overtures to Assange, offering to aid the release of the hacked emails. We don't know whether Cambridge was also offering either to Assange or the Trump campaign, advice about which emails to emphasize, based on the psychological profiles of voters they'd worked up based on the stolen Facebook material.

    We also know, based on several indictments brought by Mueller already, that in addition to all of this, the Russians were engaged in a vigorous disinformation campaign here in the states, in which they devoted significant resources to jamming the social networks with disparaging information about Hillary using bots, trolls and US-based spies. They set up competing rallies, to spread chaos, they hacked voter rolls and possibly more.

    Meanwhile, the Russians had hacked their way into our electrical grid, water and power systems, including nuclear facilities.

    And none of this is being addressed by the Republicans in charge of the country, in order to spare the ego of the Child in the Oval Office.

    We know all that much so far for sure. It's public record. As I said, there's certainly much more that we haven't been told about yet.

  102. [102] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, how can anyone take this as nothing else but partisan machinations, sour grapes and sore luser whinings?

    Hey, that's politics, dude. The other side is worse.

    The critical question is: is it true? It is, and the evidence of it is mounting every day.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Plenty. There are now dozens of witnesses who have spoken publicly, and probably dozens more that Mueller has talked to, but not made public yet.

    Plenty of facts that prove it, eh?? :D

    Yer funny...

    Hey, that's politics, dude. The other side is worse.

    Of course they are.. But THEY say ya'all are the worst..

    It's all nothing but political bigotry...

    We also know, based on several indictments brought by Mueller already, that in addition to all of this, the Russians were engaged in a vigorous disinformation campaign here in the states, in which they devoted significant resources to jamming the social networks with disparaging information about Hillary using bots, trolls and US-based spies. They set up competing rallies, to spread chaos, they hacked voter rolls and possibly more.

    "Amazing. Everything you just said there was wrong"
    -Luke Skywalker, THE LAST JEDI

    Meanwhile, the Russians had hacked their way into our electrical grid, water and power systems, including nuclear facilities.

    Which has nothing to do with Trump or the election..

    You just want to throw anything you can against the wall and HOPE that something against Trump sticks..

    It's ALL nothing but hysterical bigotry..

    ESPECIALLY hilarious since it was Odumbo who promised Putin fealty and it was Hillary who wanted to "reset" relations with the Russians.. And don't forget it was Odumbo who mocked Romney when he was saying the EXACT same thing about the Russians that ya'all are now..

    Face reality, dood.. You ain't got jack.. Nothing but hysterical NeverTrumpism.. :D

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    McCabe just made life tough for Comey and the special counsel
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378919-mccabe-just-made-life-tough-for-comey-and-the-special-counsel

    You hysterical NeverTrumpers are tripping all over yerselves trying to make a case that simply can't be made..

    it's hilarious to watch this keystone cops routine.. :D

  105. [105] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Hey, that's politics, dude. The other side is worse."

    And that's the problem.

    "The critical question is: is it true?"

    Let's apply that critical question to the "Hey, that's politics" quote.

    It is, and the evidence is mounting every day.

    Allowing the two divisions of the Big Money Party to control our political process using the politics of fear to win elections by arguing that the other side is worse has done nothing but make things worse.

    SEE: President Trump, the culmination of this strategy.

    The critical question is when are citizens going to demand that politicians make things better, staring with demanding that they will not vote for Big Money candidates from any party?

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clinton: 'I meant no disrespect' with Trump voter comments
    http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/379067-clinton-i-meant-no-disrespect-with-trump-voter-comments

    Hillary is the kind of person who always has to make 2 speeches..

    The 2nd one to apologize...

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2293368c6c7b3178743e078446a62325ea5d7b564f89fdf8eaf7e9992ffec589.png?w=800&h=682

    This is why it's impossible to take ANYTHING the anti-gun nuts say seriously...

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You are looking for enemies in all the wrong places.

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are looking for enemies in all the wrong places.

    Any enemy of the US Constitution is my enemy.. :D

  111. [111] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Q: Why did Kenny Rodgers have shit all over his beard?

    A: 'Cause he was looking for love in all the wrong places.

  112. [112] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Any enemy of the US Constitution is my enemy.. :D

    Michale, you need to focus on the greatest enemies of liberal democracy, in general, and of American democracy, in particular.

