Republican Party Turmoil, Vol. 82

Don't think this means your vote doesn't matter. It does, check your voter registration today. It's not just the presidency but control of the House and Senate that's at stake.

< Clinton and Trump: The Second Debate | Yom Kippur: Day of Atonement and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My mail in ballot should be (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    in the Post Office today, so I'll pick it up on the way to the gym tomorrow morning.  On second thought maybe I better pick it up on the way home, since I plan to wear my Clinton 2016 t shirt.  Too many angry Republicans roaming the streets and bars down in town.  One of my cats appears to be a Trump cat, since she likes to attack me, but the other one will vote with me for food.

    I'd mention recent polling here (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    But no real need for that. The Clinton lead is expanding and the political life of Trump outside of possibly the future Trump Network is over.

    Trump Donors Seek Refunds (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 05:20:40 AM EST
    Florida's voter registration deadline extended (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by vml68 on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    by a week to October 18th. LINK

    Too bad, Rick Scott!

    Well that's disappointing! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 07:11:44 AM EST
    I get up every morning, get myself a latte, open twitter and type don into search. Trumpenstein pops up, and I go read the over night crazy. Sigh....they've taken his Twitter away again. Very disappointing

    Tracy, I get up every morning (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by fishcamp on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 09:10:07 AM EST
    waiting to read your posts, looking for material for the gym.  I scared them yesterday when one of them said something dumb, and I glanced at my palm, and said 'let's see here'.  The fear in the eyes of the Republicans is not pretty.

    He's not giving us much to work (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 09:15:50 AM EST
    With today

    Busting into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms though, and telling 10 yr olds and 14 yr olds he's going to "date" them...oy. Maybe we have enough to work with today.


    And about his busting in, (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Nemi on Sat Oct 15, 2016 at 08:45:07 AM EST
    on the tape you can clearly hear the 'air qoutes' when he says he was, nudge-nudge, wink-wink, heh-heh-heh, "inspecting"!

    Well, I'll tell you the funniest is that before a show, I'll go backstage and everyone's getting dressed, and everything else, and you know, no men are anywhere, and I'm allowed to go in because I'm the owner of the pageant and therefore I'm inspecting it ... I sort of get away with things like that.

    And there's him fantazising about dating and even having sex with his own daughter while she, sitting right next to him, just laughs!

    Or him speculating out loud on camera about the developement of his one month old baby daughter's breasts!

    Not only is he and all these statements of his creepy, I also find the reaction, family love and loyalty notwithstanding, from his three eldest children, on Twitter and in interviews, disconcerting. Not least Ivanka's laughing ... even when Trump is asked if he's a sexual predator and he sort of mock-embarrassed agrees, she laughs and laughs 'bigly'.


    The Trump spectacle (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jondee on Sat Oct 15, 2016 at 09:26:48 AM EST
    is starting to turn into a hideously surreal train wreck..

    A tawdry reality show within a reality show. When real life outpaces even the most imaginative satire..

    I think I'm going to need opioids or something stronger to actually stomach the next debate.

    The only thing enjoyable about any of this is the thought that the right wing jagoffs have been emptying the worlds biggest chamber pot into the teeth of the wind with their decades-long, obsessive, Hunting-The-Snark anti-Hillary jihad..They practically laid entire virgin forests to waste writing for naught all those endless "The Truth About Hillary" doorsteps and yard sale dust-collectors. Limbaugh all these years sounding like Ahab living to do nothing but wreck his vengeance upon the Clinton white
    whale. Well, suck it up, fat boy. Your worst nightmare has come true.


    I agree. This whole election (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2016 at 09:49:55 AM EST
    has a huge positive. The whole right wing post factual media empire is being completely blown up.

    Bahahahaha! (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 09:24:50 AM EST
    Painted into such a corner you can't even look Girl Scouts in the eye.

    Give it back! (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 10:23:14 AM EST
    I do the exact same thing,  the I check again at the office.  I probably shouldn't enjoy someone's self-destructive actions - particularly when they're so hateful - but he deserves it soooooo much.

    2 more women come forward (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 12:37:15 PM EST
    Do you think Conway can keep a hold on that device? In my mind a wrestling match is going down somewhere

    I called all my reps (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    to see if they were still supporting Trump.

    Any answers? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 03:52:37 PM EST
    Oh, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    Full throated support from Isakson. Isakson is up for election this year. Full throated support from Perdue which was not surprising in the least. He already had a problem with women. Perdue probably thinks what Trump said was great. The most reticent was my rep Barry Loudermilk which was kind of surprising.

