Monday, October 17, 2016
Will the United States Survive the 2016 Election (continued)
More recent update (post-debate): It is crystal clear that the major event of the "debate" (beyond Chris Wallace's resolute failure to ask a single question about climate change or global warming) was the refusal of the sociopath (who was clearly trying to adopt a more "serious" mien this evening save when he just couldn't contain himself) to agree to abide by the election results. And the refusal is, in effect, twofold. Not only is he continuing to raise completely unmerited doubt about the basic fairness of the vote, but he also continues to cast calumnies on Secretary Clinton and suggest that she is unfit to be President and would be a "disaster" as President (i.e., exactly the charges I am more than willing to make with regard to his own fitness to be President). So I think that the possibility of a "good sport" concession is absolutely zero. I suppose it would be marginally better for him simply to say on November 8 that "Crooked Hillary" prevailed in what was, after all, a fair election but that the country will deeply regret their mistaken choice than to say that the election itself was "rigged" and thus fundamentally illegitimate. But surely nobody should feel more optimistic about our country's political stability after this evening than before. He continues to be a menace in almost every conceivable way to our "Republican Form of Government."
The tapes provides a personal misogynistic reason to be against Trump and gave an in your face example of what people were pretty much aware of already. But, when you say things aloud ("slave"), it gets more uncomfortable. I think McCain bluntly saying Republicans would block any justice Clinton nominated if given the chance is somewhat comparable. It isn't like surprising, but is bluntly extreme.
Likewise, unlike that or convicting Hillary Clinton or something, it isn't partisan. It is hard for Republicans to explain it away especially to their evangelical base. Finally, it starts a snowball effect as others come out & he does his usual disgusting responses, making it a story for days. The other stuff is important, but like gossip in the news, it's more approachable to the average person while still hitting important policy concerns such as sexism and his basic inability to act presidential.
Perhaps, it is a bad thing the people pay more attention to this sort of thing, but the personal character issue is not new. Andrew Jackson, e.g., had to deal with talk that he married his wife before she was legally able to do so. And, it isn't like the other stuff Charles Krauthammer is news. Simply put, some don't mind it. It's less socially acceptable at the moment to accept the misogynist stuff.
As the most recent example of megalomelania, The Donald has "permitted" his spouse to defend him with respect to the Trump Tapes, blaming Billy Bush for egging on The Donald on the bus. Conspiracy theorists will say this was a Bush family plot in anticipation of The Donald's candidacy at some future point. Did JEB egg him on in the Republican debates? Did Hillary egg him on in the two debates? Hopefully voters will egg The Donald on November 8th. In effect The Donald is hiding behind his wife's skirts.
Word to the wise: when you find yourself calling the Krauthammer "reasonable", take a break and examine the life choices that brought you to this point.
Or, we might have reached a point where on this issue he is reasonable as compared to his fellow travelers.
On a earlier thread I referred to th expression "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Sandy may abide with this in the case of Chuck, but over the years ChucK has said some awful right wing things with questionable medical claims to make a right wing point. A couple of months ago The Atlantic featured a lengthy article by a professional on The Donald as a narcissist that was well done. The case against The Donald doesn't require Chuck. If Hillary is elected, Chuck will soon show his normal nasty side. Chuck is defending his own right wing credentials. We can expect George Will and Jennifer Rubin to revert to constant attacks on liberals/progressives. Their goal is to try to save the Republican Party. Where were they when the Tea Party hijacked it? They did not challenge the Southern Strategy of Nixon that continues with the Republican Party today. They helped create Trump as the Republican nominee. Amd they engage in false equivalency . Of course, when that time comes, we can remind Sandy of his lauding of Chuck et al.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I look forward to the symposium at this Blog on Michael Klarman's new book on the Framers' Coup, especially comparisons with Charles Bear's comments on the Framers' economic interests. I read a review that discouted Klarman's claims of economic motives of the Framers.
Sandy:"Republican leaders and election officials from both parties on Sunday sought to combat claims by Donald J. Trump that the election is rigged against him, amid signs that Mr. Trump’s contention is eroding confidence in the vote and setting off talk of rebellion among his supporters."
Depends what you mean by "rigged."
The level of voter fraud likely is not enough to tip anything but a razor close election like Kennedy and Nixon.
However, as the hacked DNC and Clinton campaign emails as well as the recent coordinated "October surprise" attempting to portray Trump as Cosby demonstrate, the Democrat party and Democrat media are closely coordinating their efforts to disseminate propaganda concerning Trump and spike negative stores concerning Clinton's crimes, corruption, lies and ill-health. Unlike the Democrat establishment who circled the wagons around Bill Clinton back in the 1990s, the GOP establishment is leaving their candidate out to twist in the wind.
The fix is most definitely in.
Why then should the people believe a damned thing the candidates or the media tell them?
Why should the voters see a government made up of these corrupt liars to be legitimate?
Why would you expect the tens of millions of Americans who you and Clinton routinely denigrate to return anything other than in kind loathing?
Hey Shag from Brookline I have a question. How are you so sure about Chuck that he will show his normal nasty side to defend the part?
"coordinated "October surprise"
Hogwash, conservatives wallowing in their usual victim hood narrative. There is, on the other hand a well known media operation that is literally and unabashedly partisan, and it includes the most watched news channel and most circulated newspaper.
BD: "coordinated "October surprise"
Mr. W: Hogwash, conservatives wallowing in their usual victim hood narrative.
Yeah, you're right.
Several reports of never before reported alleged misconduct, years to decades old, against a presidential candidate issued one after another in the space of a week in October before the election followed immediately by dozens of Democrats jumping in front of media cameras with the same exact reaction.
No way that could be considered a coordinated October surprise.
Are you really the credulous fool you play here or are you an irredeemable Democrat hack?
October surprise is laughable. These damaging stories are only surprises to fools or partisan stooges. Trump had a well known public image of being a loud mouthed, boorish buffoon. Of course once the honeymoon period where the press practically put him in their shoulders and carried him around as a novelty was over these were going to trickle then gush out.