    One of the greatest is Russia. Republicans and Democrats and Independents should be able to agree on that much and focus their efforts to combat it.

    You really don't have the luxury of fretting the little and petty stuff in the face of Russia's active measures.

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Q: Why did Kenny Rodgers have shit all over his beard?

    A: 'Cause he was looking for love in all the wrong places.

    hehehehehe Oh that is so wrong on so many levels.. :D

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    One of the greatest is Russia.

    That's what Romney said in 2012.. Ya'all laughed and scoffed at him then..

    But NOW that it's to the Left's political advantage, NOW Russia is the greatest enemy..

    "We are at war with {Russia}... We have always been at war with {Russia}.."
    -1984

    Do you see how I have trouble taking the claims at face value??

    It's obvious that it's nothing but partisan maneuvering..

    You really don't have the luxury of fretting the little and petty stuff in the face of Russia's active measures.

    Russia has had these kinds of active measures since they were the Soviet Union and before..

    The *ONLY* reason it's an issue now is because it's to the advantage of the Democrat Party to be an issue..

    There is no threat today that wasn't present during the Obama years 2008 thru 2016....

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russia has had these kinds of active measures since they were the Soviet Union and before..

    They have never been as effective as they are today. Times change, Michale, and the reactions must change accordingly.

    I don't understand why you aren't taking this issue seriously.

  116. [116] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I find myself wishing for Mueller to wrap this ''fake reality'' up and exonerating Agent Orange for collusion with the Ruskies, the more time he can spend on delivering indictable offenses, the better.

    Trump might better serve himself if he drops the whining about collusion and reinvents the slogans to include corruption, witness tampering, threatening and general skullduggery, he might have some decent material before he's forced to wing his lies. But who am I, a mere mortal, to suggest the obvious to a man who recently decided he knew everything there was to know about governing in a democracy...The titan, who if pressed, could put a broom up his arse and sweep clean the nation while striding the political landscape.

    One can only weep at the misplaced hubris...

    Mr Five-time Draft-Dodger, with all the proven courage of a Marmoset, stomping around inaugurating the death penalty for drug dealers is frankly, laughable. Chalk up another idea destined to die of its own accord on the vine, thankfully Trump brings his proven track record for catastrophe and debacle to all his own gigs. Let's face reality for giggles, The Marx Brothers would stand a better chance of blowing drug-dealer death penalties past a reasonably educated society.

    I said it on the eve of Trump's swearing in...''I wouldn't let Trump run a bath, let alone a twitchy, polarised and heavily armed society''...I mean, nothing imaginable could go wrong.

    LL&P

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    They have never been as effective as they are today.

    No.. It's just never been as widely reported as it is today...

    I can assure you that in the 80s and 90s, the USSR and then RUSSIA had some HUGELY successful intelligence coups..

    But they were never widely reported..

    And WHY are they so widely reported today?? Because the Leftist MSM hates Trump and wants to take him down..

    If Hillary had one, you and I BOTH know that we wouldn't be seeing ANYTHING about this Russian action..

    I don't understand why you aren't taking this issue seriously.

    For the EXACT same reason ya'all never took the Benghazi debacle seriously..

    Because, in ya'all's mind, it was NOTHING but political machinations...

    Russia "interference" is to me what Benghazi was to ya'all...

    That should help you understand why I don't take it seriously...

  118. [118] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthazar Your [100]
    (Along with most every other Weigantian other than Michale)

    So, the Russkies posted "disparaging remarks" about Hillary, and divulged the fact that she had stacked the primaries deck against Bernie, and gawdonlyknows what other mean things!!

    As one of the only two people in the world smart enough not to be on Facebook, I'll have to take your word on that, but then I say SO WHAT!!

    There ain't a single one of you rabid lefties that would let anything that batdshit-crazy influence YOUR votes, but you're all sufficiently gullible/foolish to believe that the "great unwashed masses" would let those things override their personal self-interest in casting THEIR ballots!

    That is the worst case of rabid elitism anybody ever heard of.

    And BTW, are you nutjobs really advocating for the denial of constitutionalfree speech to our Russian neighbors simply because you think they helped elect Trump??

    Not only are you rabid elitists, you're rabid hypocrites!

  119. [119] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz-
    I do take the issue seriously, but I don't take the Democrats seriously when they complain about it any more than I take them seriously when they complain about gerrymandering, Big Money in politics or any other issue where they have been complicit with the Republicans in creating the situation that allowed it to happen.

    When they are part of setting up a system that they think they can manipulate they have no right to complain and act is if they are somehow victims when someone else figures out how to manipulate it.

    And we let them escape responsibility for the problems they cause by responding to their crocodile tears and their politics of fear (TRUMP!) by continuing to vote for them.

    And make no mistake about this- the Democrats are not complaining about the problem they caused, they are only complaining about the Russian's manipulation and want to return to a system that they can manipulate.

    They are not against manipulation any more than the Republicans are.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    I said it on the eve of Trump's swearing in...''I wouldn't let Trump run a bath, let alone a twitchy, polarised and heavily armed society''...I mean, nothing imaginable could go wrong.

    And yet, American confidence is up, jobs are up, people are happy and prestige is coming back to America...

    Sucks to be NeverTrumpers :D

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    nd BTW, are you nutjobs really advocating for the denial of constitutionalfree speech to our Russian neighbors simply because you think they helped elect Trump??

    Not only are you rabid elitists, you're rabid hypocrites!

    I wouldn't put it so blatantly, but yea.. :D

  122. [122] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Interesting article at In These Times by Nick Pemberton titled "The Democrats can't save us".

    And if some of what he says sounds familiar, no, I did not write the article under another name because if I did it would have continued as it should have with a section about One Demand. :D

  123. [123] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    OOOPs. That's at Counterpunch.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Let me ask you something..

    Do you think ANYTHING that was done by the Russians in 2016 WASN'T done in 2014, 2012, 2010 and 2008???

  125. [125] 
    neilm wrote:

    CRS [117] - do you have anything to say or do you just think you are being clever by trying to troll a response?

  126. [126] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Do you think ANYTHING that was done by the Russians in 2016 WASN'T done in 2014, 2012, 2010 and 2008???

    Or by the CIA since 1947...

    But I expect the Russians have been ramping up operations over the years as social media becomes more prevalent in our society. The "ANYTHING" is more a matter of scale and refinement.

  127. [127] 
    Paula wrote:

    [100] Balthasar - One big question: did Cambridge Analytica give their stolen FB data to the Russians?

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi..

    Or by the CIA since 1947...

    Exactly...

    It's been done for the last 60 years by both the US and the USSR/Russia...

    It's *ONLY* a problem now because Trump won...

    That's the beginning and end of the issue..

  129. [129] 
    neilm wrote:

    It's *ONLY* a problem now because Trump won...

    It is only a problem for you that Trump won. And, of course, Trump. It means that a prosecutor will be looking into his business dealings - in particular Trump Soho - which is where the biggest stink (to date) is coming from.

  130. [130] 
    neilm wrote:

    And those problems are not going to get any better for Trump if they lose the House in November.

    Which is why the 20 point swing in rural PA was so important.

    Time for the Republicans to get a bit of their own Benghazi!!! medicine, and the chances of there being something real this time around are much higher.

    If not they can drag Trump's name through the dirt for two years leading up to 2020.

  131. [131] 
    neilm wrote:

    I wonder how much money Trump is losing now his brand is in the toilet.

    His big shiny toy in NY, Trump Soho, was renamed the "Dominick Hotel" in an attempt to get guests, as it had been struggling.

  132. [132] 
    Paula wrote:

    Clip of Christopher Wylie on Today Show quite interesting. He says Corey Lewandowski approached Cambridge Analytica in 2015, before Blotus announced. He said Cambridge Analytica was working with psychologists in Russia and with people tied to Russian Security Services. He talked about the difference between political advertising and what they did. Paraphrasing: political ads are identified - you read them, see them, hear them, and you know where they come from. What Cambridge Analytica did was create webs of disinformation - fake blogs, fake websites, fake people, and targeted them at people based on their proclivities so that they thought the info they were getting was "reporting" or otherwise authentic, NOT political advertising. And people had no idea this was happening - no idea they were being secretly manipulated.

    https://twitter.com/TODAYshow/status/975736399126253568

  133. [133] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/19/1750191/-Facebook-and-Cambridge-Analytica-gave-Steve-Bannon-a-psychological-warfare-tool-to-attack-America

    All of this may seem like a torrent of information, and it is. But the pieces behind “Steve Bannon’s psychological warfare tool” are coming together, and there are — at least — two big stories.