    Hope it is OK to post this link that my son just (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cashmere on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    sent to me re: Wikilinks, Russia and Trump.  http://tinyurl.com/gljct6k

    from Glenn Greenwald (none / 0) (#4)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 03:26:59 PM EST
    the title of the article is In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

    Donald Trump, for reasons I've repeatedly pointed out, is an extremist, despicable, and dangerous candidate, and his almost-certain humiliating defeat is less than a month away. So I realize there is little appetite in certain circles for critiques of any of the tawdry and sometimes fraudulent journalistic claims and tactics being deployed to further that goal. In the face of an abusive, misogynistic, bigoted, scary, lawless authoritarian, what's a little journalistic fraud or constant fearmongering about subversive Kremlin agents between friends if it helps to stop him?

    But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. -- more so than ever -- and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

    the article is long, & it's a lot of inside baseball

    but it's important:

    For a long time, liberals heralded themselves as part of the "reality-based community" and derided conservatives as faith-based victims of "epistemic closure." The dynamics seen here are anything but byproducts of reason.

    i did not, in my lifetime, expect my Democratic Party to become the party of McCarthyism

    Jeralyn, i apologize if this should be in an open thread


    The party doesn't belong to you (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 04:05:59 PM EST
    i did not, in my lifetime, expect my Democratic Party to become the party of McCarthyism.

    I did not, in my lifetime, expect the word "McCarthyism" to be so abused and diminished by such misuse.


    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    but Glenn goes too much into some conspiratorial stuff. McCarthyism is about communism. Do you not realize that Russia is no longer a communist state? Russia is basically unregulated capitalism these days more even closer to Pinochet type capitalism where people are oppressed in the name of capitalism. Are we now okay with a guy that jails journalists and gay people? There is a reason why conservatives love this guy so much. And Assange is not going to be sent off to some third world country to face charges. It's Bernie's utopia of the socialist democracy of Sweden for Pete's sake.

    The dynamics of tribal group think (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 06:11:44 PM EST
    isn't a conspiracy theory.

    It goes on here, and it goes on at Breitbart.

    During this election year, at times it reached a fever pitch verging on hysteria.


    He doesn't provide (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 07:26:08 PM EST
    any evidence and weaves stuff together to create a narrative much more like Breitbart than the people here do. I can clip this and clip that and say Jondee is a drug trafficker and a murderer. We wouldn't want what Glenn is piecing together to be a case against anybody. The release of personal information doesn't bother you? It does me.

    Hysteria isn't coming from me. I just think Glenn should have more skepticism than to just take Wikileaks on face value and there's no way Glenn can authenticate any of the documents it seems. The fact that Putin is behind this kind of stuff should bother everyone.

    And I find it odd that Glenn being someone that Putin would love to put in jail as someone who does business with Putin.


    Small correction (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Nemi on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 07:42:44 AM EST
    but big difference: Sweden is a Social, not 'socialist', Democracy.

    doesn't McCarthyism now refer to... (none / 0) (#22)
    by linea on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 09:46:02 PM EST
    creating an environment of hysteria by making unfair allegations to gain politcal advantage or restrict political criticism?

    and Sweden is Democratic Socialist -NOT- a socialist democracy!! and if you "practical" people had voted for bernie in the primaries we would be on the verge of real change and an actual - really actual - improvement in america that makes my life better.


    Because Bernie is a unicorn (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 01:27:35 AM EST
    That farts flowers and rainbows. You realize we voted Obama in believing all that too...and it turned out he had to have a House and Senate that agreed with him before he could even fart a corsage or a reflecting water droplet.

    Ok, I voted O as the least of available evils ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 02:50:21 AM EST
    ...and I have zero regrets about it, especially since his presidency moved the ball forward farther than I expected in a lot of areas. I hope an HRC presidency will work out similarly for sceptics such as linea.

    I have no regrets about Obama (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 08:27:04 AM EST
    But I remember exactly how all the unicorn dreamers felt the night he announced he was taking us all deeper into Afghanistan. And I had a family member going and I wasn't as upset as everyone else ;) Obama said, "I'm going to Afghanistan" on the campaign trail...and I guess nobody heard what they didn't want to hear.

    And he had the House and Senate on opening day, but did very little that was decisive and America was so PO'd about that they went back to Fox News.

    Would Clinton have done it any better? I dunno, I didn't get that Presidency for that time.


    No surprises for me either (none / 0) (#32)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 08:57:29 AM EST
    Clinton would have gone in with a clearer idea what she was up against and IMO a better grip on the economic situation, but I don't know if that would have gotten more out of Congress. She'd have had the same unreliable so-called allies O did.

    Bernie would have (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 07:11:25 AM EST
    been ripped to shreds in short order. So if that's being "practical" then yeah, I'm "practical".

    Yes, I do wonder (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peter G on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 07:50:58 AM EST
    although I suppose there is no way to know. If Bernie had won the Democratic nomination, but everything else had developed since then more or less as it has, what would be the state of the race today?

    he would've won (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by pitachips on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 07:59:10 AM EST
    Trump never had a chance.

    The lesson to learn is that if you have an opening you better take it. I'm guessing Biden, Warner and others are probably kicking themselves for not jumping in the race.