Oxbridge Masters Blog!
Mr. W: October surprise is laughable. These damaging stories are only surprises to fools or partisan stooges.
Or the voters who shifted to Clinton in the polls since the stories.
Of course once the honeymoon period where the press practically put him in their shoulders and carried him around as a novelty was over these were going to trickle then gush out.
The Democrat media gave Trump ongoing coverage during the GOP primaries because they wanted him to win. As soon as Trump won, they predictably turned on him.
The press carried Trump beyond the primary. His boorish behavior was no surprise to people who read left wing sites or really anyone who chose to recall popular culture of the past few decades. Remember the man was *literally famous,* a true 'reality' celebrity for decades, and he was famous for his womanizing, braggadocio and boorish bombast. That it took this long for the mainstream press to finally highlight this well documented history is a testament to the mainstream press' historical dislike of the Clinton's on the one hand and their slavishness towards celebrity and novelty as represented in Trump.
The boys in the hood agree with Melania as The Donald has had a Bush problem from adolescence on. Keep in mind The Donald's visit with Howard Stern, with Junior and Ivanka in tow, and sexual predator talk in 2006. Check this link:
Melania was not there to directly witness this, which was a year after the Trump/Bush tapes. LIve by the media, die by the media.
"That it took this long for the mainstream press to finally highlight this well documented history is a testament to the mainstream press' historical dislike of the Clinton's on the one hand and their slavishness towards celebrity and novelty as represented in Trump."
Rather, October surprises are reserved for October for a reason: You don't want the people you hit with them to have time to recover. The media didn't cover for Trump because they liked him. They did it because they figured they could beat him in the general election. And they sat on the dirt they had on him until it could be deployed to best effect.
That's the thing about this election that bears notice: Hillary isn't beating Donald. The media are. She couldn't do it on her own.
They're not likely to forget that. Kiss the pretense of media objectivity good bye.
I would note first that the nature of campaigns is that the last six weeks or so is when a special focus is put on the candidates -- including the debates -- as we get into the home stretch. This might be pushed back to post-convention. This is likely to sometimes get us "surprises" though here there isn't any really.
They did it because they figured they could beat him.
The media covered Trump for various reasons, including because he is just a great story. More exciting to cover him on news talk shows than actually having more segments about ongoing important issues in this country outside the horse race. He's just the latest case there though a particularly juicy. If he actually could win, the media would probably enjoy it on some level. It's not like those in the media are the people directly hurt the most here as compared to us little people.
Hillary isn't beating Donald. The media are. She couldn't do it on her own.
Give Donald Trump more credit for his own destruction. Also, HRC is rather good at this politics game, helped by various qualifications for the office. "The media" at best is a wash here, if anything very well hurting her at times.
Kiss the pretense of media objectivity good bye.
Trump has made his own bed here & many of his own supporters note the self-inflicted problems. Hillary Clinton has received lots of negative media attention with constant "both sides do it" memes being put out. And, THIS is the election that supposedly will result in this?
The media has been making huge profits with their coverage of The Donald from day one of his campaign. Is Brett no longer a 1st A speech/press absolutist? But by any objective measure, The Donald is objectionable. The Constitution does not require press objectivity. The Donald would like to change the law so he can sue when he feels offended. But consider how offending The Donald has been through much of his three score and ten years. And Melania says it's boy talk. Calls for Lava Soap mouth cleaning.
Lol, it's not that Trump has long, very public history being a boor, it's that the mean ol' biased media finally started to highlight some of that history that's the problem! If only they'd kept up with free air time, softball questions and false equivalency journalism it'd show there's no conspiracy.
Our conservatives are even unable to get buyers remorse. They bought rancid meat but now they're mad at the guy who pointed out its rancid, not the seller!
I'm not mad because they're covering his past. (Assuming "relating accusations with utter credulity" qualifies as "covering".) I'm mad because they held off on it until the last minute, instead of reporting what they had on him during the primaries, when it might have resulted in somebody I liked more getting the nomination. And I'm mad that they've basically embargoed all coverage of anything that might hurt Clinton.
If they were treating the two of them the same, she'd be hurting big time. But they're not.
This doesn't conflict with my 1st amendment convictions, because I'm not advocating they be censored. Just angry that they decided to throw all their weight in on one side of the race.
It's actually more the Republicans' fault, really; They've known for decades they had a problem with the media being in the tank for the Democrats, and never lifted a finger to do something about it. The media became exclusively Democratic because the Republicans just passively ceded that field to the Democrats.
Now they're paying the price for that stupidity.
"If they were treating the two of them the same, she'd be hurting big time. But they're not."
Covering a notorious boor the same as a careful politician isn't going to happen. You yourself said Trump's not careful about what he says and does in the ways professionals usual are. The press aren't supposed to ignore some of that to achieve fairness.
Talk of them 'holding out' is silly. Trump's been a celebrity for decades. Tapes with him on them could probably stack as high as Everest. Any non paranoid conspiracy nut would find it reasonable that wading through all that to find the juiciest bits might take a while.
This didn't all come out at once, either. The Howard Stern stuff, and sexualized comments about his own daughter, were reported long ago. It's been a steady trickle to a gush as one would expect of a man who was a celebrity lout for decades.
"never lifted a finger to do something about it"
"media became exclusively Democratic"
FOX, Weekly Standard, National Review, NY Post etc. are liberal or not media?
They are also trying their damnest, including with friendly media sources, surrogates and media/other consultants to deal with Trump. Just so much you can do though.
The Democrats' coordinated October surprise were allegations of borderline sexual assault, not boorishness. The slime attack appears to have moved the polls, as was the intent.
As Brett noted, the purpose of an October surprise is to slime the opponent without leaving him time to dispel the lies. This is easier when you have a Democrat media who will not report evidence dispelling the lies.
Some of these reports are absurd on their face because the alleged dates did not line up. The rest smell because they were never previously reported to anyone before.
