The Swamp

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:32 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:59 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:46 am Murkowski to vote 'present' on Kavanaugh so Daines won't have to leave daughter's wedding

Wait...so she's not actually a no vote?

And the explicit rationale stated in that article for her decision to vote “present” is to keep it a 2-vote margin so that no Senator can be said to have cast a deciding vote. So the GOP fully recognizes the value of the point I made this morning about Manchin giving their “moderates” cover with his vote. And yet there won’t be a single consequence for him from the same Democratic establishment that backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. What a joke.

Still waiting on the style points the Democrats were hoping to accrue for shoving Franken out the door for taking a picture of him fake-groping a sleeping female soldier.

Uh, me too.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:36 pm

EnochRoot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:32 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:59 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:46 am Murkowski to vote 'present' on Kavanaugh so Daines won't have to leave daughter's wedding

Wait...so she's not actually a no vote?

And the explicit rationale stated in that article for her decision to vote “present” is to keep it a 2-vote margin so that no Senator can be said to have cast a deciding vote. So the GOP fully recognizes the value of the point I made this morning about Manchin giving their “moderates” cover with his vote. And yet there won’t be a single consequence for him from the same Democratic establishment that backed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. What a joke.

Still waiting on the style points the Democrats were hoping to accrue for shoving Franken out the door for taking a picture of him fake-groping a sleeping female soldier.

Uh, me too.

Seems they wanted to score some cheap virtue points by forcing his resignation prior to a senate investigation. Could it be because the governor of Minnesota is a Democrat? Likely.

The pursuit of the truth should be the utmost principle to uphold. Otherwise too often you can find fraud in one's intent.

Or something like that.

I mean, how's it all that different than what the GOP did with Kavanaugh?

Political expediency trumped the truth in both circumstances.

Um...Yay?

C’mon. It wasn’t just a picture with Franken.

mister d wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:35 pm C’mon. It wasn’t just a picture with Franken.

Trump and others talk about what a tough time to be a young man in America - which is akin to the "boys will be boys" cliche.

You know, that applies to what Franken did. Obnoxious, offensive (to many), but ultimately HARMLESS.

The new Justice of the Supreme Court tried to rape a girl. These people are without shame or decency.

mister d wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:35 pm C’mon. It wasn’t just a picture with Franken.

It wasn't? Please understand that I use the term truth and fact finding interchangeably here.

You can’t say it was a singular act when it wasn’t.

mister d wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:06 pm You can’t say it was a singular act when it wasn’t.

That’s irrelevant to my point, except to say that it scored the Dems some mythical points for shoving Franken into oncoming traffic instead of holding an investigation. They weren’t interested in one.

And ffs, Roger Stone was given the heads up about the scandal a day in advance and alluded to Franken being in front of the barrel or some shit. Franken got Sessions to basically lie under oath during his confirmation hearing and forced his immediate recusal from the Mueller investigation.

It was a political hit because the Republicans knew he'd step down because he played by "rules." No fucking investigation needed. Just Gillibrand going me too hardo and upholding some fictitious standard of morality.

And for an added knife twist Susan Collins demanded he step down under the guise of the me too umbrella without an investigation. Yesterday she gave an impassioned 43 minute speech in support of Kavanaugh despite a metric fuckton of evidence way worse than anything Franken ever did. Democrats can't even say "Merrick Garland" when the old white fuck GOP guard is going on about how embarrassed they are by the questions Kavanaugh faced.

But please. Continue on about how Franken stepping down was right when the GOP via either direct or indirect Russian interference has control of all three branches of government. At this point the October surprise for these mid terms is going to be a swift fuck you to Democrats in some form or fashion. I can sense it. I bet the GOP already has something in the bag to mitigate anything a Blue Wave commands.

Quite frankly, we're reaching critical mass.

It’s like the one thing the Dems as a party have done right in the last (long period of time). That they can’t do much else right around that or you really liking Franken doesn’t change that.

mister d wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:39 am It’s like the one thing the Dems as a party have done right in the last (long period of time). That they can’t do much else right around that or you really liking Franken doesn’t change that.

I mostly agree with this. Frankly, the degree to which Bill Clinton has remained a central part of the Democratic Party,* undermines the Party’s credibility on issues like Kavanaugh. Taking more decisive action with Franken helps show that liberal concerns aren’t just driven by partisanship. And yes, it affected the calculus that he was replaced by a Democrat.

*Yes, Clinton is an ex-President, but so is Jimmy Carter, and he’s never been nearly as visible, despite being proven right on a number of key issues.

Democrats love JFK and Clinton because they are handsome and like royalty.

They dont like LBJ or Carter as much even though they probably did more.

Obama is somewhere in the middle.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:52 am Democrats love JFK and Clinton because they are handsome and like royalty.