    I'm not sure. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 10:12:07 AM EST
    Bernie wrote women want to be raped. Trump says we all want to be grabbed. It would have been misogyny writ large. Bernie has a long voting record that has a lot of problems in it. He still could have won but it wouldn't be by much. He certainly would not have carried Florida and Georgia would not be a swing state with Bernie.

    They all had the chance to jump in and punted. I seriously doubt they are kicking themselves. Biden I don't think really was emotionally ready to do a presidential campaign. Warner did one before and ended up dropping out.


    would you have voted for Sanders (none / 0) (#43)
    by pitachips on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 08:09:26 PM EST
    If it were he vs Trump?

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    it would have been a moot point since I live in GA.

    The point is (none / 0) (#58)
    by pitachips on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    I'm sure there are people in Ohio and Florida who were just as skeptical of sanders as you that would still have voted for him over Trump.

    Hopefully he ends up dragging the party down the tubes. Will be fun to watch.


    Could be, but I think Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 11:54:51 AM EST
    has had a perfect strategy, perfectly executed. She picked her staff, so they all get the credit.  I think the books written about he campaign will be really interesting.

    If she had taken the bait on any one of the htings Trump has thrown out there it could have been an entirely different story. She has shown superhuman discipline.

    Would the other contenders have brought all of that to the table? I kinda doubt it. Would it have mattered - would half her campaign acumen and discipline still been enough to win? Maybe.


    Bernie ran (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 12:16:35 PM EST
    a picture perfect campaign for Vermont. It works there and it appeals to some of the base. However it does not work in a national campaign. that kind of thing just doesn't translate into the kind of campaign you have to run nationally. And Bernie didn't show the self discipline in the primaries either.

    We'll never know (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    for sure since Bernie was never really vetted during the primary. Bernie and Trump would largely be competing for the same demographic of white working class voters but Trump would win them since Bernie called himself a socialist. People here want to deny that socialism is a problem but it is a problem looking at the polls. Right off the bat 1/2 of the country would not vote for Bernie.

    But if Bernie had won (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    the nomination, Hillary would have been leading the charge to support him, just as she supported Obama, and the Dems would have solidified behind him. It would have taken work to get minorities as solidly behind him as they are for Hillary, but, in the end, I think Bernie would win. I agree Bernie had not been vetted, but there would have been no emails, false Benghazi claims, allegations about speeches, etc.

    What would have happened (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 10:02:30 PM EST
    to Bernie is what is happening to Trump. He would have had everything unloaded on him at the right moment to collapse his campaign. Yes, I'm sure Hillary would have supported Bernie if he was the candidate but he would not have unified the party and there probably would have been a lot of candidates that would refuse to endorse him because of his history. We would not be looking at getting the senate. In a way the GOP did us a huge favor in their attempt to take Hillary down in the primary. They unloaded on her early and she took the hits but she weathered them. They've run out of gas.

    the one leading the charge to support (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    and perform as a surrogate is not the person that builds the staff and organization.

    I don't know what Bernie Sanders commitment (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    To surrogates is. The day after the Democratic convention he was no longer a Democrat.

    In Bernie's defense, (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Oct 16, 2016 at 09:20:07 AM EST
    he is actively campaigning for Hillary.

    Wikileaks Is Only an Intermediary (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Michael Masinter on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 06:35:45 PM EST
    Why should I trust Wikileaks when it releases material from anonymous sources it cannot independently verify? Glenn doesn't ask me to rely on the integrity of Wikileaks, but on the integrity of Russian hackers. That's a bridge too far.  Yes, the emails associated with the Clinton campaign appear to be unaltered, but that's no assurance that what will follow, courtesy of Putin's hackers, will be in either the weeks between now and the election, or after President-elect Clinton takes office. I fully expect a Russian disinformation campaign, aided and abetted by Wikileaks as it piously claims to be a disinterested intermediary.  And I don't for a minute buy the innocent mistake claim he makes for Sputnik.  Sputnik took its story down after others revealed to be false, not because it discovered through its own efforts that it had made a mistake.

    To be clear, I am not a fawning new Democrat centrist, but neither am I stupid, and I wasn't born yesterday. Faith based acceptance is the exclusive province of religious believers, and I don't worship Putin or anyone else.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    Glenn Greenwald has no way of authenticating any of this material, and asks us to accept it at his word. That's always a challenge with any material which has been leaked.

    Further, because this material is at minimum the product of a disruption campaign by a foreign power which is clearly targeting our country's elections and perhaps even our electoral process itself, such an acceptance is as you said, a bridge too far. We're dealing with documents from a very untrustworthy source here.

    As such, Greenwald is what the Russians might call a "useful idiot."


    There's a lot of that going around (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 05:24:48 AM EST

    Then I'll let BTD weigh in on the subject. (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 09:54:33 AM EST
    Via Twitter this morning:

    "Let me construct a sinister narrative I don't believe about an element of the Media. It was a huge and important story and Glenn [Greenwald] is rightly proud of his work. [Edward] Snowden ended up in Russia where he remains to this day.

