View Poll Results: What will be the result of the Midterms (vote twice!!)

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • GOP holds the House

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by less than 12 seats

    20 41.67%
  • Dems win the House by 12-25 seats

    12 25.00%
  • Dems win the House by 25-38 seats

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the House by 38+ seats

    1 2.08%
  • GOP gains 1 or more seats in the Senate (52-48 or more)

    29 60.42%
  • GOP holds the same number of seats in the Senate (51-49)

    7 14.58%
  • GOP loses seats but still holds the Senate (50-50 with Pence breaking tie)

    7 14.58%
  • Dems win the Senate (49-51 or more)

    2 4.17%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 44 of 94 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast
Results 861 to 880 of 1870
  1. #861
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    She didn't need this to not show up. If she does not want to testify, she won't testify. I think she wants to tell her story and let society judge whether she or Kavanaugh is more credible.
    You're probably right, and I agree (and stated so upthread) that she needs to testify once she went public (geez, was that only 5 days ago?). But what ammunition McConnell gave her (and the Ds) when she does testify, and regardless of what is said (she may be a terrible witness), they install Kavanaugh anyway. I think it was a boneheaded statement, he had to expect it would be leaked. Brag after you get it done, or even better don't brag at all. Didn't he read the Tao Te Ching?

  2. #862
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    I guess the Times wants Rosenstein to be fired. And what's this do to the Mueller probe?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/u...amendment.html

  3. #863
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I guess the Times wants Rosenstein to be fired. And what's this do to the Mueller probe?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/u...amendment.html
    Yeah -- that's a bombshell.


    Mueller needs to finish. Fair or not, time is up or damn close to it.


    (not sure what the NYT is supposed to do other than run the story -- if they sit on it and it comes out later, it looks like they are playing political favorites. "All the news that's fit to print" and all . . . .)
    "We're only tourists in this life
    Only tourists but the view is nice"

    -- David Byrne

  4. #864
    Quote Originally Posted by dudog84 View Post
    I guess the Times wants Rosenstein to be fired. And what's this do to the Mueller probe?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/u...amendment.html
    Something weird about this story. The NYT apparently doesn't have the McCabe memos, and their sources aren't even people who witnessed the alleged events or read the memos. Their sources are people who supposedly were "briefed" by others on the alleged events and the memos. So it's, like, triple hearsay. Seems like awfully thin sourcing for such a "bombshell" article.

    And now the Washington Post, NBC News, ABC News, and Politico are all quoting sources who were actually in the room at the meeting where Rosenstein allegedly made the "wire" comment. They all say he made the comment, but it was abundantly clear he was being sarcastic and nobody (including Rosenstein himself) took it seriously. From the Washington Post:

    That person said the wire comment came in response to McCabe’s own pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president. To that, Rosenstein responded with what this person described as a sarcastic comment along the lines of, “What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?”
    Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b594e2758b4b

    The "in the room" sources also all confirm that the 25th Amendment wasn't discussed. Apparently, that detail comes from someone who was relaying an account from Andrew McCabe in which McCabe said that Rosenstein had privately brought up the 25th Amendment. So we're back in triple hearsay territory.

    It's early, but this is beginning to take on the look of something that could blow back hard on the NYT.

  5. #865
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    (not sure what the NYT is supposed to do other than run the story -- if they sit on it and it comes out later, it looks like they are playing political favorites. "All the news that's fit to print" and all . . . .)

    Well, they could try to source it better instead of reporting the equivalent of this:



  6. #866
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    ... if they sit on it and it comes out later, it looks like they are playing political favorites. "All the news that's fit to print" and all . . . .)

    Political favorites?! Oh boy OPK you just gave weezie a big laugh.

    I'd spork ya but the bank is closed!
    Nothing incites bodily violence quicker than a Duke fan turning in your direction and saying 'scoreboard.'

  7. #867
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by weezie View Post
    Political favorites?! Oh boy OPK you just gave weezie a big laugh.