I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something-something I can use
People love it when you lose,
They love dirty laundry
Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry...
You don't really need to find out what's going on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry
"The Democrats' coordinated October surprise were allegations of borderline sexual assault, not boorishness"
Yeah, boorishness and that never goes hand in hand!
"Some of these reports are absurd on their face "
Hmm, that rings a bell (or at least two around here)!
Brett should be angry with The Donald himself who opposed "opposition" research of himself that might just have permitted his campaign to be prepared if and when certain items (The Donald in his own words) popped up during the campaign to address, such as these alleged October surprises. But consider how The Donald has responed. He's his own worst enemy. Those seeking media attention may be engaging in Russian Roulette, speaking of which, consider his recent "Savage" interview regarding his bromance with Putin whom he said he might meet with before his inauguration. The Donald is so concerned that President Obama and Hillary are tough on Putin. Why The Donald and Putin may go horseback riding together, perhaps on the same horse.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Brett may claim that Halloween is an October surprise with all the sales of masks of The Donald, as a means of rigging the election.
Further by the Bybee [expletives deleted], Melania at the convention plagiarized Mrs. Obama and in Melania's defense of The Donald on the boy talk Trump/Bush tapes, she seems to be standing by her man as did Hillary back in the 1990s.
Shag: Brett should be angry with The Donald himself who opposed "opposition" research of himself that might just have permitted his campaign to be prepared if and when certain items (The Donald in his own words) popped up during the campaign to address...
Trump is not a professional political well versed in the dark arts of the politics of personal destruction.
In any case, given these uncorroborated and unsupported allegations of years or decades old events are largely or completely fictional, counter-oppo research would not have revealed much.
"Brett should be angry with The Donald himself who opposed "opposition" research"
I am. Pisses me off.
But as long as there's the media, he's only his second worst enemy.
"Trump is not a professional political well versed in the dark arts of the politics of personal destruction."
Oh he's fine at personal destruction. Threatening unfriendly media with libel suits. Stiffing small contractors with bankruptcy lawyers. Hardballing discrimination lawsuits. Leading a campaign full of the most extreme charged.
He just has little professional demeanor or comportment and so has a lifetime of boorish behavior, and since he's a celebrity hound much of its recorded.
Are you right wing morons aware that the guy Trump was talking to in that tape was Billy Fucking Bush? Don't you morons think that maybe Billy should have brought that incident to the attention to his family? Instead you blame the Dems? Seriously, you could not be any dumber.
But as long as there's the media, he's only his second worst enemy.
As long as there is someone to blame, it will be okay, even if ("media became exclusively Democratic" etc.) it takes a level of delusion to get you there.
When The Donald says of of a woman claiming to have been groped by him without permission that she has no witnesses, the boys in the hood say this could be construed as an admission since The Donald knew there were not witnesses as that was how he planned it. And when The Donald says of a woman claiming to have been groped by him without permission pointing to her as unattractive and saying she wouldn't be his first choice ("let me tell ya"), the boys in the hood say this could be construed as an admission of the truth of his statements in the Trump/Bush tape. The boys in the hood don't necessarily follow the formal rules of evidence, but innuendo is well understood on the street. And the boys in the hood think that in the Trump/Bush tapes The donald used the P-word to avoid offending Billy. The Donald can be a sensitive guy at times.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], I wonder how Marla has reacted to all this. There may be a strong pre-nup in effect with a non-disclosure provision. Query: Can a non-disclosure provision be considered invalid on an "as applied" basis on grounds of strong public policy?
Blaming the media is pathetic whining. Hillary has pretty much always led in pretty much every legit poll-compiling or prediction spot for close to or often literally every day of this entire campaign. There were, however, two moments in the campaign that propelled her to truly significant leads. First, after both conventions were over. Second, after the first debate. Turns out when people got to see both candidates make their pitches on the big stage(s), it really helped Hillary.
And to answer the question the OP asked, Hillary will win and the country will survive. How well we survive will depend in part on how committed Republicans are to continue the transformation of their party into a U.S. version of a European National Front party.
I agree Trump is the epitome of the bullying and boorish New Yorker, which is part of the reason I still have a hard time understanding what heartland voters see in him. That being said, Trump does not have a clue how to organize an October surprise, nor the ability to coordinate with the media to disseminate the hit job as news. The Democrat media are little more than Democrat campaign staff with bylines and do not do GOP October surprises.
The bait and switch the Democrat media pulled on the GOP with Trump will go down as a political classic if Clinton ends up winning. During the primaries, the Democrat media gave Trump, the candidate who did the worst against Clinton, a giant megaphone to win the nomination. Then, during the conventions, the Democrats with bylines did a 180 and started to relentlessly hammer Trump and took away his megaphone. Now, the Democrat media is coordinating to launch the Clinton October surprise.
How about the party of "personal responsibility" put some/most/all the blame for nominating Trump on Republican primary voters who voted for Trump? And/or his primary opponents for not doing basic oppos research, or distancing themselves more starkly from Trump's National Front rhetoric. I give Kaisch some points here, but look how well he did with the Republican base. Both the level of conspiracy-plotting and power you ascribe to the mainstream media is absurd. And as others have pointed out, even if the NYT and WP had actually done what you accuse them of doing (which they didn't, especially not the NYT, but even if), of all the elections to cry about "the media," one in which Fox News, right-wing talk radio, all sorts of conservative-libertarian blog sites, etc. exist makes your claim even sillier.
"the boys in the hood say this could be construed as an admission since The Donald knew there were not witnesses as that was how he planned it."
Yeah, you could construe it that way, if you were determined to construe every word out of his mouth in the worst possible light, which you are.
Alternatively, it could be construed as, "She has no witnesses, because by definition there are no witnesses to events that didn't happen."
"I agree Trump is the epitome of the bullying and boorish New Yorker, which is part of the reason I still have a hard time understanding what heartland voters see in him."