    "In this election there are serious allegations that Russia is actively supporting Donald Trump. Russia's confirmed protest at the UN on behalf of Trump, an unprecedented act, seems to confirm this. Glenn has been very defensive for Russia, labeling criticisms as redbaiting.

    "Is Glenn acting this way because of Russia's support of Snowden instead of the merits of the story? That's what a person could say. I don't believe that for a second. It's true that I was once friends with Glenn and am not anymore but I believe in his personal integrity.

    "But I also know Glenn lets his personal biases, not ideology, but biases, cloud his reporting. He hates Hillary Clinton. He'll deny it but he does. And that clouds his reporting on this election, any rational and fair person can see it.

    "Here's my point - the exercise I did creating a narrative of bias for him on Russia is precisely what he and The Intercept do in every election story. Everything Clinton is nefarious. Everything about election coverage is anti-Trump.

    "This is a disservice to him and his publication, when your credibility is shot then your important stories will be discounted. Glenn has important stories to report. But not about this election."

    BTD is not the only one besides me and others here who has taken notice of The Intercept's biased anti-Clinton slant under Greenwald's direction during this election campaign. There's also Charles Pierce's observation from yesterday:

    "If there is one thing I would like before this endless campaign grinds to its miserable - and now, apparently inevitable - end, it is to ask all of my colleagues in this business to stop pretending that they are shocked by politics and the sharp elbows and sharper practices involved therein. Mock horror is a calamitous pretense on which to base your coverage of anything, let alone a vital presidential election that has been dragged onto rancid ground because one of our two major political parties nominated a vulgar talking yam.

    "Exhibit A: the latest scooplet from The Intercept, in which we discover that the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton literally wined and dined some influential political journalists-which, by the way, has been a practice of political campaigns ever since influential political journalists were setting type by hand and publishing their work by pasting it in the windows of their print shops."


    "The source [which is Guccifer 2.0 - DfmHI] 'identifies himself' as someone whose previous hacks have had a tangible effect on the campaign. This, apparently, gives the revelation more credibility than the flat statement from the administration, although there's no more (or less) substance to the sourcing of the report than there is to the administration's response. The earth-shaking revelation, of course, is that the Clinton campaign is trying to buy favorable coverage by courting what it perceives to be the influential members of the elite political press. The implication, which is both foul and unproven, is that it worked.

    "In other words, [Maggie Haberman of the New York Times] pretty much informed her readers accurately what was going on in the Clinton campaign, but that is given a sinister edge [by The Intercept] because of the way the information was obtained, and because it can be made to conform to a narrative of artificial mystery. This is some cheap work."



    Your Democratic Party (none / 0) (#6)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 04:05:06 PM EST
    has an election to win.  We can worry about pious principles that ultimately have little to do with most folks day-to-day lives later.

    People are rightly concerned about pious principles that defend the idea that exposure of their private conversations w/o their consent is OK as long as it's in the name of....what exactly?

    Please point to any actual good the hacking and subsequent release of info has led to.

    That Glenn doesn't discuss recent reports that indicate heavy Russian involvement is suspect and ultimately not surprising.


    thank you for making Glenn's point (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 04:25:51 PM EST
    saves everyone time

    Glens point (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    seems to be anything that Wikileaks does is good and holy and absolutely beyond reproach, never mind that Assange seems to have have an agenda and Russian involvement is almost undeniable.

    Greenwald rails against journalists and politicians who seem to be taking these leaks with a huge grain of salt, which well they should, while he insists that we must take Wikileaks on faith. Maybe Eichenwald was over the top on twitter but his reporting has always been solid and anybody who does not see the Russian hacking to Wikileaks to Russian media to Trumps lips connection should not call himself a journalist.

    Just the timing and the targets of these leaks leaves almost nothing left to doubt about the motives of the parties involved  and I think American Journalists should be extremely wary about jumping on this particular "Scandal" train.

    I think Eichenwald was well within his rights to squash that particular "false" email with both feet and even if he has no proof of wrongdoing against Wikileaks it surely is proof that cherry picked and misconstrued emails can and will be used as political fodder against the Democrats as per plan.


    It all depends (none / 0) (#41)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    Upon whose ox is gored.

    Wikileaks was revered for so long, as speaking truth to power.

    Now, those now in power, Wikileaks has an agenda, cannot be trusted, and is a arm of the Russian government.

    Actually, the motive is simple and has always been known.

    Assange detests Madame Sec, and will try to strike her down, for obvious reasons.

    Now Putin also detests Madame Sec, and will try to take her down, again for obvious reasons. Madame Sec , after a Russian election, claimed that the fix was in. Putin did not take kindly to that, and reciprocation had to be expected.

    Assange and Putin have no love for The Donald, they most likely consider him a buffoon, no matter who was running against Madame Sec, these e mails would have been released.