    I'd spork ya but the bank is closed!
    I take PayPal.
    "We're only tourists in this life
    Only tourists but the view is nice"

    -- David Byrne

  8. #868
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    Something weird about this story. The NYT apparently doesn't have the McCabe memos, and their sources aren't even people who witnessed the alleged events or read the memos. Their sources are people who supposedly were "briefed" by others on the alleged events and the memos. So it's, like, triple hearsay. Seems like awfully thin sourcing for such a "bombshell" article.

    And now the Washington Post, NBC News, ABC News, and Politico are all quoting sources who were actually in the room at the meeting where Rosenstein allegedly made the "wire" comment. They all say he made the comment, but it was abundantly clear he was being sarcastic and nobody (including Rosenstein himself) took it seriously. From the Washington Post:



    Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b594e2758b4b

    The "in the room" sources also all confirm that the 25th Amendment wasn't discussed. Apparently, that detail comes from someone who was relaying an account from Andrew McCabe in which McCabe said that Rosenstein had privately brought up the 25th Amendment. So we're back in triple hearsay territory.

    It's early, but this is beginning to take on the look of something that could blow back hard on the NYT.
    Did you even read the NYT article though? It specifically acknowledges that there are differing accounts regarding how serious he was: "A Justice Department spokeswoman also provided a statement from a person who was present when Mr. Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire. The person, who would not be named, acknowledged the remark but said Mr. Rosenstein made it sarcastically."

    The article elaborates on what was reportedly said: "Mr. Rosenstein then raised the idea of wearing a recording device, or 'wire,' as he put it, to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether Mr. Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was. If not him, then Mr. McCabe or other F.B.I. officials interviewing with Mr. Trump for the job could perhaps wear a wire or otherwise record the president, Mr. Rosenstein offered. White House officials never checked his phone when he arrived for meetings there, Mr. Rosenstein added, implying it would be easy to secretly record Mr. Trump."

    And the 25th Amendment discussion was not a one time thing at a single meeting, according to NYT article: "Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations."

  9. #869
    From Politico, something funny that I'm thinking has to be untrue/misheard/misinterpreted:

    GOP members of the Judiciary Committee held a conference call on Friday morning to discuss how to respond to the requests from Ford’s lawyers. But several elements of their offer appear to be nonstarters with Democrats and Ford’s camp, which had made clear that she could not be in the capital to testify before Thursday, according to a senior aide to the minority.

    “They’re making this disingenuous counteroffer knowing she won’t be here,” the Democratic aide said.

    The GOP has been told that Ford does not want to fly from her California home to Washington, according to the Republican senator, which means she may need to drive across the country to make the hearing. Ford has reportedly told friends she is uncomfortable in confined spaces, indicating a physical difficulty in making the trip by plane.



    Americans have learned to be cynical enough to expect both political parties to play politics with everything. That's fine. But we do expect the alleged victim here to take seriously the matter of her own testimony in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing.

  10. #870
    Quote Originally Posted by El_Diablo View Post
    Did you even read the NYT article though? It specifically acknowledges that there are differing accounts regarding how serious he was: "A Justice Department spokeswoman also provided a statement from a person who was present when Mr. Rosenstein proposed wearing a wire. The person, who would not be named, acknowledged the remark but said Mr. Rosenstein made it sarcastically."

    The article elaborates on what was reportedly said: "Mr. Rosenstein then raised the idea of wearing a recording device, or 'wire,' as he put it, to secretly tape the president when he visited the White House. One participant asked whether Mr. Rosenstein was serious, and he replied animatedly that he was. If not him, then Mr. McCabe or other F.B.I. officials interviewing with Mr. Trump for the job could perhaps wear a wire or otherwise record the president, Mr. Rosenstein offered. White House officials never checked his phone when he arrived for meetings there, Mr. Rosenstein added, implying it would be easy to secretly record Mr. Trump."