It's not that complicated. We're sick of candidates who won't fight, and we're sick of candidates who don't even pretend to agree with us. He's willing to fight, and he at least pretends.
That, and he's got the right enemies.
You could construe it that way by honestly looking at all the facts available, including actions, but those ideologically blinded because the guy has the right enemies and "fights" for certain things that appeals to that person might not.
Republicans have "fought" for years and at least "pretend to agree" with their voters on a range of issues. Trump is different how? Even the bad things have been appealed to in some fashion by other Republicans in various ways. A big appeal is that he is an outsider. But, he really isn't -- he is a billionaire intimately connected with the powers that be here and abroad. He invited the Clintons to his wedding!
He does have tough boy thing & rants and raves even it he is patently full of it. Someone who speaks of no conservative presence in the media with FOX etc. might find that appealing. But, deep down he is rather sad there, including having his (third) wife out there saying how he is really a little "boy" and him talking about everyone is out to get him. Sounds rather weak.
But, being a victim appeals to some people. It takes failure away and puts it on convenient scapegoats.
* It is ironically really regarding the "fight" point since many like Hillary Clinton because she has shown the ability to be tough against her enemies. This includes facing them in a day long hearing and coming up ahead, managing to look strong and intelligent in the process. Trump wins by whipping the likes of Christie (a tough boy now looking like a loser) and Rubio.
Note that Brett responded to only one of the "boys in the hood" examples. On the one Brett addresses, it could be described as consciousness of guilt. Consider the entire Trump/Bush tape for the context of the "boys in the hood" comments on The Donald's reaction. The Donald claims to be a counter-puncher but he needed assistance from his wife Melania. The Donald has put his family out to dry.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Brett has not addressed The Donald's "To Russia With Love," perhaps hoping that's a source of a Trump October surprise. Is there potential for a tad of Treason?
The bait and switch the Democrat media pulled on the GOP with Trump...
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 3:25 PM
Blaming the media for the stupidity of Republicans is priceless.
Brett: "He's willing to fight, and he at least pretends. That, and he's got the right enemies."
My country raised wife is going to vote for Trump for the last reason. She cannot stand Hillary Clinton.
I suspect she is not alone in that sentiment.
Voting for someone because they make people you don't like angry is childish. Our Founders (like Hsmilton who loathed Jefferson but favored him over Burr) would shake their head at such a state.
Lord knows Clinton deranges people I think are wacko but that matters not a whit in deciding who to vote for. I'll be damned if I think so little of my hard won civic right, trust and duty to use my franchise in such a fourth grade manner.
"Blaming the media for the stupidity of Republicans is priceless."
Like I said, it's like buying spoiled meat and then getting mad at your wife for pointing out its spoiled.
The 'party of personal responsibility' folks!
"The Democrat media are little more than Democrat campaign staff with bylines and do not do GOP October surprises."
The projection here is remarkable.
Like most educated professionals 'the media' or the field of journalists, leans to the party that currently doesn't denigrate education and professionalism. But they do have professional codes they try generally to fit under. And they're in no measure as coordinated an arm of the Dems as the conservative media empire is of the GOP. Fox was run by an actual lifelong GOP operative and regularly hires former GOP candidates, the WSJ is run by the truest of true believers, ditto the above for talk radio. These outlets don't just 'lean' right, they're plainly coordinated with the GOP party apparatus. You'll hear the exact talking points the RNC wants out on virtually all of them any given day.
My wife is voting for Trump to keep Clinton out of our government, not because Trump angers Clinton or whatever you are trying to say.
During the primaries, the Democrat media provided tens of millions of dollars of essentially free advertising to a candidate who was not buying ads and froze out the other GOP candidates. It was all Trump all the time. This was arguably the primary reason Trump was able to gain a plurality win for the nomination.
Fox News and a handful of newspapers are the the only parts of the corporate media which offer news from a libertarian/conservative point of view. They are outnumbered by the Democrat media like Custer was outnumbered by the Souix at Little Big Horn.
You are quite correct that the mandarin class dominates the media and they support fellow mandarins in the political establishment. The Clintons are archetypical mandarins.
Like most educated professionals 'the media' or the field of journalists, leans to the party that currently doesn't denigrate education and professionalism.
Eh. The media are in the business of attracting readers/viewers. That's how they make money. Trump got significantly more media coverage than other R candidates in the primaries because he was "good copy". His coverage was also more favorable than that of other R candidates, at least until late in the primary season.
Hillary got less coverage than Bernie, and her coverage was more negative than positive, in direct contrast to Bernie.
During the convention period, Trump got more coverage than Hillary. Both received generally negative coverage, though Trump's was more negative than Hillary's.
Of course they gave a bunch of relatively puff air time to Trump, he's by all admissions a celebrity. Celebrities are famous and in politics novel. Ventura got this kind of coverage, as did GOP Schwarzenegger. But then the honeymoon wanes and their unproffesional and heavily recoded lives come back to haunt them. There's no conspiracy there, it allakrs sense unless you have to embrace a victim hood narrative, which sadly conservatives increasingly do.
Not just a fascist but a progressive too (Bart said about a hundred times Trump was clearly a progressive during the primaries). Seems someone didn't find her own husband's books persuasive ;)
You know what occurred to me today? The GOP nominees since Reagan (almost three decades) have all been persons born to multi-millionaire parents while I don't think any of the Democratic nominees in the same period were. For a party that crows about meritocracy a lot, that's very interesting...
It's about protecting gun rights in the North Mariana Islands
Interesting case Joe. I'd like to see the actual opinion. It strikes me as odd to strike down registration (seems like a pretty complying interest to know who owns guns and who doesn't-for example when law enforcement is searching or approaching someone) because it 'wouldn't keep guns out of dangerous hands' but uphold licensing because it would. How would licensing do that? Licensing seems like a more objectionable thing-an every two year fee and paperwork with no interest served, but I'm probably missing something.