    And these e mails continue to make a strong case that the current political class needs to thrown out, completely.


    You're welcome (none / 0) (#9)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    glad I could help.

    Though pious principles... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    can make all the new age drudgery of day to day more bearable, and give it an extra sense of purpose.

    When ya cut corners on principles, there can be trouble. Sh:t the Trump Train can be called the natural negative outcome of years of unprincipled governance, amongst other factors.



    Win the battle first (none / 0) (#16)
    by vicndabx on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 06:19:30 PM EST
    Win the war later. One person's unprincipled governance is another person's compromise in the interest of good governance.

    Look I'm all for the transparency GG advocates for.  However, that needs to be prioritized. Let's not do the typical Democrat thing and let our piety cause us to lose in the short term. The coalition needs all the support it can get. Fact is there is, apparently, significant evidence a foreign gov't is trying to influence our elections. To me, that's a pretty big deal. That GG defends it as the echo chamber assumes people can't think for themselves and make a judgment call about their politicians being.... wait for it, political.

    Maybe I'm biased because I work with people's sensitive info every day. I have a real problem with people who break into other people's private communications and data, and then tell me their motives are in my best interest.  

    IMO, the principle we should be looking to shore up is rejection of despot, racist, misogynistic, trickle down one percenter as leader of our country. The foibles of the Democratic party are trivial when compared against.


    the principle could be (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 09:36:53 PM EST
    honesty and fact-checking in reporting. When first set of hacked emails came out, there was a story (sorry, it was a while ago & I don't recall) online citing a cybersecurity expert who had looked at the Russian-sourced leaked emails and described evidence that they were altered by the Russian source. The reason, IMO, the positions of Wikileaks and GG are faulty is just that -- they are taking their source at face value without investigating. To evaluate the leaked materials, one requires a cybersecurity expert and some versed in Russian. Simply reporting what the emails say as leaked is not, in my book, top quality reporting.

    Nice guys finish last, right? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by jondee on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 05:58:32 PM EST
    The Democrats always have an election to win.

    The ethos that claims that principals are irrelevant to real life is what keeps crack dealers and muggers from second-guessing themselves..

    I like what Gary Shandling said: people who say nice guys finish last, don't know where the finish line is.


    Real life (none / 0) (#19)
    by FlJoe on Tue Oct 11, 2016 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    is winning elections, very few individuals or institutions  winning elections, very few individuals or institutions in the entire human history have lived up to a highly principled "ethos"(at least not for long), there are always trade offs. Always.

    The rub is what you're willing to trade... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    I will say this, the Dems appear to be promising to giveaway less of the store to win this one than they did in '92.  

    That's something resembling progress...I guess.


    There is a lot more support for (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    liberal ideas now than there was in '92, coming off the Reagan years. Hard to remember now how conservative the mood of the country was in those days, but it was pretty bad. Dems had not had a POTUS since Carter, who was not liked enough to be re-elected (and was not a liberal). Before that - Johnson. So they really were in the wilderness, and expected to be there for a long time to come.

    Shhhhhh (none / 0) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 06:28:05 PM EST
    Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 06:46:32 PM EST
    no white knight is going to show up to save you. However your trajectory of concern trolling here completely correlate with what has been going on with the GOP. They have been so concerned with attempting to take out Hillary in the primary that they ignored the five alarm dumpster fire going on in their own party. I guess if I were you and were desperate I would hang onto some Putin Leaks for dear life. Did you know that Roger Stone got the info months ago from Putin?

    I don't think it's an accident (none / 0) (#48)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Oct 12, 2016 at 11:22:34 PM EST
    ...that the bad news is coming out about Trump's past at a measured rate.  While he reacts to the last, the next one comes out.

    I think the HRC oppo and psychological research task force is doling it out as needed to keep the Trump team off balance.

    "Trump team."  Did you see what I did there?

    Exactly (none / 0) (#49)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 05:38:29 AM EST
    This stuff should have come out after the Megyn Kelly incident. The Clinton camp had all this, and held on to it.
    And NBC news had the Billy Bush tape back in August, and they themselves acted on Madame Sec behalf by holding onto the tape until just prior to a debate.

    Trevor (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 05:53:51 AM EST
    there is no reason why the GOP could not have used any of this to take Trump down during the primaries. The fact that they didn't do oppo research or the fact that they were all too scared to use it because of the GOP base doesn't make it NBCs fault. Also there's Jeb Bush's cousin egging it on. Perhaps the GOP didn't use it for that reason--to protect Bush.  

    Yes...it's weird (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 07:31:33 AM EST
    But it's about assaulting women, something the GOP has so far not been able to understand in their hearts and minds.

    Silly! conspiracy theories (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 07:50:23 AM EST
    ... are not remotely convincing.   Facts and evidence tend to work better,  but when you have none ...