    And the 25th Amendment discussion was not a one time thing at a single meeting, according to NYT article: "Mr. Rosenstein made the remarks about secretly recording Mr. Trump and about the 25th Amendment in meetings and conversations with other Justice Department and F.B.I. officials. Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations."

    Yeah, I read it. And this was what stuck out to me:

    Several people described the episodes, insisting on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The people were briefed either on the events themselves or on memos written by F.B.I. officials, including Andrew G. McCabe, then the acting bureau director, that documented Mr. Rosenstein’s actions and comments.
    So they have no first-hand sources. Nobody who was actually present in any of these discussions with Rosenstein, nobody who actually read the McCabe memos. Just people who were told by other people what Rosenstein or the memos supposedly said. Could it all be true? Sure. But again, that seems like pretty remote sourcing to be reporting this stuff as uncontroverted fact, which is how much of the article reads. I can't help but notice how other outlets are taking a much more measured approach, saying this might be what McCabe's memos say, but they have no independent verification from first-hand sources. Heck, even Fox News is being careful to qualify the Times' reporting and underscoring its second- and third-hand nature:

    Fox News has learned a key meeting took place on May 16, 2017 at Justice Department headquarters. During the meeting, the subject arose of the possibility of appointing a special counsel to investigate Russia election meddling, according to a source. Several people were in the room, including former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former FBI counsel Lisa Page. Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel the next day.

    “I remember this meeting and remember the wire comment,” a source who was in the room told Fox News. “The statement was sarcastic and was never discussed with any intention of recording a conversation with the president.”

    . . . .

    Rosenstein also reportedly told McCabe that he might be able to persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly—now White House chief of staff—to begin proceedings to invoke the 25th Amendment.

    The details, according to The Times, were confirmed by sources who were briefed on the discussions or memos written about the discussions, by McCabe and others.

  11. #871
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    But we do expect the alleged victim here to take seriously the matter of her own testimony in a SCOTUS confirmation hearing.
    Unsure what you mean here. I have a close family member who's claustrophobic like that. Absolutely hates flying and trains, and avoids them at all costs. Drives everywhere, even on long trips. It may seem irrational or silly to you, but trust me, it's not implausible -- and it doesn't suggest to me that she's not taking it seriously.

  12. #872
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    I'd tell ya, but then I'd have to kill ya
    There was some discussion upthread about the Rs being ok with losing the election cycle over this nomination because the Supreme Court is a lifetime job. I keep hearing from the pundits 'it shapes the court for a generation'. But what if it also loses a generation of voters?

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ybQ?li=BBnb7Kz

    I'm pretty sure I've read research that the great majority of people stick with the identification they make when they first register.

    I'm also not convinced conservatives get everything they want out of this pick, because I'm not convinced that Roberts won't move more centrist. Didn't Souter do that, and also maybe Kennedy? And though much of the concentration is on RBG because of her age (85), I'm sure she's holding on until 2021. But Thomas is 70 and Alito is 68 on the right.

    The average age for retirement of Justices is 73.6 years old, although I'm sure it skews older in recent times. But mid to late 70s is certainly when they start thinking about it. And of course there's always death (hey, none of us get out of here alive). For those that like to dive into the Supreme Court, scotusblog is a pretty neat source.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/05/em...nt-plan-blues/

    The Rs have been very astute in campaigning on Supreme Court picks, it appears to energize their base like nothing else. What if the Ds finally pick up on this and start doing the same? Seems to me the most talked-about SC cases are about social issues, and is there any doubt that the country is becoming more socially liberal? Look at where we've traveled on same-sex issues in the last decade as just one example.

  13. #873
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    Unsure what you mean here. I have a close family member who's claustrophobic like that. Absolutely hates flying and trains. Drives everywhere, even on long trips. It may seem irrational or silly to you, but trust me, it's not implausible -- and it doesn't suggest to me that she's not taking it seriously.
    I agree. I know several people who don't go on airplanes. And if offering to drive 3,000 miles across the country is not taking it seriously, I don't know what is.