    1. Christopher Wylie was approached by Steve Bannon in to build a “psychological warfare mindfuck tool” that would use big data and social media, not to directly market a candidate, but to drive open cracks in American culture. The intention was to ratchet up racial, gender, and social concerns, increasing unrest and convincing Americans—especially white Americans—that they were being left behind in their own country.

    2. To drive their hate machine, Cambridge Analytica scraped information from over 50 million Americans on Facebook.

    3. In 2014 and 2015, as they were building their tool, Cambridge had multiple contacts with Russian officials who were, not so coincidentally, seeking exactly the same kind of information and tool that Cambridge was building.

    4. As Cambridge moved into supporting Trump, they used the information they had derived from Facebook data, and Facebook’s own targeted ad tools, to put information in front of voters in critical areas.

    5. The ads, stories, and links that Cambridge provided were often not specifically “vote for Trump” pieces, so much as they were continuations of their cultural-change effort. They were intended to create a narrative that working class white voters were being ignored by the Democratic Party, who were wholly owned by urban blacks and immigrants, and that blacks and immigrants were benefiting while whites were “forgotten.” Added onto this was an layer of stories about emasculating feminists.

    If some of this sounds like the actions of the Russian “hackers” in 2016 election, it’s because their approaches and actions were almost identical. Both start in 2014 working to cause disruption and exacerbate social unrest. Both turn to supporting Trump once he becomes a candidate. Both use Facebook data and tools to target their actions. And both contact WikiLeaks as the go-to site for laundering the release of data.

    This could be astounding coincidence — but a simpler explanation is that Cambridge Analytica, Steve Bannon, and others in Trump’s digital effort coordinated their entire approach with Moscow.

  134. [134] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Do you think ANYTHING that was done by the Russians in 2016 WASN'T done in 2014, 2012, 2010 and 2008???

    Sure, they did the same things, but not at the volume or intensity that they did in 2016....nor with the success that they had in 2016. Their ability to create false news stories that got shared millions of times was impressive. They knew how to work the comments sections on news websites like a charm. And they are likely to do it again this year and in 2020 unless the Fake President gets off his bloated ass and orders something be done to stop them!

    But that might get Putin angry and cause him to expose Lil’ Donny’s sins to the world! I am starting to believe that is the real reason Trump is so quick to drop to his knees and begin sucking at the very mention of Putin’s name... Putin has told him that the truth could set Trump “free” unless he plays his part well. It would serve Putin’s wishes to destabilize our government and our influence worldwide for Trump to be exposed as a traitor.

  135. [135] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [132]

    Thanks for posting that! If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck....

  136. [136] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm [124]

    I find my [117] clear and precise. If it sailed right over your head, I cannot help you.

  137. [137] 
    Paula wrote:

    [133] Listen: I also wonder if Blotus's family are at risk. As we see in England, Putin has people killed. Will Putin target Blotus family members if Blotus doesn't toe the line? I don't think there's much Putin could reveal that we don't already know or suspect OTHER than definitive links between the campaign and Russian interference. And Mueller may have those.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    ure, they did the same things, but not at the volume or intensity that they did in 2016....nor with the success that they had in 2016.

    No, it's only being REPORTED more because Trump won...

    Nothing has changed in the operations of the Russian activities..

    It's ONLY a problem for ya'all now because YOUR candidate lost...

    THAT is why I can't get excited about ya'all's hysterical accusations..

    It's nothing new.. It's nothing different... It's just that YOUR candidate lost...

  139. [139] 
    neilm wrote:

    Facebook is a tool. You are smart if you know how to use a tool, not "clever" because you decided not to use it or can't figure it out.

  140. [140] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula [136]

    I don’t think Trump’s family matters to him nearly as much as his brand does, personally. I think he’d sell any one of his kids out in order to save his own orange ass without ANY hesitation!

    While we know a lot about Trump’s ties to Russia, you can bet that Putin has quite a few more that no one knows about...yet!

    Michale [137]

    No, it's only being REPORTED more because Trump won...

    Nothing has changed in the operations of the Russian activities..

    God, it really must kill you that Dear Leader is going down in flames for you to make these laughable statements!

    So did Romney have secret meetings with the Russians that the press just chose not to report? Hmmmmmm....NOPE!

    Did the Russians hack the DNC’s email back in 2008 or 2012 and dump it all on Wikileaks and the press just ignored that? Hmmmm....NOPE!

    Did all of our intelligence agencies find that Russia was attempting to help Romney get elected? Hmmmm...NOPERS!

    Is the fact that you do pretty much the same job that the Russian trolls were paid to carry out the reason that you want to downplay their actions? Does it sicken you to realize that you have assisted in the destabilization of our government and our country by serving as a megaphone for a foreign power’s propaganda machine?

  141. [141] 
    neilm wrote:

    Does it sicken you to realize that you have assisted in the destabilization of our government and our country by serving as a megaphone for a foreign power’s propaganda machine?

    Party before country. There is a name for that.

    All the batshit "they are traitors" used to emanate almost exclusively from the right wing fanned by Fox News, Infowars, etc.

    Now I'm hearing the same thing from the left about the Republicans.

    The Russian trolls did a good job. They post inflammatory nonsense designed to split us (e.g. see CRS's attempt in [117] to gin up some anger - filtered versions of propaganda fed to him via his echo chamber).

    Personally I think it will backfire - at the moment it is more important as a tool to make Russian voters feel good about Putin more than anything else - the Russians have a big chip on their shoulder about how poor they are wrt to democracies. However I don't think they have thought this through - their tactics are effective but their strategy is going to tilt public opinion against them, particularly when the Republicans suffer a big election shock and realize that the Russians aren't always going to be there to help them win.

    Interesting times.

  142. [142] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    [137] ...it's only being REPORTED more because Trump won... Nothing has changed in the operations of the Russian activities..It's ONLY a problem for ya'all now because YOUR candidate lost...

    Wrong, wrong and wrong. From the January 4, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment:

    Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US Presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

    So much for "this is just the same old spy stuff". Putin's been ramping up his spycraft - he got into the last French and German elections too.

    I think it was Trey Gowdy who said yesterday on the Fox Sunday Show that there are bigger issues here than Trump's political future. You should listen to him.

    I'll bet you think this song is about you." - Carly Simon, You're So Vain

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ex-Obama Campaign Director Drops Bombshell Claim on Facebook: 'They Were on Our Side'

    A former Obama campaign official is claiming that Facebook knowingly allowed them to mine massive amounts of Facebook data — more than they would’ve allowed someone else to do — because they were supportive of the campaign.

    In a Sunday tweet thread, Carol Davidson, former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America, said the 2012 campaign led Facebook to “suck out the whole social graph” and target potential voters. They would then use that data to do things like append their email lists.
    https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/

    Funny how ya'all didn't complain about the massive amounts of FaceBook data that went to the Odumbo administration to help the Odumbo agenda..

    Like I said.. Ya'all really don't care about information misuse..

    Ya'all just don't like it when Trump allegedly used it..

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US Presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.

    Dood! That was written by the Odumbo administration!!!

    And YOU buy it!??

    OF COURSE you do..

    Because it says what you want to hear...

    I think it was Trey Gowdy who said yesterday on the Fox Sunday Show that there are bigger issues here than Trump's political future. You should listen to him.

    Of course you would say that..

    Because NOW Gowdy is saying what you want to hear.. Before, when Gowdy was saying what you DIDN'T want to hear, well THEN you wanted me to ignore Gowdy...

    Gods, your political hypocrisy and bigotry is so blatant and obvious...

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a Sunday tweet thread, Carol Davidson, former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America, said the 2012 campaign led Facebook to “suck out the whole social graph” and target potential voters. They would then use that data to do things like append their email lists.

    When ODUMBO does that.. It's perfectly acceptable..

    When TRUMP does it, it's a threat to our democracy...

    You people are so blatantly hypocritical, it's laughable...

    Here comes the spin..

    "But... But... But... THAT'S DIFFERENT!!"

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    “They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.”
    -Carol Davidson, Director of Integration & Media Analytics, Obama for America

    Yea.. Ya'all don't give a royal rat's ass about THAT....

    Funny, iddn't it....

  147. [147] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    OK, let's agree that Facebook is a tool. Tools tend to be created to meet specific needs. Hammers to pound things, wrenches and screw drivers to rotate things, trowels to spread things, tapes to measure things, etc.

    OF COURSE!! - How could I have failed to recognized that simple fact?

    Facebook is a tool for helping Dems/Libs try to rationalize what they perceive to be irrational, meaning how a buffoon Republican could possibly defeat a pre-ordained 'sure-thing' Dem presidential candidate???

    Thanks for clarifying that for me!

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Facebook IS a tool..

    And like any tool, it can be misused..

    The problem here is that ya'all (with a couple obvious exceptions) whine and scream and cry when the GOP allegedly misuses it, but ya'all are COMPLETELY silent when the Democrats misuse it..

    How is this not blatant hypocrisy???

  149. [149] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    ya'all (with a couple obvious exceptions) whine and scream and cry when the GOP allegedly misuses it, but ya'all are COMPLETELY silent when the Democrats misuse it..

    Maybe that's because the story is six years old.

    Besides, the Obama Campaign didn't surreptitiously 'mine' the data from Facebook, as CA supposedly did, they put an app on Facebook that asked Facebook users for their permission to use their data. That's a different kettle of fish.

    Again, for our ethically challenged Republican friends: paying for and asking for information is different than stealing and hacking information.

  150. [150] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The 2012 Time article I linked to had an interesting tidbit buried within:

    That confirmed a trend already noted in political-science literature: online social networks have the power to change voting behavior.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, the Obama Campaign didn't surreptitiously 'mine' the data from Facebook,

    yes, they did..

    When Facebook found out what they were doing, they were “surprised,” she said. But she also claimed they didn’t stop them once they found out:

    Face the facts, Balthy..

    You are defending Odumbo because you DON'T CARE that they did exactly what ya'all accuse Trump of...

    PARTY UBER ALLES

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, for our ethically challenged Republican friends: paying for and asking for information is different than stealing and hacking information.

    And yet, ya'all complained that Trump and the Russians were USING that kind of information..

    NOW that it's been exposed that Odumbo did the same thing, NOW the story changes..

    NOW it's all about HOW Trump and the Russians got the info, not using the info itself..

    Do you see how pathetically pitiful and political you are???

  153. [153] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Democrats: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!

    Republicans (disdainfully): Oh, Jan.

    -Trailer from "Desperately Seeking Putin" starring Madonna as Hillary Clinton.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    heh

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    SCOTUS NEWS

    Today, for the second time now, the Supreme Court has rejected the GOP's argument and declined to step in and block the new congressional redistricting map in Pennsylvania.

    It should be a lot more interesting in November to see the results from the way less gerrymandered Keystone State. :)

  156. [156] 
    Paula wrote:

    And there's more on Cambridge Analytica! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/3/19/1750293/-British-sting-reveals-how-Cambridge-Analytica-used-sex-workers-and-bribes-to-get-what-they-wanted

    So Channel 4 in England has been doing undercover work to get the story on CA. They've done a 3-part story, and in part 2 - which CA was trying vigorously to suppress, we learn:

    Senior executives at Cambridge Analytica – the data company that credits itself with Donald Trump’s presidential victory – have been secretly filmed saying they could entrap politicians in compromising situations with bribes and Ukrainian sex workers. …

    “We’ll offer a large amount of money to the candidate, to finance his campaign in exchange for land for instance, we’ll have the whole thing recorded, we’ll blank out the face of our guy and we post it on the Internet.”

    In an update to the KOS piece there's a tweet saying the "Britain's Information Officer announces she is seeking a warranting to raid Cambridge Analytica and seize servers."

    CA has been bankrolled by the Mercers and it looks like they've been interfering in elections around the world. And they've been working with Russians all along.

  157. [157] 
    Paula wrote:

    After the election there were laudatory articles about Jared Kushner's "brilliant" use of Cambridge Analytica...

  158. [158] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    When Facebook found out what they were doing, they were “surprised,” she said. But she also claimed they didn’t stop them once they found out.

    Because the app was deployed openly, Facebook should have known about it. The app asked users' permission before gathering their data, and Cambridge's did not. According to Facebook today: Things became problematic when Kogan shared this data with Cambridge Analytica. Facebook contends this is against the company’s terms of service.

    NOW it's all about HOW Trump and the Russians got the info, not using the info itself..

    No, it's both. We now know that Cambridge Analytica exploited a feature in Facebook's login (which is similar, by the way, to the login function on Google, Twitter and LinkedIn) to 'mine' data from upwards of 50,000 profiles, without the users' permission. The assholes at Facebook, by the way, knew that the data was at risk and did nothing about it - they apparently felt that app developers could be 'trusted' and had them on an honor system not to 'misuse' data they collected.

    What we (and I'm sure, Mueller) would love to know is HOW they used it. One question that keeps popping up is, 'how did the Russians know who to target?' This is one possible answer.

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    99

    So, how can anyone take this as nothing else but partisan machinations, sour grapes and sore luser whinings????

    This fairly well mirrors what you said about Russian interference in our elections. My, but we've come a long way since then.

    Elizabeth is correct that this is serious stuff and there is Russian involvement. You might want cut the repetitive routine and pay attention.

  160. [160] 
    Kick wrote:

    HINT

    Flynn Intel Group

  161. [161] 
    Paula wrote:

    This piece has links to parts 1 and 2 of Channel 4's story: https://wonkette.com/631445/cambridge-analytica-did-not-use-ukrainian-prostitutes-as-honeyp-oh-you-mean-them

    Tomorrow's piece is about CA's activities in the U.S.

  162. [162] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar

    Liz is right [89]. This (as Biden says) is a BFD.

    Yep.

    Going public involves an enormous amount of risk. Wylie is breaking a non-disclosure agreement and risks being sued. He is breaking the confidence of Steve Bannon and Robert Mercer.

    Bannon is out at Cambridge Analytica and has been since shortly before the election. He and the Mercers have since parted ways. Bannon then had a very long sit down with Mueller and his team. :)

  163. [163] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    LWYH [139] So did Romney have secret meetings with the Russians that the press just chose not to report? Hmmmmmm....NOPE!

    Did the Russians hack the DNC’s email back in 2008 or 2012 and dump it all on Wikileaks and the press just ignored that? Hmmmm....NOPE!

    Did all of our intelligence agencies find that Russia was attempting to help Romney get elected? Hmmmm...NOPERS!

    In fact I saw a panel discussion in which campaign chairs of the Romney and McCain campaigns said they never had ANY contact with ANY Russians during their respective campaigns. The Trump campaign's constant contacts with Russians were abnormal even by GOP standards.

  164. [164] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [160] Great article. Now I'm off to watch the video!

  165. [165] 
    Paula wrote:

    [163] Balthasar: :-)

    On twitter: "Channel 4 just announced that authorities have gained a warrant to search CA building TONIGHT!"

  166. [166] 
    Paula wrote:

    http://wpgtalkradio.com/hillary-speech-at-rutgers-sold-out-moved-to-larger-venue/

    The school announced on Monday that rather than holding the March 29 event at the College Avenue Gymnasium, it will instead be held at the Rutgers Athletic Center in Piscataway. The Eagleton Institute of Politics said the move was being made "due to the extraordinary level of interest" in the program.

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there's more on Cambridge Analytica!

    Ex-Obama Campaign Director Drops Bombshell Claim on Facebook: 'They Were on Our Side'

    A former Obama campaign official is claiming that Facebook knowingly allowed them to mine massive amounts of Facebook data — more than they would’ve allowed someone else to do — because they were supportive of the campaign.

    In a Sunday tweet thread, Carol Davidson, former director of integration and media analytics for Obama for America, said the 2012 campaign led Facebook to “suck out the whole social graph” and target potential voters. They would then use that data to do things like append their email lists.
    https://ijr.com/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-director-fb/

    Of course, you ignore that..

    So typically hypocritical....

  168. [168] 
    neilm wrote:

    Facebook is a tool for helping Dems/Libs try to rationalize what they perceive to be irrational, meaning how a buffoon Republican could possibly defeat a pre-ordained 'sure-thing' Dem presidential candidate???

    Thanks for clarifying that for me!

    A screwdriver is a tool. Its primary use is to screw. It can also be used a a level, a hammer (turn it around and pound in the nail with the top of the handle) or a stabbing weapon.

    Just because e.g. a Russian uses it as a stabbing weapon, and people point that out, doesn't mean all screwdrivers should never be used for their primary or benign secondary purposes.

    Facebook is a tool that lets me see pics of my friends and family from around the world at Christmas, when they go on vacation, etc. It informs me when my step-brother has a kid, my friend in Texas hears a funny joke and my old co-worker in London recommends a book he likes.

    Trolls (or many nationality) probably also try to feed me some clickbait, and Facebook allow them, but it doesn't mean I need to fall for it, or even pay any attention. I don't use Facebook as a source of news or education - that is what the BBC, the Economist and other high quality media channels are for. And I expect to pay for them. And I don't expect them to be cheap.

    If you aren't a paying consumer then you are getting what somebody wants to give you for free - and they usually have an agenda.

  169. [169] 
    Kick wrote:

    In a legal filing, Trump admits to being "David Dennison."

    Oh, say it isn't so! This means the POTUS has admitted he has been lying for months about Stormy Daniels and sending out Sarah Huckster Sanders to lie for him.

    Who knew!? ;)

  170. [170] 
    Paula wrote:
  171. [171] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    156

    After the election there were laudatory articles about Jared Kushner's "brilliant" use of Cambridge Analytica...

    Project Alamo. Poor Kush... he is in huge trouble.

  172. [172] 
    Paula wrote:

    [170] Kick: Kush in trouble - yep. The big question: how much did he know? Cambridge Analytica was presented to us a year ago as just this really hip tech consultancy that made skillful use of Facebook ads. It's much, much more than that - much darker in every way.

    And FB may be in some really deep doodoo: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/technology/facebook-alex-stamos.html?smid=tw-share

    Facebook’s chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the company after internal disagreements over how the social network should deal with its role in spreading disinformation, according to current and former employees briefed on the matter.

    FB has basically been stonewalling ever since the election. These Cambridge Analytical stories reveal a lot FB would prefer remain hidden.

  173. [173] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    neilm

    For some fascinating reason, of all the things I've so far read that you have written, I find your statement "A screwdriver is a tool. Its primary use is to screw." to be the most illuminating of how your mind works.

  174. [174] 
    neilm wrote:

    "A screwdriver is a tool. Its primary use is to screw."

    Yup. I'm particularly proud of that one.

    I posited "to screw things in" or "as a screwdriver".

    But in the end, I thought I'd just make the whole thing clear and if a hammer is meant to hammer, a pointer meant to point and a ruler meant to rule, fuck it, a screwdriver is either meant to screwdrive or screw. Since screwdrive isn't a word, I was hamstrung. So sue me.

  175. [175] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Just a thought - How about "A screwdriver is a tool. Its primary purpose is to drive screws." Radical, huh?!!

  176. [176] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    P.S. Don't sweat it, I am not a litigious person.

  177. [177] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Technically, a screwdriver's primary use is to turn screws.

  178. [178] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Or, as I said in my original [146], "to 'rotate' screws".

  179. [179] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    171

    Kush in trouble - yep. The big question: how much did he know? Cambridge Analytica was presented to us a year ago as just this really hip tech consultancy that made skillful use of Facebook ads. It's much, much more than that - much darker in every way.

    So about Cambridge Analytica, while I cannot fathom why it took so long to become a focus on the front pages of the so-called "MSM," a reporter named Harry Fox Davies writing for the Guardian had already broken that news in December 2015 in fairly great detail.

    https://tinyurl.com/kctlw6n

    And FB may be in some really deep doodoo.

    And Facebook knew this information was public yet hadn't reached the "front pages." Facebook then chose to lie publicly about the extent of their involvement, while "who knows what" is going on privately behind the scenes. You've no doubt seen the evolving statements of Facebook as this has played out over time, and I don't see now how there's not a few Q&A sessions under penalty of perjury between Mark Zuckerberg and a few investigative committees.

    In answer to most of your other questions about who knew: Mueller knows, and barring any unforeseen issues, those that don't make some sort of "deal" with Mueller will die in prison unless they live a really, really long time.

  180. [180] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick

    Help me out on that. What are the crimes for which all those people are going to spend all that time in jail?

Comments for this article are closed.