    Even if true (and I don't believe it is) (none / 0) (#55)
    by vicndabx on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    so what?  We should play nice with the politics?  Surely you're joking, you of the email, Benghazi, FBI, server silliness.

    Nonsense, Trevor. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "And NBC news had the Billy Bush tape back in August, and they themselves acted on Madame Sec behalf by holding onto the tape until just prior to a debate."

    NBC News had just hired Billy Bush as co-host for the Today show in August. Why would they knowingly do that, only to then deliberately and directly implicate him a few weeks later in this tawdry scandal?

    Your insinuation of conspiracy is stupid on its face.


    Duh!!! Nonsense Donald!!! (none / 0) (#59)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 07:24:12 PM EST
    Ole Billy was talking about it to NBC staffers while in Rio, In August

    Your denial without knowing anything is stupid on its face.

    The shot at NBC comes as negotiations resumed Thursday between the network and Bush over the terms of his exit. The former Access Hollywood host, whose contract pays him about $3 million a year, believes he has leverage in the talks because he had told NBC colleagues about his Trump conversation at least as far back as August, when he was covering the Olympics in Rio.


    See if you can tell ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 09:07:40 PM EST
    ...  the difference between your first fact-free, link-free claim and your latest fact-free, link-free claim:

    And NBC news had the Billy Bush tape back in August, and they themselves acted on Madame Sec behalf by holding onto the tape until just prior to a debate.


    Ole Billy was talking about it to NBC staffers while in Rio, In August

    It's really not hard.  The second claim has been (at least somewhat) documented in the media.  The first, has not - and they're not remotely the same.  Even if Bush mentioned tapes to other NBC staffers sometime in August, it doesn't mean that Access Hollywood found the tape in August, or gave the tape to NBC in August, or that they "acted on Madame Sec behalf" by holding onto the tape.

    Now, back to your phrase "stupid on its face" ...


    Oh, for Pete's sake, Trevor. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 12:21:19 AM EST
    If NBC News had this evidence as you claim and were acting as agents of the Clinton campaign, then why would they have even hired Billy Bush as co-host of the 'Today Show" in the first place, if they knew all along that they were going to blow him up with this Access Hollywood video and suspend / fire him eight weeks later? You're not making any sense at all.

    I get it that you're upset because your party is circling the electoral drain, but that doesn't give you license to come here and level outrageous insinuations that have no basis in reality or fact.



    Oh for Pete's sake Donald (none / 0) (#73)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 04:24:32 AM EST
    Do you even read what you post?

    Billy Bush WAS HIRED by NBC and went to the Rio Olympics for them.

    While there , he told various NBC employees about the Donald Trump video with access Hollywood.

    NBC always had the tape, and were playing politics, instead of acting like a news organization, but that has been expected from the media for years now.

    Just ask Donna Brazile


    Given that (a) you weren't in Rio ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    ... with Billy Bush, and (b) you don't work for NBC News, you have no basis for making such outlandishly nonsensical claims about NBC being in the tank for Mrs. Clinton -- that is, other than whatever increasingly desperate conspiratorial swill is presently being served up by Alex Jones over on AM squawk radio.

    Look, your candidate Trump is done. (And please don't insult our intelligence by insisting that he's not, because you've very clearly been carrying his water here for months now.) The only outstanding question at this point is how much of the GOP will be sucked down the open storm drain by his campaign's swirling wake.

    So, please stop transcribing for us the latest hysterical right-wing outrage du jour, walk away from the keyboard, take a couple bong hits, mellow out with some Allman Brothers, and resist any further temptation to make such an embarrassing spectacle of yourself over the intertoobz.



    NBC Lol (none / 0) (#89)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 08:25:03 PM EST
    Michael Isikoff would like NBC to release some   more old video they have, of a interview with Juanita Broaddrick, where they edited out her claims regarding Madame Sec. You know , as long as they are now running old tapes they have, that is , unless they are carrying water for a candidate.

    Michael Isikoff
    Yahoo News
    Broaddrick told her story to NBC and the WashPost in 99. Both organizations closely vetted her story and chose to run it. Also, NBC has the full tape of the original Lisa Meyers interview. Folks have made much of the fact that her claim about...

    Tim Burger
    VICE Contributor
    Yes, her affidavit, as I recall, was chilling.
    Michael Isikoff
    Yahoo News
    the conversation she had with Hillary wasn't in the interview that run. Broaddrick said it got cut out; Lisa Myers has since agreed Broaddrick said this then- and NBC chose to cut it out..So NBC ought to check its archive ...
    Michael Isikoff
    Yahoo News
    and run the full interview. (AS long as they're now culling their archives!)

    And I am still voting for McMullin, as I said during the primary process, I would never vote for The Donald. I could not vote for The Donald, or Madame Sec.

    I am not insulting anything you continue to prove you do not have. Written english seems to be challenging for you, and for a couple of others as well. Just because I cannot vote for Madame Sec does not make The Donald my candidate, that is pretty plain and simple. Personally, I would like to see both campaigns go down in flames. One is a proven buffoon, and the other , well her trustworthy numbers alone tell that story.  


    Her "trustworthy numbers" ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 09:27:24 PM EST
    ... are still orders of magnitude better than yours - and you haven't been the subject of wingnut conspiracy theories for 25 years.

    No idea what point you're babbling about with regard to Broadrick (and you still don't provide links), but it doesn't really matter.


    No, it doesn't. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Oct 15, 2016 at 05:01:58 AM EST
    Moving the goal posts from NBC's perceived scheming to the imaginary travails of Juanita Broaddrick is merely indicative of the desperate plight of a sad yet defiantly delusional wingbat, whose entire political raison d'etre is presently on life support. I expect the enduring mystery of Vince Foster to be raised by him in short order.

    The fact that you're (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Oct 15, 2016 at 07:42:30 AM EST
    bringing all this up is nothing but sheer desperation. Broadricks claims were investigated by the special prosecutor. She was found to not be credible because she testified under oath in the Paula Jones that none of this was true. So any attempt to dig up 20 year old footage is just silly. Besides The Apprentice is releasing no outtakes.

    You are in denial (none / 0) (#98)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Oct 18, 2016 at 06:41:37 PM EST

    The victim should be believed

    Unless it hurts a Democrat


    The alleged "victim" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Tue Oct 18, 2016 at 07:06:27 PM EST
    ... should be believed, unless there is significant evidence that the accusations are not true.

    Trevor (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 18, 2016 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    that information is 20 years old. She signed something like 10 affidavits under oath denying it but then changed her story. She's changed her story a number of times and Ken Starr did conclude that her story was not credible. If he found it credible don't you think he would have used it? I mean this is the guy that said wearing a tie was obstruction of justice.

    But actually I'm glad Trump is bringing this all up so the truth can come out. If she's so concerned about all this why did she attack Chelsea and then endorse Trump of all people? She has proved that she has no integrity.


    And (none / 0) (#101)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Oct 18, 2016 at 08:03:27 PM EST
    exactly how does Juanita benefit from this?

    The only reason she never brought it up was to avoid publicity, but she was outed in the Paula Jones matter, and decided to tell the truth.

    No, too many of her friends back up her account from the beginning


    Her goal (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 18, 2016 at 08:19:30 PM EST
    is to help Republicans and she's become a celebrity in the alt right world. She's getting on talk shows and getting praise from Republicans. She's getting a lot of benefits. Actually no, there was only one friend from the beginning. The others were found to not have knowledge. Really Trevor though Frank Luntz has said going down this trail is deadly to Republicans. So frankly I hope you keep it up. Trump may be paying her. He did pay one of the others it was found out. Her story is full of holes and she even volunteered for Bill's campaign after she claims all this happened. Who in their right mind would do something like that if her story was true?

    No (none / 0) (#105)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 20, 2016 at 05:39:11 AM EST
    The women who claim to have been assaulted by Bill Clinton are justifiably outraged at how they were dismissed, and now the women claiming assaults against Trump are to be believed without question.

    That outrage is what has pushed them to the forefront and has them reliving such a ugly and traumatic moment in the lives


    What pushed them to the forefront (none / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 20, 2016 at 07:36:24 AM EST
    ... was the Trump campaign and the wingnut groups trying to reiterate decades-old accusations.  The difference is that Trump's accusers are just confirming the conduct that Trump himself admitted to on tape.



    That doesn't explain (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Oct 18, 2016 at 08:22:26 PM EST
    her lying under oath a number of times though. And as far as publicity, who believes that now? She's been on all the conservative talk shows tons of times over the years. She revels in the publicity.

    So you know her well? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Wed Oct 19, 2016 at 06:53:01 PM EST
    The only reason she never brought it up was to avoid publicity, but she was outed in the Paula Jones matter, and decided to tell the truth.

    Is that so?  When was that?  Now, - or when she filed a sworn affidavit denying the allegations against BC?


    It's called strategery (none / 0) (#60)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 07:37:54 PM EST
    The Clinton camp had all this, and held on to it.

    Good for them if they did.  HRC owed the vast right wing conspiracy a serious smackdown.  I hope she runs up the score and spikes the ball in his face.

    Once again, HRC has thrown the amateur off his game.  Now he will spend the next three days digging himself into a deeper hole.

    As so many are pointing out, if THIS is the breaking point, what about all the stuff they knew BEFORE they heard the indefensible recording?


    NBC (none / 0) (#61)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 07:47:35 PM EST
    Also was doing the work of the Clinton campaign. They held onto the Donald/Bush tapes instead of revealing them when they first found out about them in August.
    The media, once again , shows itself as a arm of the Democratic party

    Don't like the message? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 08:04:33 PM EST
    Shoot the messenger.

    The media, once again, shows itself as a arm of the Democratic party.

    You can't seriously be supporting the trainwreck?  Maybe you never heard of FOX News.  Have you noticed the newspaper endorsements for HRC from publications which have NEVER endorsed a Democrat?  Are they in on it?

    When in your opinion would have been the "proper" time for this eleven year old tape to be made public?

    Why would this recording of sexual predation and abuse make any difference anyway, since people who support him have already ignored all the other serious character flaws, e.g. stupidity, immaturity, misogyny, racism, megalomania and sociopathy?


    No (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 08:09:44 PM EST
    The message should have come out in August, or Semester at the latest.
    Holding onto the tape to the advantage of the Democratic Party just cements the relationship between the media and the party.

    Te tape should have been released soon after Bush told other NBC employees that it existed


    Looking for the downside (none / 0) (#66)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    The message should have come out in August, or Semester [sic] at the latest.

    Or else what?


    Huh? (none / 0) (#67)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 08:19:41 PM EST
    Trevor is a conspiracy chaser (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 08:09:55 PM EST
    Soon he'll be talking about airplane armrests.

    That is not (none / 0) (#65)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 08:13:14 PM EST
    A conspiracy, that is common knowledge.

    90% of journalists vote Democratic, and as things have gotten more polarized, they do not care about showing their true beliefs, instead of practicing their profession.
    Donna Brazile as a journalist didn't fare too well, so much for CNN credibility, e mailing Madame Sec debate questions 1 day before the debate. Word for Word


    You're melting down (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 08:48:07 PM EST
    with the rest of the GOP. Apparently NBC had been working on the story for quite a while BUT it might never have gotten airplay were it not for the WaPo.

    You are getting a taste of your own medicine. The GOP is simultaneously destroying itself. Enjoy your train wreck. I hope it's tentacles go a long way.

    You should listen to some in your own party that says your party is full of cowards. Instead of whining about "the timing" if your party had any cojones they could have found this very same tape and gotten rid of Trump. As it is they decided not to do anything about Trump and embrace him and they are still embracing him and apparently there's more to come that's much worse.


    "Common knowledge" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Yman on Thu Oct 13, 2016 at 09:12:07 PM EST
    Did you ever notice how - when someone has absolutely zero evidence to support their silly conspiracy theories - they have to fall back on "it's common knowledge"?

    I wonder if they realize that people are laughing at them?


    Oh please (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 04:31:16 AM EST
    I will not even pursue a link for you,

    Anyone else even interested, just google political affiliations , journalists, reporters.

    You are the epitome of the Pee Wee Herman character

    Common knowledge is just that, common knowledge.

    Well, for most people at least


    Of course you won't (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 09:09:33 AM EST
    Conservatives never do.   They choose silly conspiracy theories and wingnut sources over facts and evidence every time.  I assume you mean the Pew poll, which specifically warned against drawing the conclusion you drew.   Or maybe the Lichter/CDMA polls, conducted by fellow wingers, which you think are proud of your "common knowledge".

    Heh.  That's funny.


    Unless the media publishes... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 10:26:28 AM EST
    any leaked emails, then they are an arm of Russian Right Wing Oligarchy.

    On Billy Bush (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 02:48:54 AM EST
    Here are some links all from the hardly independent New York Post:

    He bragged about the Trump tape in Rio

    Billy Bush Lawyers Up

    Dancing with Stars wants him.

    One of those stories says NBC is conducting an investigation into who at NBC knew about it besides Bush.


    Do you really (none / 0) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 04:27:19 AM EST
    Think NBC will then out their employee that played politics for Madame Sec?

    Maybe, but I doubt it.

    NBC will pay off Mr Bush royally.


    You don't think (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 06:59:03 AM EST
    Jeb Bush knew about that tape? It was his cousin after all and it seems like most Bushes Billy has a penchant for running off at the mouth. It apparently was pretty common knowledge the thing existed. Again though the GOP could have used it during their primaries but chose not to. The fact that the GOP was too afraid to do anything doesn't give you license to make up stuff.

    Do you really think that (none / 0) (#80)
    by Yman on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 09:13:07 AM EST
    ... repeating a baseless conspiracy theory as fact will make it sound more convincing?

    Bush at least has one remaining brain cell (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    A tipster added: "Trump offered to handle some of the press, but Billy thinks his best course of action is to keep his distance."

    NBC News does not own KNBC'S Access Hollywood (none / 0) (#96)
    by ding7777 on Sat Oct 15, 2016 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    and probably cannot compel KNBC to search for something based on Billy Bush's private comments in Rio.

    Anyway, the search for the tape started when former "Apprentice" employees called Trump's behavior "lewd and sexist"(which was in October)


    It's just awful (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Oct 14, 2016 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    I talk to my girls, and they start pointing out things I've missed. Things he's done, like how he gets a rush everytime he violates a boundary campaigning.

    Discussing that I got sick to my stomach. I'm putting FLOTUS on..on the BOSE!