    I understand wanting to get this resolved as quickly as possible but I think that countering her offer of testifying on Thursday with Wednesday is really petty. If she was saying she had to wait until mid-October I would completely understand that being a non-starter. But a matter of a day or two really should be a non-issue. Hopefully her drive across the country is not followed like OJ and AC driving the Bronco.

    I assume her testimony will be pretty predictable - basically saying out loud what she has already said. The bigger wild card is his testimony. There are a lot of ways he could approach this and his specific wording will be closely analyzed. But as many others have already said, barring something unexpected (and I have learned these days to expect the unexpected), nothing earth shattering is going to happen, and no minds will be changed. But the ratings are going to be off the charts.

  14. #874
    After calling Trump a "kook" and "unfit" for office back in 2016, Lindsey Graham has gotten noticeably cozier with Trump lately. Which makes this interesting:


    Graham.JPG

  15. #875
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    After calling Trump a "kook" and "unfit" for office back in 2016, Lindsey Graham has gotten noticeably cozier with Trump lately. Which makes this interesting:


    Graham.JPG
    Yeah, this highlights that Trump is in somewhat of a quandary in terms of what to do with Rosenstein, in that he has repeatedly attacked the "failing" NYT as "fake news" and dismissed critical reporting based on anonymous sources...so it would be kind of hard to justify taking a controversial self-serving action now based solely on a NYT report relying on anonymous sources.

  16. #876
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    It can be done by videoconferencing. We take testimony that way all the time in the legal field.
    "We're only tourists in this life
    Only tourists but the view is nice"

    -- David Byrne

  17. #877
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Just down the road :(
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    But as many others have already said, barring something unexpected (and I have learned these days to expect the unexpected), nothing earth shattering is going to happen, and no minds will be changed. But the ratings are going to be off the charts.
    Oh, is it time to start making predictions? Here's mine: Ford fleshes out her account, including describing Kav's genitals, and the Supreme Court nominee has to drop trou' in the Senate chamber for inspection à la the Michael Jackson case. To break the nervous tension, Kav asks, "Does anyone have a robe I can use?"

  18. #878
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    California
    Quote Originally Posted by bedeviled View Post
    Oh, is it time to start making predictions? Here's mine: Ford fleshes out her account, including describing Kav's genitals, and the Supreme Court nominee has to drop trou' in the Senate chamber for inspection à la the Michael Jackson case. To break the nervous tension, Kav asks, "Does anyone have a robe I can use?"
    Please, no. We have already met our quota of detailed descriptions of senior government officials' genitals for this month.

    On a related note, I will never be able to play MarioKart again.

  19. #879
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    It can be done by videoconferencing. We take testimony that way all the time in the legal field.
    Maybe someone can call Black Pigeon Skype Services?

  20. #880
    With all that's been going on the last few days, I wasn't sure if this had been mentioned yet. But getting back to the primary purpose of the thread -- talking about the midterm elections -- check this out:


    Six siblings of Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 4) are endorsing his opponent, Dr. David Brill. And they're doing ads for Brill.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZD-gIYEJpk


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZuayQFD51w


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6bfYFsM3WU


    And there are apparently other videos that I couldn't find.

    In one video, Grace Gosar says, "It would be difficult to see my brother as anything but a racist."

    . . . .

    "None of us are doing this for publicity. None of us even want to do it," David Gosar said.

    Arizonans would be doing their family a favor by sending Gosar home, he said, pointing to the congressman's weird statements and "mangled" language.

    "He just doesn’t appear to be well," David Gosar said.

    . . . .

    Gaston Gosar says in another video that his brother is willing to roll back any environmental regulations "if it benefits his interests or puts a dollar in his pocket from one of his constituents or large mining groups."
    https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news...onent-10849863

Similar Threads

  1. Oscars 2018
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 04-09-2018, 11:23 PM
  2. 2017-2018 team vs 2018-2019 team
    By proelitedota in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-25-2018, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •