ChrisWeigant.com

The Punditocracy Is Missing Democrats' Real Campaign Focus

[ Posted Thursday, September 13th, 2018 – 16:46 PDT ]

Pretty much all year long, there has been a popular parlor game played on the cocktail-party circuit inside the Beltway. It might be called: "Democrats Should Run On Bashing Trump And Impeachment." Both subjects were endlessly debated, and a consensus opinion emerged that this was obviously the best way for Democrats to campaign. Bashing Trump at every turn and using "the I-word" as often as possible would surely be the Democrats' best chance of success in the midterms. It became accepted as conventional inside-the-Beltway wisdom, meaning the punditocracy would ask actual Democrats about the subject whenever they got a chance. The fact that the answers didn't match with the perceived reality was barely even noted. Now, finally, some of them are beginning to take note that Democrats are actually running a very different campaign, out there beyond the Beltway.

In actual fact, Democratic candidates have been running their campaign on what the voters truly care about. And at the top of that list is healthcare. For the first time, Obamacare has become a potent political issue for Democrats. Donald Trump did what Barack Obama couldn't -- he made Obamacare popular. The Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a return to the bad old days when pre-existing conditions meant refusal of health insurance has not been forgotten by the public at large. They now understand what "repeal and replace" actually means, and they are against it. This is why Democrats have so heavily leaned on the issue in their campaigns.

Here's some new data showing how big an issue this has been for Democrats in 2018:

According to an analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project, more than half of the ads promoting Democratic candidates at the federal level last month included a mention of health care. About a tenth of the time, the ads mentioned Obamacare specifically.

By comparison, the subjects of jobs, taxes, or immigration each were mentioned in less than 15 percent of Democratic ads, while over 50 percent of the ads addressed healthcare. That's pretty stunning, even though the inside-the-Beltway crowd, for the most part, hasn't even noticed the phenomenon. As the article points out, even Senator Joe Manchin is running on defending Obamacare in West Virginia. That's a deep red state, but it's also a state that has enormously benefited from the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare. Obamacare is now popular across both blue and red states, and Democrats have noticed.

But what about bashing the president? Hasn't that been a big issue, too? Well, no. It hasn't. Not at all, in fact. From an article specifically examining the Democratic ad strategy comes more data:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the House Majority PAC, the top Democratic super PAC engaged in House races, had focused virtually all of their national messaging on health care and economic fairness in a belief that voters are most interested in "kitchen table" issues.

. . .

National Democrats have entirely avoided airing any ads highlighting the many controversies that have enveloped President Trump personally. [D.C.C.C. Chairman Ben Ray] Luján said Thursday that that stance will continue.

"Our candidates don't have to talk about him, because he's going to talk about himself for us," he said. "He'll remind the American people of every investigation he's involved with, of every disgusting tweet that is out there, of all the positions the Trump administration has taken."

In case you missed that, it's worth repeating: "National Democrats have entirely avoided airing any ads" bashing President Trump. While the pundits all agreed that impeachment would indeed be a fine issue for Democrats to run on, actual Democratic candidates are not even mentioning Trump scandals in their ads. In fact, over half of their ads are on healthcare and protecting Obamacare. The disconnect is pretty jarring, isn't it?

That quote from Luján is pretty amusing as well, because it sums the situation up so nicely. Democratic candidates don't have to bash Trump, because the voters already know everything about Trump they need to know. Trump himself is the best argument against Trump. Voters are already aware of the situation, so Democrats beating this drum would be entirely superfluous. Everyone gets to see Trump with their own eyes, so why bother repeating the obvious?

Midterm elections are almost always referenda on the sitting president. But just because that is true doesn't mean that midterm campaigns are always centered around the president. This is what the cocktail party chatter has gotten wrong. While they've been searching high and low for confirmation of their conventional wisdom, Democratic candidates have been out there running campaigns to actually win over the voters on issues important to them. So far, it seems to be working.

The national political media always likes to tell a national political story about congressional elections. "The election was about X," they'll proclaim, after the fact. This time, they tried to do so before the fact, and they have missed by a mile. In actual fact, Democrats are beginning to run ads against scandalous behavior by individual Republicans in Congress rather than bashing Trump (that first article cited is mainly about new Democratic efforts to run ads against Republican corruption). In other words, ignore the national narrative, because politics is local. House races most especially.

In a way, this has all benefited Democratic candidates. The media has essentially given a huge "head fake" to the Republicans, and some of them took the bait. Republican candidates are the ones out there talking about impeachment, not Democrats. GOP candidates are running on: "those mean Democrats will impeach Trump if they win!" while Democrats are essentially sitting back in amazement. It's downright bizarre for a member of one party to constantly bring up the subject of impeaching a president of the same party -- or it would be in more-normal times, at any rate. Meanwhile, Democrats continue to run ads reminding voters that Republicans actively voted to take away the Obamacare protections for people with pre-existing conditions to get health insurance.

The reality on the ground is that Democrats are not even bothering to bash Trump on the campaign trail (much less bring up impeachment), because they don't have to. The pundits have been wrong all year. In actual fact, there is one overwhelming issue which Democrats are running on this year -- healthcare. The most accurate assessment must be that "the 2018 election has been about defending Obamacare," at least so far. But how many columns have been written about this? How many pundits have pointed it out? Compare the ones who have realized the reality with the ones who continue to believe the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom, and you can see which outweighs the other.

Luckily enough, most voters don't pay any attention at all to the punditocracy. They see the ads in their districts, they listen to their candidates, and they make their own mind up about which campaign is worth supporting. They know what they're voting for. If they're voting to send Trump a big message, then they certainly don't require the candidates to remind them of this fact. If they're voting on the issues, then they'll vote on the issues presented in the actual campaign, not what some talking head proclaims on a Sunday morning political show. That's the real story of this midterm, and it is happening far outside of the Beltway.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

157 Comments on “The Punditocracy Is Missing Democrats' Real Campaign Focus”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Not really all that much of a difference. It's still the same politics of fear whether it is fear of Trump or fear of losing healthcare or fear of Democrats impeaching Trump by Republicans.

    Whether or not people actually listen to pundits, see ads or listen to candidates, they do make up their own mind on whether a campaign is worth supporting.

    And 125 million (50% of eligible voters) will decide in 2018 not which of the two CMP campaigns are worth supporting but that neither is worth supporting.

    They know what they would be voting for if they voted so they choose to not vote.

    That is not only the real story in this election- it is a recurring story.

    It is one of the major problems why our political system is dysfunctional.

    Something from "outside the beltway" that is from inside the two party system isn't going to solve the problem and give citizens something to vote for instead of voting out of fear of the illusion of the "other side" which is in reality the other half.

    The solution is outside the two party system and only two choices bullshit.

    It is nearly laughable, if it weren't so sad, that you point out a "reality" that everyone is missing while you continue to ignore the reality that 50% of eligible voters will reject both CMPs and the reality that One Demand does provide a possible solution to that problem by providing citizens a way to not only vote against the candidates from both CMPs that they do not want but to also vote for what they do want (80% of citizens want the Big Money out of politics)- small contribution candidates.

    To paraphrase the old ad for Salems:
    You can take the pundit out of the beltway, but you can't take the beltway out of the pundit.

  2. [2] 
    neilm wrote:

    And 125 million (50% of eligible voters) will decide in 2018 not which of the two CMP campaigns are worth supporting but that neither is worth supporting.

    Not really. For many, they don't decide because they don't even know there is a decision to be made.

    It is a bit like you didn't decide would not attend the New York Ballet's Tuesday show of "Jewels". There was a decision to be made, but you were oblivious.

    (Note: if you do want to see "Jewel" here is the link: https://www.nycballet.com/ )

    You need to make the decision a factor in people's lives.

    Now, how do you get awareness of an issue for a large number of people in a liberal democracy based on Capitalism? I dunno ... money?

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Money is one way- if you have the kind of money that it takes to accomplish the goal.

    In theory, the media is supposed to inform citizens aboot new ideas. But as CW has demonstrated in this article, the media does not always do what it should be doing- whether that is on purpose or just incompetence depends on the journalist.

    But that does seem to be a case where there are only two choices.

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    In theory, the media is supposed to inform citizens aboot new ideas.

    No, the media is supposed to make money for its owners. Perhaps in the U.K. where the BBC is a semi-government organization, BBC News is a public service, but the only equivalent over here is NPR.

    Have you ever looked at the NPR Newshour viewing figures?

  5. [5] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Salazar victory in NY State's Senate primary is an interesting one.

  6. [6] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW: In other words, ignore the national narrative, because politics is local.

    It always is. :)

  7. [7] 
    Kick wrote:

    Very nice column CW... spot on too.

    It reminds me of a discussion we had awhile back, so in the interest of saving some time, I'll just quote myself:

    All politics is local; it always has been. So poo on today's political pundits who insist that "Democrats don't have a message that resonates." They don't need to have "one" just yet; they need to have hundreds across the country because politics is local. Find candidates that fit the districts for which they are running and are good "explainers" because women and young people care less and less about tribalism and labels and can be reasoned with (not to say that men can't be reasoned with).

    As far as "Texas Democrats," a Texas Democrat is as elusive as el chupacabra. They are said to exist, but no one has actually been able to pin a live one down. Every time one is rumored to be caged, it is revealed to be an impostor, usually a bald raccoon. Seriously, though, Texas Democrats are slow, and I believe it'll take them a few cycles to catch up, but they are beginning. Beto O'Rourke is one to watch. Oh, he'll most likely lose in November, but slow and steady wins the race and we are nothing if not patient. :)

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/03/13/nail-biter-in-pennsylvania/#comment-117477

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    2

    Very nice post, sir.

    You need to make the decision a factor in people's lives.

    Now, how do you get awareness of an issue for a large number of people in a liberal democracy based on Capitalism? I dunno ... money?

    Forgive me for pointing this out, but you sound like you know. ;)

  9. [9] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Neilm-
    "No, the media is supposed to make money for it's owners."

    Not the media that purports to be providing news, information, analysis and reality. That part of the media can also make money for it's owners but claims to be providing the aforementioned things as it's primary purpose.

    That is why we have freedom of the press. There is no reason for that protection to continue if they abrogate the responsibility that comes with the protection and as in the title of one of my favorite Zappa albums the media are saying "We're Only in it for the Money".

    How aboot it CW, are you only in it for the money?

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    excerpt from a good song from that album:

    "We are the other people
    we are the other people
    we are the other people
    you're the other people too
    found a way to get to you

    Do you think that I'm crazy-
    out of my mind?
    Do you think that I creep in the night
    and sleep in a phone booth?

    Lemme take a minute to tell you my plan
    Lemme take a minute and tell who I am
    If it doesn't show
    think you better know
    I'm another person"
    -Mother People
    Zappa

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    3

    In theory, the media is supposed to inform citizens aboot new ideas.

    Did I miss that in the Constitution? My copy says something about "freedom of speech" and the press and lists no duty or requirements whatsoever in that regard.

    But as CW has demonstrated in this article, the media does not always do what it should be doing- whether that is on purpose or just incompetence depends on the journalist.

    Since there are in fact no requirements of the "media" besides "freedom," perhaps the "incompetence" is simply the misunderstanding of anyone who believes that being a "journalist" bears some kind of duty when it undeniably and absolutely does not. :)

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    9

    That is why we have freedom of the press. There is no reason for that protection to continue if they abrogate the responsibility that comes with the protection and as in the title of one of my favorite Zappa albums the media are saying "We're Only in it for the Money".

    There is no "responsibility" to inform that comes with the protection, Don. Otherwise, there would be no entertainment, porn, Alex Jones, Breitbart, etc. :)

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting column, CW.. :D

    EXCEPT...

    In actual fact, Democratic candidates have been running their campaign on what the voters truly care about. And at the top of that list is healthcare. For the first time, Obamacare has become a potent political issue for Democrats. Donald Trump did what Barack Obama couldn't -- he made Obamacare popular. The Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a return to the bad old days when pre-existing conditions meant refusal of health insurance has not been forgotten by the public at large. They now understand what "repeal and replace" actually means, and they are against it. This is why Democrats have so heavily leaned on the issue in their campaigns.

    Your "fact" comes from WaPoop... While I can't confirm it's total crap, per usual (it's behind a pay wall) given WaPoop's history, it's a safe bet.

    But you do bring up an interesting contradiction..

    ALL of the media says that the punditcracy is screaming about impeachment and TRUMP!! RUSSIA!!! TRUMP!!! RUSSIA!!!

    Are you telling us that the media is spewing out FAKE NEWS!!??? :D

    What you are trying to say is even more unbelievable.

    If I read your commentary right (and it's possible I am not) Democrats are not bashing President Trump.. :D Oh, of course, you add the exception "in their ads", but honestly..

    Who sees ADS anymore?? Shit, with a couple of exceptions, we haven't seen TV commercials in almost 15 years.. And people like us are the norm now..

    So, on the one hand, we are bombarded with quotes from Demcorats blaming Trump for such "heinous" crimes as being a crass boor and having an overdue library book and calling President Trump every foul name they can muster and screaming "Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!!" (that's an ACTUAL quote, by the bi)..

    Oh and then there is a piddly ad that a handful of people will see..

    I know, I know.. It's your job to give the best possible spin on what Democrats do...

    But if you ask the average American what Democrats are running on, they will tell you "Hate Trump, Impeach Trump, Pound Trump"..

    So, while I am sure you honestly BELIEVE that Democrats are running on healthcare and you may have a pay-walled fact or two from a dubious source that shows this, the REALITY is much much different..

    Now, having said all that, I will allow that I could be wrong.. There might be HUGE amounts of facts that *prove* Democrats are running on healthcare...

    BUT.....

    The vast majority of Americans PERCEIVE that Democrats are running on a Hate Trump/Impeach Trump/Pound Trump platform..

    And, as I am sure you will agree (at least you WOULD have before the onset of HHPTDS) in politics, perception *IS* reality...

    Put another way...

    If Mad Maxine puts out a namby pamby sweet lullabye ad, telling people how warm and fuzzy and sweet she is...

    And then people SEE her going off crazy and screaming and yelling and bellowing "Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!! Impeachment!!" (as I said, that is a direct quote).....

    Which do you think is going to have more of an impact on voters??

    To sum up..

    Democrats aren't running on a healthcare platform and I have hundreds of thousands of direct quotes to prove that..

    Even if Democrats are running ads that "prove" their healthcare platform, nobody sees ads these days... TV ads are so 2000....

    And even if ads are seen, they can't compete with the media reporting of what Democrats are actually saying...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    FBI mum about sudden closing of solar observatory. Conspiracy theories fill the silence
    https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article218345090.html

    Any guesses as to what's going on???

    I am hoping it's FIRST CONTACT

    :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's always been reported that First Contact would be in New Mexico

    "You know what I mean. Detroit. He always said he'd jump your bones in Detroit. Here we are."
    -Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL, Swan Song

    :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, on still another note..

    Can you believe the DESPERATION of the Dumbocrats over Kavanaugh!??

    My gods, a 35yr old accusation from an ANONYMOUS source.. :^/

    THAT is what passes for credibility for Democrats..

    Gods, the desperation is palatable..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dallas local TV ratings should make the rest of the NFL nervous
    https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2018/09/13/dallas-low-tv-ratings-local-tv-ratings-nfl-tv-ratings/

    America hating is soo bad for business...

    Unless your business is the Democrat Party... :^/

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOODWARD WARNS SOURCES: I CAN RELEASE TAPES!
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-woodward-fear-trump-in-the-white-house-interview-tapes/

    Hay Woodward.. I'll tell you the same thing I told President Trump..

    If you have tapes, then release them.. And quit whining about them...

    Asked whether he would release any of the interview tapes, Woodward told "CBS This Morning" on Thursday: "Well, if somebody really wants to challenge me, of course. Of course. But I — again, I've made agreements with people that these sources are going to remain confidential."

    Which tells the world what an agreement with Bob Woodward is worth..

    "Oh yea, I'll keep this conversation confidential.. Unless I can MAKE more money, then it's a big 'FRAK YOU, WE'RE GOING PUBLIC DOOD!!!'..."

    THAT's Woodward/Dumbocrat integrity at it's finest...

    :^/

    A sad old man trying to recapture past glory.

    That's all Woodward is...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    The threat to democracy — from the left
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-new-threat-to-democracy--from-the-left/2018/09/13/7e3fbb72-b790-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.f4bbef57fbd2

    Apparently, a broken analog watch IS factually accurate twice a day..

    Or, it's just a case of WaPoop saying what I want to hear.. :D

    Don'tcha ya'all just HATE it when I steal ya'all's thunder.. :D

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously though.. Ya'all should read that article. It makes some great points about how the Left suppresses Freedom Of Speech out of fear...

    MANY Democrats used to epitomize the belief in freedom of expression and allowing the airing of different opinions to foster discussion and debate..