They dont like LBJ or Carter as much even though they probably did more.

Obama is somewhere in the middle.

huh

mister d wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:39 am It’s like the one thing the Dems as a party have done right in the last (long period of time). That they can’t do much else right around that or you really liking Franken doesn’t change that.

And again, they’re points that will never materialize, completely ignorant of how the game is played.

So...Yay?

Trying to play “the game” against cheaters doesn’t work.

Also ... who the fuck thinks Clinton was handsome?

mister d wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 10:42 am Trying to play “the game” against cheaters doesn’t work.

It does once you acknowledge how the game is played.

So would playing the game be ignoring female D senators or female D senators ignoring women?

mister d wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:45 am So would playing the game be ignoring female D senators or female D senators ignoring women?

I’m saying that the Democrats should’ve long-played a senate investigation into Al Franken, recognizing they’d be setting fodder for the GOP and their electorate to chomp at for the forseeable future. Realpolitik on it. They’d have been on a fact-finding mission to get at the truth. You want to sell a high ground? Then be genuine about it. #MeToo would welcome a senate investigation into Franken with open arms, right?

And yeah, I used realpolitik as a verb. Sorry about that.

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:54 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:52 am Democrats love JFK and Clinton because they are handsome and like royalty.

They dont like LBJ or Carter as much even though they probably did more.

Obama is somewhere in the middle.

huh

Yeah, wut.

They love smooth talking serial philanderers and not Dick. In. Hand. blowhards or Sunday school teachers I guess? Obama is...a smooth talking non serial philanderer?

I'm lost here.

And the Democrats, doing what they’re good at, continue to blame others for their problems. Yeah. Good job giving the GOP cover to hide their craven act. Morons.

Whoa, this is out of character for the Dems.

Avenatti has delivered on literally every claim he's made. Cohen flipped directly because of him and his strategy.

But it's his fault the Democrats are trash? FOH.

Established Democrats fear he'll win the nomination in 2020. Knock him down early.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:00 am Established Democrats fear he'll win the nomination in 2020. Knock him down early.

Yeah, he's not winning the nomination in 2020 no matter what so I doubt that's it. I suspect they're more focused on what a publicity seeker he is, but that aside he's not to blame for Kavanaugh getting confirmed. Anyone angry should be focusing all of their anger and rage at the Republicans.

brian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:02 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:00 am Established Democrats fear he'll win the nomination in 2020. Knock him down early.

Yeah, he's not winning the nomination in 2020 no matter what so I doubt that's it. I suspect they're more focused on what a publicity seeker he is, but that aside he's not to blame for Kavanaugh getting confirmed. Anyone angry should be focusing all of their anger and rage at the Republicans.

Agree with this. The GOP is using Avenatti as an excuse, and the Dems are buying into that framing. But I have no doubt that the vote would have played out exactly the same way regardless of if Avenatti and Swetnick ever came forward. There are reports that Collins gave assurances months ago that she would vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

One of the biggest problems is Ds would probably rather you focus on Avenatti than Rs because some of those Rs are their very nice friends who they just happen to have some policy quibbles with but its nothing they can't get past at the end of a long day.

brian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:02 am

degenerasian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:00 am Established Democrats fear he'll win the nomination in 2020. Knock him down early.

Yeah, he's not winning the nomination in 2020 no matter what so I doubt that's it. I suspect they're more focused on what a publicity seeker he is, but that aside he's not to blame for Kavanaugh getting confirmed. Anyone angry should be focusing all of their anger and rage at the Republicans.

He's a loudmouth who could buck the trend. I think he's further ahead now in 2018 then Trump was in 2014.
Dems saw how Trump ran everyone over. They're stopping him now before he gets any momentum (however, farfetched it is)

I fear it's going to get nasty the next 2 years and the GOP will just skate by.

Now I'm not talking about you (degen) here so keep that in mind, but people can't have it both ways.

Either the Democrats have their fingers on the scales to nominate the person they want (Hillary) or it's a process where anyone can get the nomination regardless of how outside the party mainstream they are (Bernie). If it's the former, then Avenatti doesn't have a chance in hell. If it's the latter, I never want to hear a single fucking soul bitch about 2016 ever again.

The truth is it's probably somewhere in the middle and I doubt he has any kind of a chance. His 15 minutes are just about up and hopefully he'll get a pat on the back for firing off some metaphorical rounds at Trump and we can quit paying attention to him.

brian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:41 am Now I'm not talking about you (degen) here so keep that in mind, but people can't have it both ways.

Either the Democrats have their fingers on the scales to nominate the person they want (Hillary) or it's a process where anyone can get the nomination regardless of how outside the party mainstream they are (Bernie). If it's the former, then Avenatti doesn't have a chance in hell. If it's the latter, I never want to hear a single fucking soul bitch about 2016 ever again.

The truth is it's probably somewhere in the middle and I doubt he has any kind of a chance. His 15 minutes are just about up and hopefully he'll get a pat on the back for firing off some metaphorical rounds at Trump and we can quit paying attention to him.

I suspect that he can't seriously think he has a shot in hell.

But a cushy gig as a talking head on CNN or MSNBC? That's probably what he's angling for.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:43 am Avenatti has delivered on literally every claim he's made. Cohen flipped directly because of him and his strategy.

But it's his fault the Democrats are trash? FOH.

Did Swetnick turn out to be legit? I thought some stuff came out to make her seriously questionable. But I stopped paying real close attention becuase it was just too galling.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:43 am

brian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:41 am Now I'm not talking about you (degen) here so keep that in mind, but people can't have it both ways.

Either the Democrats have their fingers on the scales to nominate the person they want (Hillary) or it's a process where anyone can get the nomination regardless of how outside the party mainstream they are (Bernie). If it's the former, then Avenatti doesn't have a chance in hell. If it's the latter, I never want to hear a single fucking soul bitch about 2016 ever again.

The truth is it's probably somewhere in the middle and I doubt he has any kind of a chance. His 15 minutes are just about up and hopefully he'll get a pat on the back for firing off some metaphorical rounds at Trump and we can quit paying attention to him.

I suspect that he can't seriously think he has a shot in hell.

But a cushy gig as a talking head on CNN or MSNBC? That's probably what he's angling for.

That's what Trump was angling for! A spot on FOX or his own tv network. So there was no risk during the campaign, he could say anything (Mexican rapists, build a wall etc..)

If Avenatti ever gets on a debate stage (not sure they'll let him), he will fire at everyone because they all have warts.

mister d wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:19 am One of the biggest problems is Ds would probably rather you focus on Avenatti than Rs because some of those Rs are their very nice friends who they just happen to have some policy quibbles with but its nothing they can't get past at the end of a long day.

Yup. I think most national Democratic officials feel more affinity towards Republicans who are part of the same social and economic circles than they do towards political outsiders or Progressive activists. That’s why they constantly blame “the Left” for being too rude, aggressive or idealistic instead of pointing the blame where it belongs.

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:46 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:43 am Avenatti has delivered on literally every claim he's made. Cohen flipped directly because of him and his strategy.

But it's his fault the Democrats are trash? FOH.

Did Swetnick turn out to be legit? I thought some stuff came out to make her seriously questionable. But I stopped paying real close attention becuase it was just too galling.

there was? i've been following this stuff as closely as possible (granted it's football season) and I didn't see anything that poked holes in her account

Brontoburglar wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:41 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:46 am

Johnnie wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:43 am Avenatti has delivered on literally every claim he's made. Cohen flipped directly because of him and his strategy.

But it's his fault the Democrats are trash? FOH.

Did Swetnick turn out to be legit? I thought some stuff came out to make her seriously questionable. But I stopped paying real close attention becuase it was just too galling.

there was? i've been following this stuff as closely as possible (granted it's football season) and I didn't see anything that poked holes in her account

Not about her account specifically, but about some things from her history putting her credibility in doubt.

The little bit that I saw just seemed to be smears based on her enjoyment of group sex.

The problem with Swetnick was that it started off sounding like she had been gang raped and Kavanaugh was involved, then when it was clarified, it was she was gang raped at a party that Kavanaugh attended. And he "possibly" participated or most likely was aware of the gang raping at multiple other parties.

Even in the hearing-style setting, those accusations needed corroboration... Which, you know, sham investigation, so we'll never get that.

Regarding the "Why not just pick another judge" thing, sure the GOP wanted to get this done before mid-terms, but I think there's a far more insidious reason. I think Trump wanted a sheep...somebody to owe him something. Kavanaugh is going to vote exactly the way Trump wants, 100% of the time for this. It essentially gives Trump a spot on the SCOTUS.

brian wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:41 am Now I'm not talking about you (degen) here so keep that in mind, but people can't have it both ways.

Either the Democrats have their fingers on the scales to nominate the person they want (Hillary) or it's a process where anyone can get the nomination regardless of how outside the party mainstream they are (Bernie). If it's the former, then Avenatti doesn't have a chance in hell. If it's the latter, I never want to hear a single fucking soul bitch about 2016 ever again.

I don't get your last sentence. In 2016, one big problem was the Democrats DID put their finger on the scale, but tried to pretend like they didn't. Without that, there's a very good chance Bernie would have beaten Hillary for the nomination. There's no telling for sure what the election would have looked like if it were Bernie vs. Trump, but considering how close it was for Hillary, I think Bernie would have won, since he had much greater appeal among younger voters and the middle-America folks who went for Trump.