My wife is voting for the progressive fascist over the corrupt progressive liar and felon. It was not an easy choice for her to pick between two profound evils. I told her to follow her conscience. For some reason, unlike you two, she has a major problem with having a criminal as president.
A fascist progressive who boasts about sexually assaulting women. Of course, she also married Blankshot, so making good decisions is clearly not one of her strengths.
Blogger Bart DePalma said...
she has a major problem with having a criminal as president.
Sexual assault is a crime, tough guy.
The license is acceptable since certain people don't have a constitutional right to own a firearm, so requiring a showing that you are within the protected class (e.g., not a criminal) is acceptable. The license works with a background check process. The issue of costs was not properly raised. Since people's status might change, it makes sense to do it periodically.
The registration informs the government that a person has a certain weapon. The license already shows the person is not "dangerous." The burden (using a condom/porn case as an example) -- fifteen days for each weapon -- was deemed too much. The government's reasons offered were rejected.
An instantaneous process might be different. A concern, sometimes offered, that the government will seize the weapons once registered is not cited. I do think registration might be acceptable, including to offer the government information on possible militia resources. The law enforcement information grounds is alluded to by citation of another case where it was deemed not a good fit for the law in question.
I'd note this was an Obama appointee and this is the 9th Circuit, sometimes cited as too liberal.
Can we expect the results of more "pillow talk" by these 2nd A absolutists? SPAM I AM!'s:
" I told her to follow her conscience."
is advice from someone who has no conscience, something I would consider to be a major problem. Hopefully those pillows are not loaded.
Yes, my wife will have to choose between a probable wealthy groper and the bitch who attacked her husband's rape victims to keep him and her in political power.
Ya gotta love our ruling class.
And your wife chose the criminal. So shut the fuck up about her having a problem with having a criminal for president. That is EXACTLY what she is voting for.
like how for Bart, who in the primaries was supposedly seeing the race between two as equally awful progressives, gives Trump more benefit of the doubt in his accusers than he does Clinton's husband (who is not on the ballot, btw): "a probable wealthy groper and the bitch who attacked her husband's rape victims to keep him and her in political power"). Bart will of course tell us how the Democratic Party has only recently engaged in such awful nominees all the while attesting to the fact that the nominee in 92 and 96 was a rapist. You see, *every* Democratic nominee is, for partisan Bart, an unusual horrible. That's what partisan extremists always say....
" It strikes me as odd to strike down registration (seems like a pretty complying interest to know who owns guns and who doesn't-for example when law enforcement is searching or approaching someone) "
The basic problem with this line of reasoning, is that, since guns are very available on the black market, knowing that somebody doesn't have a gun registered to them tells you very little about whether or not they have a gun.
So, rather than giving the police useful knowledge, it just gives them a false sense of security, leads to them thinking that people don't have guns, when they do.
As for the use in confiscation, since it has already happened several times in the US, and the leading Presidential candidate praises an instance of it abroad as worthy of emulation here, it's hardly an unrealistic concern.
Even the boys in the hood raised their eyebrows when Stephen Colbert's guest last night, the "fake" Melania, in defending her "fake" husband The Donald regarding the Trump/Bush tapes, paraphrased her "fake" husband The Donald about grabbing the "BillyBush." The Urban Dictionary may adopt this term as a synonym for the P-word.
"The basic problem with this line of reasoning, is that, since guns are very available on the black market, knowing that somebody doesn't have a gun registered to them tells you very little about whether or not they have a gun."
You're vastly exaggerating how available guns are on the black market.
And sure, someone not on the list might have a gun, it'd be smart to consider this, but that still doesn't mean that knowing that someone *certainly* owns a gun wouldn't be useful.
Mr. W: like how for Bart, who in the primaries was supposedly seeing the race between two as equally awful progressives, gives Trump more benefit of the doubt in his accusers than he does Clinton's husband
As a criminal prosecutor or defense attorney, you need to examine the circumstances of the complaining witnesses' statements.
The witnesses against Clinton came out years ago and were and still are willing to undergo cross examination by the media.
Trump's accusers came out a week ago, years or decades after the alleged acts and a month before an election in which the accused is a candidate. The Democrat media is studiously avoiding any cross examination of their stories. If Trump's accusers are truthful, they destroyed their credibility by allowing themselves to be used as an October surprise.
The prefatory clause of the 2nd A "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," might suggest the need for registration in case of implementation of the Constitution's Militia clauses at the state or federal levels in antion that has grown from 4 million to 300+ million since the 1780s-90s.
I don't think I'm exaggerating one little bit. Most gun violence is committed by criminals, the people best connected to the black market. It's already illegal for felons to buy guns, but they still manage. People who like to think the law can disarm criminals are just in denial.
Further, registration lists tells you the most about gun ownership by the group the police are least likely to care about ownership by, the law abiding. While telling you the least about the group the police have the most to care about, those inclined to violate the law.
A final problem, of course, is that resistance to gun registration among gun owners is so high, that demanding registration manufactures criminals, because of the low compliance rate. It really isn't a good idea for the government to be passing laws they know otherwise law abiding people will refuse to obey. Unless maybe the purpose is to make them into criminals, so they can be treated as such.
Bart, you are as always full of crap.
Paula Jones only made public her allegations years after they supposedly happened (and after Clinton had become President). Brodderick came forward over two decades after her alleged assault. Etc.
Yes, you're exaggerating. That some criminals, the ones you hear about, can get guns doesn't mean that everyone easy can.
Most violent crimes are committed by unarmed assailants, if guns were so easy to come by that wouldn't be true.
Again, of course registration lists shouldn't be taken as complete, but you've failed to really argue that it wouldn't be useful to law enforcement to check the list and find that someone of interest *certainly* has a gun.
I can't take your last reason seriously. Many gun owners are extremists that will try not to comply with a reasonable law, so we shouldn't pass it. As a general rule about laws that's crazy (Southern segregationists were hell bent to resist civil rights laws, it's a good thing we didn't cater to their lawless attitudes).
The opinion noted that in the case cited police as a default assumed guns were there already, but yes, that exaggerates how easy illegal guns are available (the usual hyperbole -- "very little") especially putting aside certain classes of people. The average person is not readily knowledgeable about black market guns.
Plus, it is useful to know for the police to know more information like that. In a range of cases, additional information is helpful, even if it is incomplete. Finally, Brett has gone this route before & as I noted (without a response) it takes us down to the idea that laws against minors buying guns are of little value since many minors have them illegally and use them in violent ways.
If a popular background check could not passed, the broader law of Australia is unlikely to pass however sympathetic some people are about it. Certain weapons aren't protected by the Constitution, even if the government doesn't decide at the time to ban them, so a law that later banned them would be allowed. Obtaining those already owned would as some have noted be complicated given 4th and 5th Amendment limitations. Even Australia had buyback programs and the like.
Anyway, if one is so concerned, merely a license is a big red flag, as would training and other things including the sort of at sale record-keeping upheld in Heller dicta. If the government was dead set to seize arms, they could use clearly legitimate regulations to help them do so.
"they destroyed their credibility by allowing themselves to be used as an October surprise."
They came out after the tape of Trump bragging about assaulting women came out you goofball. Of course that might prompt someone to go public with such an allegation.
"It's already illegal for felons to buy guns, but they still manage."
But, the laws still are reasonable. Same here.
Bart: Confirmation of accuser's story in the new People. Oh, and by the way, I highly doubt this was any big media conspiracy. Much more likely Hillary's campaign timed the release of the info. That's because, unlike Trump, Hillary is running a skilled and disciplined campaign. "Basic competence" is yet another category in which Hillary is far superior to Trump.
Or, put another way, if in 2012, "Bin Laden's dead and GM is alive" summed up why folks should vote for Obama, in 2016, the key quote is "someone who can be baited with a tweet shouldn't have access to nuclear codes."
Mr. W: Paula Jones only made public her allegations years after they supposedly happened (and after Clinton had become President).
Jones filed a lawsuit and subjected herself to full discovery, including a deposition under oath. Clinton's excellent attorneys never shook her story and Clinton committed the first of his perjuries during his deposition.
Brodderick came forward over two decades after her alleged assault. Etc.
Brodderick did not come out voluntarily. She had spoke to friends about the rape and the story proceeded from there. The Jones attorneys found her and then the press started running stories before Brodderick agreed to a press requested interview.
This kind of behavior is not unusual in rape victims. I find her the most believable.
Joseph: I highly doubt this was any big media conspiracy. Much more likely Hillary's campaign timed the release of the info.
...and the Democrat media ran all the stories during the same week, without any real vetting that I can see.
That pretty much fits the definition of conspiracy.
The current stories seem to follow the exact same patterns, you're just faulting them* for being in an earlier stage right now, which the stories you buy about Clinton were once in.
* of course the real reason you fault one set and not the other is because of the D or R beside the names
"without any real vetting that I can see."
The alleged assailant saying on tape that he grabs women by the pussy was the vetting.
Seriously, it's no shock that after the man was caught bragging about doing these things that women experiencing it from him would be empowered to come forward and the press would feel justified in printing the allegations.
If the Trump campaign provided and Sean Hannity reported over the past week that a handful of women claimed they had lesbian affairs with Hillary Clinton during the 1980s and 1990s (this is an actual rumor), I would treat that October surprise the same as Clinton's recent slime attack on Trump.
Joseph, I've seen no evidence that the Clinton campaign provided the tape.
Trump has been a celebrity for decades. There's piles and piles of tape and recordings of him, he was a true media whore. Once he started becoming a credible candidate journalists of course started combing through those piles. As one would expect since he's such an undisciplined person, a steady trickle to gush of tape putting him in a negative light followed. The Access Hollywood tapes weren't the first (the Howard Stern tapes had been reported on, but the pro-Trump media didn't highlight them much) and they certainly won't be the last. No conspiracy theory needed to explain such unremarkable facts.
If Clinton had been caught on tape making crude references to engaging in lesbian affairs then I'd expect media outlets to publish allegations from supposed lovers.
BD: "without any real vetting that I can see."
Mr. W: The alleged assailant saying on tape that he grabs women by the pussy was the vetting.
Trump was not speaking about any actual woman or event in that audio tape.
In any case, the Democrat media did not use that tape as "vetting" because they released their stories immediately after the release of the tape, which means they had the stories for some days (if not weeks) before the tape was released.
Mr. W: Joseph, I've seen no evidence that the Clinton campaign provided the tape. Trump has been a celebrity for decades. There's piles and piles of tape and recordings of him, he was a true media whore. Once he started becoming a credible candidate journalists of course started combing through those piles.
The press has no access to outtake recordings from television shows. This is private property.
Now think to which candidate do the television studios give millions of dollars?
Mr. W: And I guess you're going to denounce the October wikileaks as October surprises?
Of course, Wikileaks publication of DNC emails during the Dem convention and the current publication of Podesta emails is meant to influence the election.
Wikileaks problem is the Democrat media has no intention of running stories of the corruption and dirty tricks discussed in those emails. Rather, they run clips of Podesta blaming the Russians and CNN actually told their viewers that they woudl break the law by going to read the emails themselves.
Like I noted before, the Democrat media does not do GOP October surprises.
It's an unwarranted assumption that they had these allegations before hand. As you just yourself said it's not uncommon for victims of sexual assault to not come forward until some request or triggering corroboration happens. The alleged assailant bragging on tape about engaging in the very same behavior certainly qualifies.
But let's say your assumption were actually true. Then it would be in the media's favor that they didn't publish the allegations until they had something like a tape of the alleged assailant bragging about commiting the very same acts mentioned in the allegations.
"The press has no access to outtake recordings from television shows. This is private property."
You goofball, Access Hollywood is owned by 'the press' NBC. The press doesn't need a campaign to give it what it already has.
There's actually stories about how the tape surfaced and they're completely reasonable and mundane. Remember at the time Trump was engaged in a wildly unprofessional and disturbing series of attacks on a former Ms Universe he had mistreated. Access Hollywood people remembered they had something they reasonably assumed related to that story. They dug into their archives and found it. They were going to release it but their parent company decided to run it first. The Post found out about the tape and ran the story seven minutes before NBC did.
Mr. W: It's an unwarranted assumption that they had these allegations before hand.
At minimum, under normal news media procedure, the reporter would receive a tip, would need to track down the complaining witness and speak with her, then would pitch the story to her editor. Because of the magnitude of the story, the editorial board would likely discuss it and then kick it back with instructions to the reporter. The reporter would perform follow up investigation and then write an initial draft of the story. The draft would go through editing and revisions. Only then would it be published. This take more than a day or two.
When I commented that I saw no evidence of vetting, I meant that the Democrat media did not report that they attempted to corroborate the stories. No application of the second source rule.
SPAM I AM! at 10:39 AM parenthetically says:
"(this is an actual rumor)"
demonstrating SPAM I AM!'s vileness. SPAM I AM! may have actually started the rumor. In any event, he wishes to spread it here..
"No application of the second source rule."
The second source to allegations that Trump forced kisses on women and assaulted them by groping their genitals was the tape of Trump bragging that he forces kisses on women and grabs them by the pussy.
BD: "The press has no access to outtake recordings from television shows. This is private property."
Mr. W: Access Hollywood is owned by 'the press' NBC. The press doesn't need a campaign to give it what it already has.
NBC News has no legal access to the archives of Access Hollywood.
Comcast through its subsidiary NBCUniversal Television Distribution distributes Access Hollywood. It does not own the product.
NBCUniversal Television Distribution does not even distribute NBC News.
Remember at the time Trump was engaged in a wildly unprofessional and disturbing series of attacks on a former Ms Universe he had mistreated.
The Clinton campaign used the former Ms. Universe in a hit on Trump. Trump punched back by noting that Ms. Universe did porn. Ms Universe promptly disappeared.
Access Hollywood people remembered they had something they reasonably assumed related to that story. They dug into their archives and found it.
Nonsense. The audio tape had nothing at all to do with Ms. Universe or any other actual woman.
Far more likely, the Clintons oppo trolls contacted Clinton supporters working on Trump shows to go through the raw video and audio for dirty laundry, likely with the help of those Clinton supporters.
Mr. W., I provided the link to the opinion above, but here it is:
I really thank the author of this article, the article has great significance for me, it just leads me to do better things for this life. Very meaningful, thank you very much, wish you happy
Mobimatic App Builder
Mobimatic App Builder
Mobimatic App Builder
Mobimatic App Builder
Mobimatic App Builder
Mobimatic App Builder
f aNonsense. The audio tape had nothing at all to do with Ms. Universe or any other actual woman.
Of all the crazy things you say this might top it. 'Trump was talking about how he objectifies and assaults women generally, no one could find that related to his insulting and mistreating a woman!
Also, there was no porn tape. Ms Univese didn't 'go away,' it's that the story of Trump'caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women naturally overshadows his unprofessional boorish behavior towards Machado.
Lastly, I highly doubt you know who has access to what here, but at the least if you find it so remarkable that the company that distributed the show might have access to the tape it was preparing to air and shared it with another subsidiary of its parent company that you have to resort to a conspiracy theory then says more about your strange mix of paranoid doubt and partisan credulity than anything else.
SPAM I AM!'s:
"Far more likely, the Clintons oppo trolls contacted Clinton supporters working on Trump shows to go through the raw video and audio for dirty laundry, likely with the help of those Clinton supporters."
ignores the actual rumor of JEBberwocky at work with the Trump/Bush tapes. And Billy Bush got sacked from the Today show with a paltry $9 million severance package. In MA, pols have a saying "Don't get mad, get even." Was The Donald egged by Billy?
BD: Of all the crazy things you say this might top it. 'Trump was talking about how he objectifies and assaults women generally, no one could find that related to his insulting and mistreating a woman!
This is called innuendo, not evidence.
If a court of law was trying Trump for criminal sexual assault based on the testimony of the alleged victim, no competent judge would allow the prosecution to enter the audio of Trump making those general comments as proof that he perpetrated the alleged act because such audio is not relevant evidence and is merely offered to inflame the jury against the defendant.
Of course, this is precisely the reason the Clinton campaign and its Democrat media allies published this audio in October before an election.
We can do "The Innuendo"
We can dance and sing
When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
We all know that Kraft is king
Give us dirty laundry!
Don Henley - Dirty Laundry
It's interesting to note the origin of Bart's talking point buzzword of the day. October Surprise was coined by a GOP operative regarding his conspiracy theory which did not come true that Carter was going to try to affect the 1980 election by getting the hostages in Iran released weeks before the election went down). So it indeed seems appropriate for our resident wannabe GOP partisan to use it to refer to his 1/4 baked conspiracy theory here
It's not innuendo. He explicitly brags about doing the exact same things his victims allege he did to them
Imagine if Clinton were on tape saying 'I love sending classified material in my private emails, I do it all the time!' Would Bart says 'alas, that doesn't help establish her guilt re any specific charge of her illegally sending sending such emails, she's not talking about any actual emails'
Mr. W: Imagine if Clinton were on tape saying 'I love sending classified material in my private emails, I do it all the time!
If the US Attorney was prosecuting Clinton of violating the provision(s) of the Espionage Act by using her private email to communicate and store classified information and was offering her course of conduct throughout her tenure as SecState as evidence, such an audio is very arguably admissible as a relevant admission to that course of conduct.
The Donald trump tape is not analogous.
I see the update. (1) Yes, don't hold your breath. That's dangerous. (2) Civil War? What will be this year's Fort Sumter? An isolated bird sanctuary?
Regarding the update, I again point out that I'm probably the typical candidate for participating in that sort of thing, given my history, and I don't see her simply being elected as cause for insurrection.
But I could see her doing things that might spark one, given how much contempt she has for a large part of the country. She'd have to work at causing one, but I wouldn't rule out her putting that work in.
Hillary Clinton voices the "contempt" of probably the median of the nation of various things Trump has supported and various groups that "supported" (as compared to just gone along ala a Paul Ryan) him has.
This would be racism, sexism, boorish behavior, lack of some minimum knowledge and ability to President (or supporting such a person) and so forth. Nonetheless, her message -- unlike Trump's "trust me and don't put too many rules to restrain" often is -- is that she will work within the system, including with Republicans in Congress as she did when she was in the Senate.
The people who Trump is "angry" at etc. seem to be held "in contempt" by him and his supporters too, but perhaps they are less likely to see 1861 as an ideal precedent.
BTW, I myself wouldn't read what she said at the fundraising event that literally though some who "were determined to construe every word out of her mouth in the worst possible light" might be more likely to do so.
HRC, after decades of Republican attacks on her and her family/friends, probably holds more contempt than some for her opponents. Her forceful reactions is one thing that appeals to some of her supporters. But, just how much this is poisoning her every action or something is unclear to me.
At any rate, again, she has said and shown repeated ability -- in no way shown in a comparable way by Trump -- to work with the opposition she doesn't like that much. The "take no quarter" approach some have for their opposition here is not present there.
"The Donald trump tape is not analogous."
It's exactly analogous, in both cases the person makes a general statement about how the engage in the exact behavior that is the subject of the respective allegations.
Brett, what's the worst thing you see Clinton doing as President? Mind you she's at the very least going to have a Senate with the GOP able to filibuster.
The worst legislation for gun owners that might get passed in the next four years would be a background check law. Maybe you think that's a waste of time or unconstitutional in some way but it's hardly oppressive.
And the worst thing SCOTUS might do is limit the Heller right to in the home or exclude 'assault' weapons from it, in which case it'll be up to each state.
BD: The Donald trump tape is not analogous.
It's exactly analogous, in both cases the person makes a general statement about how the engage in the exact behavior that is the subject of the respective allegations.
In your hypo, Clinton is admitting to the precise course of conduct which constitutes the violation in my hypothetical trial.
In the audio transcript, Trump is not discussing any of these women and the acts he discusses are not what most of the women were alleging.
There is some reason to think the filibuster might end though who knows & a complete abolition is less likely than a reduction of it in various ways.
I'm not worried about legislation. I'm worried about, "stroke of the pen, law of the land".
Take "Operation Choke Point", for instance. Nothing remotely legislative about it. But it still happened, and by accounts I've seen, is still happening. Financial institutions being bullied into cutting off service to companies the administration didn't like, by threats of abusive action by regulators.
The IRS targeting scandal wasn't legislative. In fact, it was flatly illegal. But it still happened.
The BATF abuses that led to Ruby Ridge and Waco weren't legislative.
A long, long list of abuses, that really did and do happen, were not legislative.
And which nobody got prosecuted for committing, by the way.
Bottom line, the Executive branch is the branch of government that does things. The law is supposed to dictate what it does, but nothing magically constrains an administration that doesn't like the law to follow it.
Hillary will not lack for ways to attack groups she despises, (And I'm a member of several at once.) even without a bit of legislation to legalize what she does.
No, in my hypo Trump says he forcibly kisses and grabs women by their genitals, the exact behavior behind the allegations of sexual assault leveled at him. It's directly analogous.
Other branches "does things" and at other points Brett has strongly criticized them for so doing, including in respect to the Supreme Court. But, though checked, the executive does have a lot of power. His list, selective and deserving of pushback as it might be, is appreciated to get a window into his sentiments.
"Other branches "does things""
In the sense that they hold trials, or pass laws. But if you lose a judicial branch trial, it's the executive branch that carries out the sentence. If the legislature passes a law, it gets enforced by the executive. Or not...
Basically, such power the other two branches have, they have on the assumption that the executive is actually following the rules. An awful lot rides on that assumption.
We have one solitary legal avenue if the executive decides it's not going to follow the law, and that's impeachment. And impeachment is a dead end as long as 34 Democratic Senators regard a D after your name as acquitting you, which is pretty much the case.
Brett, fair enough point, those examples do seem generally worrisome.
eh. The IRS scandal, when you actually look at the details, is a lot less than met the eye, and involved application of an already underenforced tax exemption process. We also have singe incidents from the 1990s (if we are worried about targeting "dangerous religious groups," I think the other person is more of a concern; as to unlawful use of lethal of force, that's a concern in general, what example is cited?not seeing much sympathy for others there). And, we are now worried about the government doing TOO MUCH to investigate financial institutions?
This is what is supposed to be so bad that it results in serious thought of a civil war? I'm not going to handwave the dangers of executive power, but the list is informative in its selective nature.
The boys in the hood were dining at a Chinese restaurant discussing The Donald's being upset about a "rigged election" and their waiter asked: "What's the problem with a rigid erection?"
Again, Brett at other times is strongly critical of the courts "doing things," especially because as a rule they are followed even when the executive and legislature is strongly opposed to what they did. Gore in 2000 is but one compelling case. Each branch has powers that often are in practice not checked much. District court judges have broad powers, appeals courts having limited discretion to overturn them. etc.
The executive has limited power to carry things out and others have various ways including election, investigations, funding, exposure in the press and so forth to check them. The executive needs assistance to do things and acting alone without making accommodations to satisfy others in time is shown to be far from easy.
That hypo I gave you about a GOP October surprise alleging Clinton engaging in lesbian affairs this morning is a National Enquirer reality this afternoon - plus some.
You cannot make this stuff up
Oh yes the National Enquirer can make that up, making stuff up is what they're known for (more recently known as a Trump booster as well).
And more Clinton perjury concerning her obstruction of justice...Post a Comment
I expect our Democrat media watchdogs to studiously pursue other stories.
Hey, look over there! Squirrel!