    Then came HHPTDS and now practically EVERY Democrat tries to shut down the airing of different opinions, oft times violently....

    It truly is a sad state of affairs...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Barack Obama's return just reminds us how he fueled the distrust that led to Donald Trump

    Former president Barack Obama is back. He kicked off a series of campaign appearances last week with a blistering attack on the Trump administration and said the Republican Party had “embraced a rising absolutism.” President Donald Trump deserves plenty of harsh criticism, but Obama’s indictment is akin to the kid who killed his parents and then sought mercy from the judge because he was an orphan.

    Obama declared that“the biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism.” He also called for “a restoration of honesty and decency and lawfulness in our government.” But his eight years as president fueled the distrust of Washington that Obama now condemns. 2/12
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/13/barack-obama-fueled-government-distrust-elected-donald-trump-column/1260175002/

    Yep, yep, yep....

    There can be NO DOUBT that Obama and the Democrats are 100% responsible for President Trump..

    It was Obama and Democrats who marginalized and demonized and attacked anyone who did not toe their Party line..

    And those "deplorables" were sick and tired of it and struck back...

    President Trump is our of way of telling Dumbocrats, "Yea?? Take your elitism and shove it up yer asses!!"

    President Trump is far from perfect.. But he is also FAR from incompetent and FAR from ineffective...

    He is the best President this country has had since Ronald Reagan when measured by the ONLY yardstick that matters..

    SUCCESS in actions that benefit this country........

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kick-
    A "responsibility" does not have to be constitutionally mandated.

    The "why" we have rights is not always spelled out in the Constitution.

    I seriously doubt the main reason most of our founding fathers thought there should be freedom of the press was so people could make money off of it.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all speak of President Trump's and his 'The Press Is The Enemy Of The People' claims...

    When Obama took office the US Press was rated as the 20th most free press in the world as stated by Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index...

    At the end of Obama's reign, that rating had fallen to 41st.. South Africa had a more free press than the US after Obama!!

    And secrecy laws were expanded further and more reporters and whistle blowers were prosecuted under Obama than under ANY previous administration...

    So, if Democrats want to complain about President Trump's attacks on the press, they MUST acknowledge that Obama was Trump-On-Steroids when it comes to attacks on the press...

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    So Obama said the biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism? That people not voting is a real problem and keeps change from happening?

    Could he be talking aboot the same 125 million people that I am?

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Obama said the biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism? That people not voting is a real problem and keeps change from happening?

    Could he be talking aboot the same 125 million people that I am?

    I doubt it.. If that were accurate, it would mean Odumbo actually CARES about this country and it's citizens..

    And THAT is simply not possible..

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    So Obama said the biggest threat to our democracy is cynicism? That people not voting is a real problem and keeps change from happening?

    Could he be talking aboot the same 125 million people that I am?

    I doubt it.. If that were accurate, it would mean Odumbo actually CARES about this country and it's citizens..

    And THAT is simply not possible..

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    This article has spawned some pretty good discussion (with the usual 50% Troll Filler).

    Just a few comments:

    2 - "Now, how do you get awareness of an issue for a large number of people in a liberal democracy based on Capitalism? I dunno ... money?"

    Yes, but there is efficient use of money and less efficient use of money and if you are really clever you spread Your Message with Other Peoples's Money...which is the classic model of that charming dinosaur known as newspapers. Newspapers largely developed to spread A Publishers Viewpoint using others peoples money (Advertisers) who in turn were spreading their own ideas. Radio and TV largely largely evolved largely the same way. The Newspaper, Magazine, Radio and TV model has been largely obsoleted by new Internet Media. Electrons are much cheaper than ink and a good meme is as good as a lot money in the modern market - YouTube seems to exist largely on this basis. The odds have shifted...which is causing a certain degree of panic in some well entrenched circles.

    4 referencing 3 -

    "In theory, the media is supposed to inform citizens aboot new ideas."

    That's a pretty dubious theory. Media distributes ideas of all ages. The Bible is old, yet it's still a best seller. There is no "supposed" - supposed assumes an over riding purpose guided an by an intelligence. Media evolved by something more akin to survival of the fittest. Lots species out there, some prosper, some go extinct. Handicapping winners and losers is difficult.

    4- "media is supposed to make money for its owners." Sometimes, but not always. Media can and is devised to spread information. It may be for profit, but non-profit news can persist if it just breaks even, or can rely on outside patrons with ideas (including values) to promote. That's the NPR and PBS model. Public Media is relatively small, but it targets an influential market...including the Koch Bros.

    Well, that got long...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    This article has spawned some pretty good discussion (with the usual 50% Troll Filler).

    Well, if you hadn't posted, then it would only be 40% Troll Filler. :D

  29. [29] 
    John M wrote:

    [15] Michale

    "It's always been reported that First Contact would be in New Mexico"

    That's just silly. Despite whatever Jodie Foster and Carl Sagan say about the Very Large Radio Telescope Array in New Mexico...

    EVERYONE knows that First Contact actually takes place near Bozeman, MONTANA on April 5, 2063. :-D

  30. [30] 
    John M wrote:

    [16] Michale

    "And, on still another note..

    Can you believe the DESPERATION of the Dumbocrats over Kavanaugh!??

    My gods, a 35yr old accusation from an ANONYMOUS source.."

    The TIMES they are a "Changin." If it can bring down a man as powerful as Les Moonves at CBS, who has much MORE personal power and clout than Kavanaugh, it can bring down Kavanaugh too. It will make it that much MORE harder for Republican women Senators like Murkowski and Collins to vote for him with any kind of dignity.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    EVERYONE knows that First Contact actually takes place near Bozeman, MONTANA on April 5, 2063. :-D

    I stand corrected and bow to your superior wisdom.. :D

    Did ya read what's happening in NM, though??

    The place was originally built in the aftermath of the Roswell incident and is just a stone's throw away...

    Pretty strange what's going on out there..

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The TIMES they are a "Changin." If it can bring down a man as powerful as Les Moonves at CBS, who has much MORE personal power and clout than Kavanaugh, it can bring down Kavanaugh too.

    Here's the thing, though.. Moonves had tons of accusations over a long period of time.

    Kavanaugh's accuser is BEGGING to be anonymous and claimed there was a sexual issue while they were in high school together..

    Except Kavanaugh was in an ALL MALE Jesuit High School..

    This reeks of nothing but opportunism and desperation.. Especially when you consider DiFi has had this letter for quite a while..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It will make it that much MORE harder for Republican women Senators like Murkowski and Collins to vote for him with any kind of dignity.

    I doubt Collins and Murkowski are giving this desperate ploy a second's thought...

  34. [34] 
    John M wrote:

    [32] Michale

    "Kavanaugh's accuser is BEGGING to be anonymous and claimed there was a sexual issue while they were in high school together..

    Except Kavanaugh was in an ALL MALE Jesuit High School.."

    So? Who said the accuser has to be female??? What about some male on male sexual hazing?

    [33] Michale wrote:

    "I doubt Collins and Murkowski are giving this desperate ploy a second's thought..."

    THEY might not, at their own peril. But I am sure their voters will, especially in Maine. Collins in fact is ALREADY lashing out over the backlash SHE'S getting.

  35. [35] 
    John M wrote:

    [31] Michale

    "Did ya read what's happening in NM, though??

    The place was originally built in the aftermath of the Roswell incident and is just a stone's throw away...

    Pretty strange what's going on out there.."

    More than likely, if it has to do with anything, it might be connected to the Air Force's super secret X-37 space plane which is still in orbit, rather than aliens.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    So? Who said the accuser has to be female???

    Democrats.. :D

    THEY might not, at their own peril.

    They are in NO peril beyond their normal peril of being attacked by Democrats..

    Collins in fact is ALREADY lashing out over the backlash SHE'S getting.

    She's getting backlash from DEMOCRATS....

    How is this not a normal chain of events on EVERY issue???

    More than likely, if it has to do with anything, it might be connected to the Air Force's super secret X-37 space plane which is still in orbit, rather than aliens.

    Killjoy.. :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Collins in fact is ALREADY lashing out over the backlash SHE'S getting.

    It's like if FL Bill Nelson got "backlash" from Republicans over his refusal to back Kavanaugh..

    It's like... Yea??? SO?????

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are not going to stop Kavanaugh's ascent to the SCOTUS...

    And, frankly, they would be royally stoopid to do so...

  39. [39] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    First contact in 2063? it was 10000 years ago when Ra arrived in ancient Egypt.

    Didn't you read Dr.Jackson's book on the pyramids as landing sites for ancient aliens?

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't you read Dr.Jackson's book on the pyramids as landing sites for ancient aliens?

    "So I take it that, in your timeline, you're not some crackpot scientist living on the fringes of society??"
    "Well... That depends on who you ask..."

    -STARGATE SG1-Continuum

    :D

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don Harris
    22

    A "responsibility" does not have to be constitutionally mandated.

    Here, let me refresh your memory regarding what Don Harris said:

    That is why we have freedom of the press. There is no reason for that protection to continue if they abrogate the responsibility that comes with the protection... ~ Don Harris

    emphasis added

    When you've made up your mind what your position is, then we'll talk, but I can assure you there is no responsibility of the press and/or journalists to inform citizens about new ideas as effectively a quid pro quo for protection under the First Amendment to the Constitution. :)

    The "why" we have rights is not always spelled out in the Constitution.

    I will go you one better, Don, it generally isn't spelled out at all in the Constitution, and it's also not relevant to your statement that the "media is supposed to inform citizens aboot [sic] new ideas."

    I seriously doubt the main reason most of our founding fathers thought there should be freedom of the press was so people could make money off of it.

    This too is also not relevant to your statements regarding the "responsibility" of journalists and freedom of the press. :)

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    EDIT
    41

    The "why" we have rights is not always spelled out in the Constitution.

    I will go you one better, Don, it generally isn't spelled out at all in the Constitution, with the very obvious exception:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    and it's also not relevant to your statement that the "media is supposed to inform citizens aboot [sic] new ideas."

  43. [43] 
    neilm wrote:

    Manafort took a plea.

    I wonder if he is still such a great man to the traitor?

    I await the tweet storm with interest.

  44. [44] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    27

    Well, that got long...

    Perfect length and very well said, sir. :)

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Manafort took a plea.

    AND???

    And President Trump is STILL President...

    I know, I know... "Patience"...

    You'll be saying "patience" for the next 6 years.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Manafort took a plea.

    No agreement to cooperate with Mueller...

    Manafort simply forfeits 4 of his 40 homes.. :D

    Mueller saw the writing on the wall when the majority of the charges resulted in a hung jury, thereby making Manafort COMPLETELY innocent of those majority of charges..

    Mueller was looking for a way out and Manafort let Mueller off the hook.. :D

    Like I said. It's Manafort who is in the driver's seat here..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    And THAT just kills ya'all.. :D

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    43

    Manafort took a plea.

    $46,000,000

    I wonder if he is still such a great man to the traitor?

    While Manafort is pleading guilty to only two (2) counts on paper, those two counts require that he admits his guilt to all the counts in the DC indictment as well as counts in Virginia.

    Is there cooperation? If Mueller lets Manafort plead without cooperation, then Mueller simply might not need Manafort's testimony. Mueller can always compel his testimony in the future if needed. If he lies under oath, then he's got another charge of perjury regardless of any previous pardon.

    If the Mueller investigation is a "witch hunt," then the White House is Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.

  49. [49] 
    neilm wrote:

    The traitor will probably flip about Manafort, but if Manafort isn't agreeing to cooperate, the removal of a very public trial with the idiot making things worse by tweeting from the John is probably a relief to any remaining adults in the White House.

    For those adults, they can be relieved that there will be no White House Shite House Shit Storm Tweeting Diarrhea.

  50. [50] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "Harris"-

    Suppose Coke decides to flood CW.com with comments extolling the virtue of their fizzy product. Is CW also obliged to let them write some guest columns about how wonderful Coke is? In words, Coke has the absolute privilege to craft their own advertising AND get it distribute free of charge? How about Chevy? How about Trump Enterprises?

    You have your own masthead...work it...or maybe I should put it more bluntly. Work on putting something of substance into it. Your current website is a stub which cannot even be found with GOOGLE. It's actually fairly hard to be that anonymous. Maybe your calling is to help the USAF develop stealth aircraft.

  51. [51] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    46

    No agreement to cooperate with Mueller...

    I hear Manafort is cooperating.

    Mueller saw the writing on the wall when the majority of the charges resulted in a hung jury, thereby making Manafort COMPLETELY innocent of those majority of charges..

    Pleading guilty to charges means never having to ever claim you're "COMPLETELY innocent."

    Let the Trumpertantrum begin. :)

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hear Manafort is cooperating.

    Facts to support??

    Pleading guilty to charges means never having to ever claim you're "COMPLETELY innocent."

    Manafort is pleading guilty to TWO charges in the Virginia, out of the slew of charges against him.

    If Mueller had a strong hand, he never would have let Manafort get off so easy..

  53. [53] 
    Kick wrote:

    neilm
    49

    The traitor will probably flip about Manafort, but if Manafort isn't agreeing to cooperate, the removal of a very public trial with the idiot making things worse by tweeting from the John is probably a relief to any remaining adults in the White House.

    I hear he is flipping, Neil. That is a BFD!

    For those adults, they can be relieved that there will be no White House Shite House Shit Storm Tweeting Diarrhea.

    Depends! :)

  54. [54] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is succinct: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/14/1795756/-Paul-Manafort-IS-COOPERATING-with-special-counsels-office-has-already-begun-sharing-information#view-story

    In a surpsising development on Friday morning, the plea deal from Paul Manafort turns out to be not just an admission of guilt, but includes an agreement to cooperate with the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. Speaking in court, prosecutors have indicated that Manafort’s plea includes a 17-page agreement to cooperate with the investigation. According to statements, Manafort has already begun to provide information to the investigation.

    Manafort is also admitting guilt on the additional ten counts from his trial in Virginia which originally ended with a hung jury.

    Well well well. The kicker - that Manafort is admitting guilt on the counts he wasn't nailed for in his first trial - is delightful frosting on this sweet, rich, satisfying cake.

  55. [55] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mueller was looking for a way out and Manafort let Mueller off the hook.. :D

    *snicker*

    Whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day...

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whatever you need to tell yourself to get through the day...

    Which, unlike ya'all, has it's basis in FACT, not wishful thinking. :D

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    52

    Facts to support??

    I will supply my "facts to support" when you provide yours for this statement:

    .
    No agreement to cooperate with Mueller... ~ Michale
    .

    Manafort is pleading guilty to TWO charges in the Virginia, out of the slew of charges against him.

    Read my post again so I don't have to 'splain it.

    If Mueller had a strong hand, he never would have let Manafort get off so easy..

    Forty-six million dollars and admitting you're guilty to the remaining Virginia charges means you're guilty of all 18 counts and isn't getting off easy at all. :)

  58. [58] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    My gods, a 35yr old accusation..

    I dunno. Ask Roy Moore or Kevin Spacey what the Statute of Limitations is for career-ending pedophilia.

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    58

    I dunno. Ask Roy Moore or Kevin Spacey what the Statute of Limitations is for career-ending pedophilia.

    Hey! That's "Senator Roy Moore" to you, buddy! ;p *laughs*

  60. [60] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick 48

    Manafort is clearly hoping for a pardon, but he would probably be unwise to take the risk, as it can be viewed as conspiracy to obstruct justice. It's not clear how long Trump will remain in office, and there are state laws that Trump should worry about* while he remains in office.

    It's a classic Prisoners Dilemma. If the prosecution has done their job correctly, both Trump and Manafort are incentivized to rat each other out.

    *Of course, Trump is Mad. What Me Worry?

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    I dunno. Ask Roy Moore or Kevin Spacey what the Statute of Limitations is for career-ending pedophilia.

    And if we were talking about pedophilia, you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't...

    Like I said above regarding FACTS and "wishful thinking"..

    The FACTS are that this is a 35 yr old accusation that the alleged victim doesn't want to pursue..

    Of course, Democrats ignore the wishes of the alleged victim because their Party agenda is more important than common decency...

    Over 35 women who actually KNEW Kavanaugh in high school attested to Kavanaugh's integrity and good character while in high school..

    Against ALL these facts, we have a completely and utterly BASELESS accusation that the alleged victim doesn't want to pursue...

    Once again...

    FACTS (me)

    vs

    WISHFUL THINKING (you)

    :D

  62. [62] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Balthasar- 58 "Ask Roy Moore or Kevin Spacey what the Statute of Limitations is for career-ending pedophilia."

    As career ending news goes, "It's always sunny in Pedophilia"

  63. [63] 
    Paula wrote:

    If true, not good: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/a-sexual-misconduct-allegation-against-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-stirs-tension-among-democrats-in-congress

    The woman, who has asked not to be identified, first approached Democratic lawmakers in July, shortly after Trump nominated Kavanaugh. The allegation dates back to the early nineteen-eighties, when Kavanaugh was a high-school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school. In the letter, the woman alleged that, during an encounter at a party, Kavanaugh held her down, and that he attempted to force himself on her. She claimed in the letter that Kavanaugh and a classmate of his, both of whom had been drinking, turned up music that was playing in the room to conceal the sound of her protests, and that Kavanaugh covered her mouth with his hand. She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her, and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.

    He denies it.

    He's lying or she's lying. I think the public deserves a full investigation. He's lied about other things so "taking him at his word" is impossible.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    I will supply my "facts to support" when you provide yours for this statement:

    Mr. Manafort had resisted any notion of cooperating with Mr. Mueller, and his lawyer said at the outset of the Virginia trial that there was no chance of such cooperation. Mr. Manafort, 69 years old, has been in jail since June, after he was accused of trying to influence the testimony of a potential witness against him.

    Now, your facts to support that Manafort is cooperating with Mueller in his Trump witch hunt??

    Read my post again so I don't have to 'splain it.

    Still has fact-less as it was the first time I read it. :D

    So, do you any facts that prove Manafort's deal is ANYTHING other than pleading guilty to just the 2 Virginia charges??

    No?? OK then..

    Forty-six million dollars and admitting you're guilty to the remaining Virginia charges means you're guilty of all 18 counts and isn't getting off easy at all. :)

    46 Million to a guy like Manafort is nothing..

    "46 million?? Sheet, I think I got that on me.."

    Manafort is only pleading guilty to TWO Virginia charges..

    That's it..

    Once again.. FACTS (me) vs WISHFUL THINKING (ya'all) :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's lying or she's lying. I think the public deserves a full investigation.

    Hello!!! McFly!!!

    The alleged victim DOESN'T WANT a full investigation..

    And the likely reason is because it never happened.. She doesn't want to perjure herself...

    We have affidavits from over 35 women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school and who say that this alleged victim's claims are bullshit..

    This is NOTHING but a grossly and perversely obvious maneuver on the part of the Dumbocrats..

    And it will fail...

  66. [66] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The FACTS are that this is a 35 yr old accusation that the alleged victim doesn't want to pursue..

    ..but brought to the attention of lawmakers. So she wants to pursue it a little bit, wouldn't you say?

  67. [67] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    60

    Manafort is clearly hoping for a pardon, but he would probably be unwise to take the risk, as it can be viewed as conspiracy to obstruct justice.

    He's not hoping for a pardon anymore, TS; he just agreed to cooperate with Mueller's investigation in exchange for leniency.

    In his case in DC, the multiple counts were rewritten as two (2) counts, but Manafort was required to admit he was guilty of all the charges. He was additionally required to admit he was guilty of the 10 charges that resulted in a mistrial in Virginia in exchange for dropping the charges pending his cooperation. Sentencing will therefore be pushed on everything pending Manafort's cooperation. :)

  68. [68] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    We have affidavits from over 35 women who knew Judge Kavanaugh in high school and who say that this alleged victim's claims are bullshit..

    They weren't in the room. But there was, allegedly, another guy who was...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    ..but brought to the attention of lawmakers. So she wants to pursue it a little bit, wouldn't you say?

    No.. She told a counselor at school in confidence, who told a minor state representative who told DiFi...

    No indication she wanted to pursue it and EVERY indication she DOESN'T want to pursue it..

    Or, are you of the opinion that when a woman says NO she really means YES??

    :^/

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    They weren't in the room. But there was, allegedly, another guy who was...

    Where's the witness??

    Oh.. She doesn't want to pursue it.

    Obviously it's not a big deal with her..

    Democrats are MAKING it a big deal for political reasons..

    It's DEMOCRATS who are mentally and socially raping this alleged victim just to further their own agenda...

    Sad

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    He's not hoping for a pardon anymore, TS; he just agreed to cooperate with Mueller's investigation in exchange for leniency.

    Of course, there are no facts that prove this is factually accurate...

  72. [72] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No.. She told a counselor at school in confidence, who told a minor state representative who told DiFi...

    Then where'd the letter come from?

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, are you of the opinion that when a woman says NO she really means YES??

    I would really be interested in your answer, Balthy..

    Do you believe that, when a woman says NO, she really means YES??

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Then where'd the letter come from?

    The state representative (or whoever) wrote it to DiFi...

    So, basically, ya'all are operating under 4th or 5th level hearsay..

    But hay.. NOTHING is too obscure or desperate or ridiculous to push a Party Agenda, eh?? :^/

  75. [75] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of course, there are no facts that prove this is factually accurate...

    Do you need Fox News to confirm it for ya?

    Here ya go...

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/14/paul-manafort-to-plead-guilty-as-part-plea-deal-with-special-counsel.html

    GOP sheeple. geeez.

  76. [76] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The state representative (or whoever) wrote it to DiFi...

    Yeah, I can see you're not sure on that point.

    Tell ya what, let's just table this nomination and get back to it next January, shall we?

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you need Fox News to confirm it for ya?

    No, I just needed SOMEONE to confirm it..

    At the time the claims were made, it was NOT a factual statement..

    Now it is..

    Thank you..

    Was that so hard to provide FACTS instead of "Well I heard" blaa blaaa blaa blaa

  78. [78] 
    neilm wrote:

    So, Mueller had Manafort in a jail cell for at least 10 years already, and now has got him to plead out on all the "hung jury" decisions from the first trial and at least some of the charges from the second trial.

    Basically Manafort has to give Mueller something in return for the plea deal - it is most likely to do with Russian interference in the election, but, in my opinion, isn't likely to be problematic to the White House as I don't think that the Russians included them in any activities (because the key players are obviously so stupid). This could be bad news for Roger Stone in particular, and it could also put paid to the nonsense from the White House that Putin wasn't be involved because he said he wasn't in Helsinki.

    Either way, I think this is a big win for Republicans, as long as there really was "NO COLLUSION!!!" as it gets a public trial off the front pages in the run up to the election.

    The idiot in the White House will probably take a few days to figure this out on his own.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nice deflection from Kavanaugh, though.. :D

    So, when a woman says NO!! does she really mean YES!!!...

    Should this woman be FORCED to pursue this alleged incident even though EVERYONE explicitly agrees that she does NOT want to??

    Wow?? What a supporter of women ya'all are... :^/

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Basically Manafort has to give Mueller something in return for the plea deal - it is most likely to do with Russian interference in the election,

    Once again, NO FACTS to prove this.. Just nothing but wishful thinking..

  81. [81] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    64

    Mr. Manafort had resisted any notion of cooperating with Mr. Mueller, and his lawyer said at the outset of the Virginia trial that there was no chance of such cooperation. Mr. Manafort, 69 years old, has been in jail since June, after he was accused of trying to influence the testimony of a potential witness against him.

    Yes... Old news. Note the word "had" in sentence one (1) and the fact: That was then; this is now.

    No link? That was from the Wall Street Journal, I believe.

    Now, your facts to support that Manafort is cooperating with Mueller in his Trump witch hunt??

    I can't post it until it goes public on the Internet.

    Still has fact-less as it was the first time I read it. :D

    So, do you any facts that prove Manafort's deal is ANYTHING other than pleading guilty to just the 2 Virginia charges??

    None that I can post yet. :)

    46 Million to a guy like Manafort is nothing..

    Sure. That's why he was borrowing multiple millions of dollars with the promise of a job in the administration... McFly!

    Manafort is only pleading guilty to TWO Virginia charges..

    Yes, but those charges were rewritten to include the other charges which were dropped, and Manafort was required to verbally admit his guilt of all charges. It's not complicated. Manafort was required to admit his guilt in both DC and Virginia to all charges.

    It's total cooperation... everything he knows. He's remaining in prison for now. He may be allowed to bond out at a later date. :)

    Once again.. FACTS (me) vs WISHFUL THINKING (ya'all) :D

    WYHTTYTMITYD :)

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I can see you're not sure on that point.

    Actually I am quite sure on the generalities... The unimportant specifics that are irrelevant??

    Yea, don't really care..

    Tell ya what, let's just table this nomination and get back to it next January, shall we?

    And THERE is the entire agenda.... :D

    ANYTHING to derail the Kavanaugh nomination, no matter how utterly desperate and despicable it is.. Let Democrats turn into rapists and thugs, forcing a woman to do things she doesn't want to do, all in the name of Party slavery..

    Look at what Democrats have become.. You CAN'T think that's a good thing...

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here's my prediction.. This Kavanaugh ploy will fail and, in 2-3 days, no one will be talking about this alleged victim and her BS story that she herself doesn't want to pursue..

    Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the committee on 20 Sep and will sail thru the Senate confirmation shortly there after...

    Now, make your prediction and then we can compare.. :D

  84. [84] 
    Paula wrote:

    GOP now mounting the "but here's a bunch of woman Kavanaugh didn't try to rape!" defense.

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    71

    Of course, there are no facts that prove this is factually accurate...

    Untrue statement.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP now mounting the "but here's a bunch of woman Kavanaugh didn't try to rape!" defense.

    Actually, it's a "Judge Kavanaugh is and was a man of the highest impeccable honor and integrity. Both now AND when he was in high school." defense..

    But why let FACTS intrude on yer hysterical BS...

    Now what FACTS do you have to support YOUR claim??

    Oh, an alleged victim who DOESN'T want to pursue it and who Democrats are willing to "rape" (for lack of a better term) in order to push their Party agenda...

    Sad...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Untrue statement.

    At the time, it was a factually accurate statement..

  88. [88] 
    Paula wrote:

    GOP also floating the: "charges from 30 years ago are just silly but here's a bunch of women he supposedly knew 30 years ago saying he was a nice guy 30 years ago which ISN'T silly. OUR 30 years ago is valid; the ACCUSER's 30 years ago is not."

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    all in the name of Party slavery..

    All in the name of keeping a horrible lifetime appointment off the court. Call me complicit.

    - justified torture

    - advised setting US policy against native Hawaiian and Inuit populations

    - doesn't believe a US president should be annoyed by adherence to US law

    - hostile to women having reproductive choice

    - lied repeatedly to congress

    if that makes me a slave, this is my spirtual.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me ask you a question, Balthy..

    In the interests of preventing a rapist from being appointed to the SCOTUS, do you think that this alleged victim should be FORCED to testify???

    It's a simple question..

    What say you??

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Paul Manafort strikes deal with Mueller team, pleads guilty to two felony charges
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/14/paul-manafort-plea-deal-muellers-team/1288931002/

    Pleads guilty to TWO... and ONLY TWO charges..

    NOTHING about the previous charges, NOTHING bout ANYTHING except those TWO charges...

    Nothing about those charges being "rewritten" to make Manafort responsible for the crucifixion of christ and the black plague..

    TWO charges..

    TWO CHARGES ONLY....

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Okay, y'all.

    Want to see some very interesting information/exhibits from the Manafort DC case? Have at it! :)

    https://www.scribd.com/document/388597889/Manafort-DC-Superseding-Criminal-Information

  93. [93] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [84]: You made me snort coffee out my nose!

  94. [94] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    87

    At the time, it was a factually accurate statement..

    Wrong. Facts exist that you know nothing about, but that does not mean they don't exist. :)

  95. [95] 
    Paula wrote:

    [93] Balthaser: :-)

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    GOP also floating the: "charges from 30 years ago are just silly but here's a bunch of women he supposedly knew 30 years ago saying he was a nice guy 30 years ago which ISN'T silly. OUR 30 years ago is valid; the ACCUSER's 30 years ago is not."

    What accuser??

    Where is this accuser??

    All you have is 4th level hearsay.. She said that she said that she said that she said that something happened 35 years ago..

    You HAVE no "accuser"....

  97. [97] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    In the interests of preventing a rapist from being appointed to the SCOTUS, do you think that this alleged victim should be FORCED to testify?

    No, but if the information that she has isn't self-incriminating, she can be legally compelled to testify.

    The FBI is required by law to investigate this (being their responsibility to vette nominees to the court). Let's see what they come up with.

    We should give them 6 months to thoroughly investigate. If it then turns out to be bogus, we could proceed as usual.

  98. [98] 
    Paula wrote:

    [92] Kick: Yes, and by putting this out we get to learn details about all those crimes he's guilty of. I was worried, given the stories of the last few days, that Manafort was getting some kind of deal that would keep details from the public. That didn't happen.

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    All in the name of keeping a horrible lifetime appointment off the court.

    OK... SO you would advocate forcing this victim to do something she doesn't want to do. Very similar to rape..

    OK.. So, basically you are saying..

    "That the individual's rights will be protected ONLY SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT CONFLICT WITH THE STATE"
    -QUINN, STAR TREK VOYAGER

    Or, in this case, the "DEEP STATE"...

    Congrats.. You are officially part of the dark side.. Sacrificing the rights of the individual, the right to NOT be compelled to testify, on the altar of a Party agenda..

    I have to say, Balthy.. I am disappointed.. :^/

    It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.. Kavanaugh will be confirmed and this perverse and desperate ploy will be tossed on the trash heap of history, returned to the sewer from whence it sprung....

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, but if the information that she has isn't self-incriminating, she can be legally compelled to testify.

    You say NO she shouldn't be forced to testify but then you say it's perfectly acceptable to force her to testify..

    I think you are playing both sides because you know how heinous what you are proposing is..

    That tells me there is hope for you..

    I am a little less disappointed now. :D

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    We should give them 6 months to thoroughly investigate.

    Dream on, sunshine.. :D

    You just HAVE to know that *THAT* is never going to happen..

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    98

    Yes, ma'am, and if you read those documents, you'll understand why I said Paulie's fingerprints were all over the events in the Ukraine that were in that documentary Active Measures that we were discussing. :)

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/14/kavanaugh-confirmation-craziness-just-when-think-left-cant-sink-any-lower-this-happens.html

    IS that what you were talking about vis a vis Collins???

    Democrats and their bribery and extortion scheme??

    So, let me get this straight.. These people are donating to a candidate that they don't even know who it is???

    And you think THAT is a good thing???

    Once again, I have to ask.. How low can Dumbocrats POSSIBLY sink???

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    [102] Kick: Yep!

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    The left-wing rage is also being unleashed on the senator’s personal office. She’s received vulgar harassment calls, as well as a rape threat against one of her staffers, which has been reported to law enforcement.

    THIS is what you are supporting, Balthy???

    Disappointment is creeping up again.. :^/

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar,

    My apologies.. It wasn't you who was touting Collins' "lashing out", it was JM..

    My sincerest and most humblest apologies..

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Please ignore 103, 105 and 106.. I got my wires crossed..

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    So, Collins is "lashing out" against harassment and rape threats to her office..

    And you think THAT means she is going to vote NO on Kavanaugh??

    On what PLANET???

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speed politics at it's finest.. :D

  110. [110] 
    Kick wrote:

    Trump confided to multiple people that Manafort could incriminate him.

    Can't reveal my sources, but that's a fact. :)

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    President Trump has a plan to bring a true and lasting peace to the Middle East...

    Also, the observatory closure IS a prelude to First Contact..

    I can't reveal my sources, but that's a fact...

  112. [112] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The left-wing rage is also being unleashed on the senator’s personal office. She’s received vulgar harassment calls..

    On the same day Arizona held memorial services for the late Sen. John McCain, a Twitter user posted a doctored image that appeared to threaten to shoot Meghan McCain as she wept over her father's casket.

    "America," the tweet accompanying the photo read, "this ones for you."

    There are nuts on both sides. I assume that Collins is more used to this, and less concerned, than Fox's outrage machine would have us believe.

    In any case of this sort, the perpetrator should be found and prosecuted. Period.

  113. [113] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    President Trump has a plan to bring a true and lasting peace to the Middle East...

    Yup: let Russia run amok. That's been the plan so far, hasn't it?

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    There are nuts on both sides. I assume that Collins is more used to this, and less concerned, than Fox's outrage machine would have us believe.

    In any case of this sort, the perpetrator should be found and prosecuted. Period.

    Yes, there are nuts on both sides..

    A point I am constantly making..

    But when many Weigantians rage at Right Wing nuts, they conveniently forget that there *ARE* Left Wing nuts as well...

    Yup: let Russia run amok. That's been the plan so far, hasn't it?

    Has it??

    Trump has been tougher on Russia than Odumbo was..

    "Listen Mendvedev.. Please ask Vlad to give me some space on things.. Once I win my election, I'll be able to be more flexible for him then.."
    -Barack Odumbo

    I am also sure that Russia did not want to see the US Embassy in Jerusalem and did not want to see Israel and the US working so closely in Syria...

    Face reality, Blathy..

    The old dead TRUMP IS A PAWN OF PUTIN horse is REALLY beginning to smell...

    ON another note, put Avantii and Putin together in the same room..

    I bet you can't do it.. :D

  115. [115] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    "Listen Mendvedev.. Please ask Vlad to give me some space on things.. Once I win my election, I'll be able to be more flexible for him then.."

    "“They said, ‘I think it is Russia.’ I have President Putin. He just said it is not Russia. I will say this: I do not see any reason why it would be.”

  116. [116] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I'm sure of one thing, Manafort's history will be rewritten in the course of the next few days. Gone will be the 'good guy' in favour of the 'Rat' or 'flipper'...it's a window into the mind of people who recognise the capricious nature of Trump's nature...I said it before, Trump's unwillingness to admit his own faults is the damnation of his collaborators...they'll all come clean when they realize that the mere mention of their names in conjunction to the "Trump Brand", results in a cricket symphony when they need his help the most.

    LL&P

  117. [117] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I am also sure that Russia did not want to see the US Embassy in Jerusalem and did not want to see Israel and the US working so closely in Syria...

    Sure, why not? It only pisses off every Muslim in the region.

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure, why not? It only pisses off every Muslim in the region.

    OK, I am going to tell you a VERY big secret.. I ask that you not tell anyone because I could get in BIG TROUBLE revealing classified intel like this..

    Ready???

    US Foreign Policy is NOT based on what will or will not piss of Muslims..

    SHHHHHHHH Don't tell anyone I told..... Wait!! Listen!!! Do you smell something??

    SHIT!!!!! They're breaking down my door!!!!

    AAARRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH I'm toa..........

  119. [119] 
    Paula wrote:

    I've thought all along there was a decent chance Blotus would resign, probably in response to an offer to keep certain things sealed in exchange for his resignation.

    I think the odds of that happening have gone up now that Manafort is on board.

  120. [120] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    Usurping Jerusalem for its capitol is a mistake for Israel in the long run. Jerusalem has always been a tinderbox for violence. The Israeli mistake is thinking the west will lie and die for it. For most people, religious people, their religion stops at their church/temple/mosque/synagogue...

    It took a complete idiot to step into a paper plan and make it worse by enacting a time honoured platitude, one universally agreed upon as a handy 'go-to' submission.

    LL&P

  121. [121] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [119]: That's an outcome I hadn't considered. Interesting.

    J.T.[120]: To understand Trump, you have to think like Trump. Dumb it down: Israel good, Muslims bad.

  122. [122] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [121] No, I get the dumb-down concept, Balty, it's that others don't, that's what I can't fathom.

    [119] I see that as a possible outcome, more likely, he'll see how he's doing in a year, no way on earth he'll roll the dice on another general re-election unless he's a shoe-in. That leaves god's representative on earth, Pence, to pardon the sins of mortals, and Trump's, alike.

    LL&P

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    To understand Trump, you have to think like Trump. Dumb it down: Israel good, Muslims bad.

    Israel *IS* good.. Muslims, by omission or commission ARE bad...

    Once again, I am constrained to point out the FACT that Democrats (that's you, Balthy) *LOVED* Donald Trump when he had a -D after his name..

    Further, you don't get to be President Of The United States or be as much of a business success as Trump is by being "dumb"...

    Constantly underestimating their opponents is exactly WHY Democrats are in such a politically decimated position...

    Thinking Trump is dumb is EXACTLY why Trump is winning so much...

    The Judiciary is going to be GOP for GENERATIONS to come.. ALL because Democrats underestimated Trump...

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Balthy,

    You watch COUNTERPART???

  125. [125] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Hay Balthy, You watch COUNTERPART?

    No, but I keep meaning to. Thanks for reminding me, I might dial it up tonight. Do you?

  126. [126] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The Judiciary is going to be GOP for GENERATIONS to come.. ALL because Democrats underestimated Trump..

    All because McConnell was willing to break 200 years of tradition, so that Republicans could have their way. Trump had nothing to do with it, really.

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, but I keep meaning to. Thanks for reminding me, I might dial it up tonight. Do you?

    Yea, started it.. Season 1.. I am on episode 3.. Episode 1 was confusing.. By ep 2, it was somewhat clear and got real good...

    If you do start it, give it at least 2 eps.. I think you'll like it...

    I kinda like where the off-studios do their seasons all at once.. Binge watching is fun, but the let down at the end is a bummer.. :D

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    All because McConnell was willing to break 200 years of tradition, so that Republicans could have their way.

    You mean, like when Harry Reid tossed the first nuke, ending a Senate "tradition" so the Democrats could have THEIR way?? :D

    Democrats drew first blood..

    Trump had nothing to do with it, really.

    Good of you to acknowledge that Trump is not responsible for EVERY bad thing.. :D

  129. [129] 
    Paula wrote:

    [121] Balthasar, [122] JTC: Blotus' biggest concern has been to keep his tax returns and general business dealings private. In addition to the possibility of criminality his entire brand is based on him being the great businessman, not a tax-cheat and money-laundering traitor.

    I think that's the main lever Mueller and/or other "leaders" have. I think most of the folks who would actually have to deal with the ramifications of a genuinely criminal/traitorous POTUS would rather not have to confront all that publicly if they can avoid it. I don't think there's much thirst in the halls of power for a confrontation or stand-off, especially with deplorables out there stroking their guns and fantasizing about shooting liberals.

    I also don't think Pence would come out of any of this intact - especially since he was Manafort's choice for Veep. An offer for Blotus to resign doesn't automatically get anyone else off the hook and none of the collection of criminals and grifters surrounding Blotus have his magic with the pod people. Pence has the christianists, but there aren't enough of them and they aren't popular with anyone except themselves.

    I think if Blotus' option is to resign with at least some plausible-deniablity vs. facing down Mueller in court, he'll take it. I think he'll be lucky if he gets that opportunity, and such an offer hopefully won't come without some penalties.

    Anyway, I think it's a reasonable possibility some variation of this will happen.

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyway, I think it's a reasonable possibility some variation of this will happen.

    Anyway, I hope and wish it's a reasonable possibility some variation of this will happen.

    There.. Fixed it for you. :D Yer welcome..

  131. [131] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [123]
    'Israel *IS* good.. Muslims, by omission or commission ARE bad...'

    What brought you to this epiphany?

    I've been to both, Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi...not in that order. I saw that Arabs and Israelis are pretty much the same, ideologically.

    Personally, I don't believe in the state of Israel, I see it as compensation for centuries of abuse at the hands of Christendom. Using biblical commentary as a basis of precedent should not a nation build. Just another example of what a colonial power can do to make a dog's breakfast in a region they can no longer control. The British were masters of mess in the decade following WW2, one ballsup after the other. India (Pakistan) - Palestine (Israel) - Northern Ireland (Eire)… etc, not to mention the African republics.

    LL&P

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    121

    To understand Trump, you have to think like Trump. Dumb it down: Israel good, Muslims bad.

    Something to keep in mind when you're dumbing it down in regards to Trump: He doesn't give two shits about anything not money/valuable or anyone not named Trump (and only a few of them).

    Don't believe me? Ask yourself this then:

    Question: What country did Trump visit on his first foreign trip as POTUS?

    Hint: A theocratic monarchy in which Sunni Islam is the official state religion based on firm Sharia law?

    There's a reason he went there first:

    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-29df-d2ac-a1f2-b9ff83920001

    Now, let's do that "think like Trump" exercise again:

    Israel: Money
    Muslims: Money

  133. [133] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-67

    I mangled comment 60 with some last minute editing (a dangerous task on my tablet's tiny keyboard and its eccentric white spacing).

    It should have read:

    "Manafort is clearly hoping for a pardon, but Trump would probably be unwise to take that risk"

    Anyhow, I've had a chance to look over the broad details of the plea agreement, and I agree with your assessment. From what I can determine, Mueller has beggared Manafort - financially and legally.

  134. [134] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I suspect we'll have a great many answers to pressing questions after the midterms. I don't see a Democratic house stepping on a Mueller investigation reveal. It'll unfold as all things cosmic do...

    Inevitability is the only true constant in the universe.

    LL&P

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    What brought you to this epiphany?

    Logic... Facts... Reality...

    You should try them sometime..

    I've been to both, Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi...not in that order. I saw that Arabs and Israelis are pretty much the same, ideologically.

    You were a tourist.. Of course you saw that.

    I have worked extensively with the Israeli military and somewhat less so with it's intelligence apparatus..

    You saw the facade.. I saw the reality...

    Personally, I don't believe in the state of Israel,

    Of course you don't.. That's much of your problem..

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    TS
    133

    I mangled comment 60 with some last minute editing (a dangerous task on my tablet's tiny keyboard and its eccentric white spacing).

    You didn't mangle it at all; I understood exactly what you meant. Also, events were happening in real time as we posted. :)

    From what I can determine, Mueller has beggared Manafort - financially and legally.

    Yep, and it's the tip of the iceberg, TS. There's a reason I call him Benedict Donald. :)

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yep, and it's the tip of the iceberg,

    Yep and it's been the "tip of the iceberg" for over 2 years now..

    When are we going to see ANY more of those alleged "iceberg"???

    Where are the "bombshells" that we have been promised for YEARS!???

  138. [138] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [132]
    Kick... "Question: What country did Trump visit on his first foreign trip as POTUS?
    Hint: A theocratic monarchy in which Sunni Islam is the official state religion based on firm Sharia law?"

    It's even more base than thatthe Saudi regime has been bribing foreign officials for decades...

    The middle eastern culture look upon bribery as a 'greasing of the wheels' and perfectly normal. I, myself, had to pay a grubby little airport official 300 Dirhams ($100 usd) in Abu Dhabi to let me in the country, and that was on a UK passport! Canadian, American and assorted Arab passengers had to cough up 450 Dirhams...

    LL&P

  139. [139] 
    James T Canuck wrote:
  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    138

    It's even more base than that the Saudi regime has been bribing foreign officials for decades...

    You don't say! You had to leave Canada to encounter that? *wink* :)

  141. [141] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [135] "I've been to both, Tel Aviv and Abu Dhabi...not in that order. I saw that Arabs and Israelis are pretty much the same, ideologically.
    You were a tourist.. Of course you saw that."

    Or, because I didn't bother to expand on my point, I went to the Middle East in 1994, when tourism in the region wasn't common. I worked in both cities, and Dubai, Damascus and Jeddah...

    I assure you, I've come to any opinion I have of The Middle East based solely on years of living among the people I interacted with on a daily basis.

    I can see any reluctance on the part of any 'intelligence apparatus' where you're concerned. Simple mutual exclusivity explains the rift between you and intelligence.

    LL&P

  142. [142] 
    Kick wrote:

    JTC
    141

    *laughs* :)

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, because I didn't bother to expand on my point, I went to the Middle East in 1994, when tourism in the region wasn't common. I worked in both cities, and Dubai, Damascus and Jeddah...

    I assure you, I've come to any opinion I have of The Middle East based solely on years of living among the people I interacted with on a daily basis.

    Like I said.. A tourist.. Or worse.. An ignorant civilian...

    I can see any reluctance on the part of any 'intelligence apparatus' where you're concerned.

    Yea.. Because we deal in REALITY.. In FACTS....

    It's an occupational hazard....

    "You people!! You live in your own little world, don't you!?"
    "Yes we do, professor.. We don't have the luxury of living in yours.."

    -The Manhattan Project

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    OMG! Ep3 of COUNTERPART was a MAJOR mind frak...

    Somethings you'll need to know to make it so things make more sense.. No spoilers...

    The organization in question is a UN organization..

    Everything takes place in Berlin with East and West being relevant.. Took me a few to get used to that...

    One "side" is slightly more technologically advanced than the other..

    The other "side" is slightly more totalitarian than the other...

    The "diplomacy" involved is mind-blowing...

    It's a kick ass show I look forward to discussing it with ya.. :D

  145. [145] 
    Paula wrote:

    Well, well, well! Now it appears Michael Cohen is finally getting his chance to try to convince Mueller he has something to contribute too!

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/09/michael-cohen-mueller

    As one longtime friend of Cohen’s put it to me, “He doesn’t feel he needs to go out of his way to protect Trump anymore, particularly because Trump has gone out of his way to hurt Michael.” Earlier this week, Cohen and his attorney sat down with New York state tax-department officials, who subpoenaed him last month as part of their inquiry into the Trump Foundation.

    According to people close to him, Cohen closely watched the White House’s reaction to his allocution in court last month. He listened as Trump railed against anyone who makes a plea deal, telling Fox News that cooperating with the government “almost ought to be outlawed.” And he has bristled at the feeling that he has taken the fall for a man who has refused to take any responsibility or face any consequence himself...

    When it rains it pours!

  146. [146] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [143] "You people!! You live in your own little world, don't you!?"
    "Yes we do, professor.. We don't have the luxury of living in yours.."

    Another word for luxury is bliss. Ignorance's ultimate destiny.

    LL&P

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, well, well! Now it appears Michael Cohen is finally getting his chance to try to convince Mueller he has something to contribute too!

    Look up Lanny Davis, Paula..

    Cohen's been discredited..

    He's a PROVEN liar who is only now saying what you want to hear...

    Jesus H Christ, you would excitedly quote Rush Limbaugh if he said what you wanted to hear!! :D

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another word for luxury is bliss. Ignorance's ultimate destiny.

    Exactly my point.. Ya'all live in the bliss of ignorance...

    Thank you for confirming my point...

  149. [149] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    I think if Blotus' option is to resign with at least some plausible-deniablity vs. facing down Mueller in court, he'll take it. I think he'll be lucky if he gets that opportunity, and such an offer hopefully won't come without some penalties.

    I think that the government (those that actually abide by their oath to our Constitution) recognizes that the nation needs people to be held responsible for their crimes. Ford pardoning Nixon to help “heal the country” was one of the worst mistakes ever committed by a president. I think it is a big reason why we have the corruption in the GOP that we have seen grow larger and more blatant ever since Watergate; in part because of the precedents it set for how we deal with corruption.

    Robert Reich wrote an article last month suggesting that if Mueller’s findings are as bad as most people fear regarding Russia’s influence on the 2016 election’s outcome, we should seek to have the entire presidency annulled. Wipe it all from the books! I don’t see how we wouldn’t be forced to undo everything Trump did as it would all be “fruits of the poisonous tree”.

  150. [150] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    [148]

    "Exactly my point.. Ya'all live in the bliss of ignorance..."

    Trust you to confuse your own quote..."Yes we do, professor.. We don't have the luxury of living in yours.."

    In adopting that quote, you identified yourself as the "professor"
    "you people" are identified, by extension, as everyone here except you.
    "You people" were obviously being cynical.

    Oh well.

    LL&P

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    In adopting that quote, you identified yourself as the "professor"
    "you people" are identified, by extension, as everyone here except you.
    "You people" were obviously being cynical.

    Apparently, you have never seen THE MANHATTAN PROJECT...

    Do yerself a favor.. Take care of your ignorance, then you can come back and speak intelligently...

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, you have never seen THE MANHATTAN PROJECT...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spOWFb7zfOo

    Don't be ignorant..

    THEN come talk to me...

  153. [153] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [148] - Ya'all live in the bliss of ignorance...

    There's also a term, bliss ninny, the one hears now and again. It refers to people who absorb or embrace enough simplified philosophy or blind belief that they can tune out or deflect reality. They often come from people having sub-cultural flashbacks to the 60's, but come around in politics, too. Some key Hillary messaging people were functional bliss ninnies.

    Did you hear, michale, that the 120 hour track put out by GFS (on the 9th) had landfall two miles from where it actually came today? USA!!!

    Kick - Credit where credit is due. You were right when you wrote that you thought Manfort was yet going to be a big deal. I began to wonder when ten days or so ago it was leaked that the FBI task force including Ohr had tried to co-opt Deripaska.

  154. [154] 
    Paula wrote:

    [149] Listen: Agree!

    Just to be clear, I don't hope Blotus resigns - I'd much rather see him removed in handcuffs! I just think it's possible he'll get that choice.

  155. [155] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Missing part of post above:
    One last thing about bliss ninnies. There are few in the Trump bubble. The world views of many Trump supporters are antithetical to any concept of "bliss." Just look at comments in the reaches of the alt-right as well as comments on more popular sites like zerohedge. It's more like angry ninnies, but I don't think that's a term, even if it is a thing.

    Thoughts on the confirmation:

    The FBI-referred letter was a really stupid move, almost Trump-level cringe worthy.

    But some Dem senators can still hit, though. Hirono bounced it off the right field wall by reminding Murkowski who took her to the dance, and reminding Alaskan native interests of what this confirmation might mean to them. That seems to be providing a whole different level of concern than Collins is faking.

  156. [156] 
    Patrick wrote:

    This is a test only.

  157. [157] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    That seems to be providing a whole different level of concern than Collins is faking.

    Seconded.

Comments for this article are closed.