with chief criminal Manfort testifying, most likely against Trump, what do you think? How many days until a Trump family member flees to a country with no extradition treaty?
with chief criminal Manfort testifying, most likely against Trump, what do you think? How many days until a Trump family member flees to a country with no extradition treaty?
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm surprised that nobody has brought this up yet. Apparently, a woman has accused Bret Kavanaugh of sexual assault. She did not want to come forward but a letter from her made its way to a congressperson, who gave it to Sen. Feinstein (judiciary committee), who turned it over to the FBI.
Reports say that the alleged incident happened in High School.
I have no doubt that reporters will figure out who this woman is. She is in for a nightmare. But if the allegations are credible, it could be enough for Murkowski and Collins to vote "no".
I heard about some letter but had to dig around to find what you wrote.
Kavanaugh is being accused of holding a girl down and sexually assaulting her in high school.
Then 65 women have come to his defense, saying he is a good person.
But being good around 65 women doesn't mean you were not bad to one.
It comes down to he said/ she said and if it will change one Republican's mind.
My guess is that he will soon be sitting right next to Clarence Thomas, not Bill Cosby.
Kavanaugh went to an all-boys school. Yet, somehow, there 65 (!) women who knew him well enough in high school to vouch for his character (as if this eliminates the possibility he ever assaulted anyone) and they were all lined-up and ready to respond to this story the moment it broke. It's almost like Republicans knew this accusation would be coming!
NOT Jim Cantore wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Dude, I owned you on this topic, so you had to make up a fake poster name (and couldn't even spell Saffir-Simpson correctly) so you could try to save face because you said you wouldn't comment further. No need to deny, because I will not believe you. You suggested things I didn't state or insinuate or infer. That's setting up a strawman. You then make statements that are factually incorrect and tell me that I am "dumb" while writing "storms due LESS damage". Nice.
You should stick to your statement that you are done on this topic. I am done unless you come back here and I need to school you more.
Ummmm. Not the same poster. Hence the username "NOT Jim Cantore."
I gladly accept your apology in advance. Thanks.
Apology? From Flagpole? That would be refreshing.
Make America Great Again wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
She wrote the letter right after Kavanaugh was nominated. So she didn't wait at all.
It's just that it has taken this long for the secret letter to be revealed.
The alleged incident took place more than three decades ago. And this was not the first time he was nominated for a federal bench. Why didn't this story surface 12 years ago? It is a political set-up.
Kavanaough did not become famous until he was nominated to the Supreme Court. I doubt that this woman had any idea about his earlier nominations.
There are lots of reasons why a victim doesn't come forward right away. Happens all the time.
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Apparently, this more than just a guilty plea. It includes a sentence cap and dropping some of the charges in exchange for cooperation. Sounds to me like Manafort will be giving up some dirt. But details of the deal are still coming out. It's 76 pages long and I haven't read it.
Well, come on.
Hurry up and read the 76 pages and give us a summary.
I'm too busy. Flagpole might have the time.
Black Rifles Matter wrote:
Happy Friday to all of you patriots and socialists.
https://i.imgur.com/N4mk5NV.jpg
Donald Trump is the biggest threat to the 2nd Amendment there has ever been in the White House. He won't be in there long enough for that to come to fruition, but he's no ideologue, and he has already said some things that rattled the NRA. If he REALLY had his way, only the military and police would have guns.
AZ goes Blue wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
I hope you are right, but what is the likelihood Dems hold N Dakota, Indiana, Missouri, Montana and West Virginia? I can see them easily losing 2 of those - trump won these by at least 20 points, so if judging by the closeness of the general election GOP is in much better shape for the Senate race. My prediction is they stay at 26 or move to 25 seats. I want to be very wrong, trust me, but I just don’t see it yet.
WV was won by Democrat Manchin 60.6% to 36.5% for his Republican opponent. Before he was elected to the Senate Manchin was governor of WV. West Virginians like him a lot.
WV has had all Democrat senators (all males) since 1958, with the only exception being Republican Shelly Capito who was elected in 2014 (she easily beat a women running as a democrat).
Make of WV what you will, but they do like Democratic men as their senators and governors.
There are still billboards of Hillary in an orange jumpsuit scattered across the whole state. WV was ground zero for that sort of thing. That was only yesterday... until Trump is long gone I won’t be convinced the Dems have a shot there.
What the what? wrote:
NOT Jim Cantore wrote:
Ummmm. Not the same poster. Hence the username "NOT Jim Cantore."
I gladly accept your apology in advance. Thanks.
Apology? From Flagpole? That would be refreshing.
I do it when warranted...not warranted here. When I do, I USUALLY do so with this phrase - "I apologize unreservedly", so you can search on "unreservedly" and see several times when I have done that, and those aren't even all the times I have done so.
I actually don't enjoy being right all the time, but too many of you just make it so.
What the what? wrote:
NOT Jim Cantore wrote:
Ummmm. Not the same poster. Hence the username "NOT Jim Cantore."
I gladly accept your apology in advance. Thanks.
Apology? From Flagpole? That would be refreshing.
Ha! Get in line for that one. You'll get it right after he admits that he was wrong about something - nutrition thread with Rexxing, for example.
L L wrote:
Kennedy, Johnson and Jimmy Carter won Texas.
Lloyd Bentsen was a Democrat Senator for Texas for years up until 1993.
Things change. And they change again.
You know what's changing? The demographics of Texas.
The Hispanic population is soon going to pass the white non-Hispanic population and vote more.
Liberal cities like Austin are growing.
You can't sit back and say Texas has voted Republican since Reagan became president and think that will continue forever.
Just like you can't say Michigan is a gimme for Democrats.
Oh, and I have a cousin in Austin who is openly gay and openly Democrat in a pretty openly Democrat community.
Texas Republicans need to really work on voter suppression if they want to stay red for long.
Texas is only 57% whites in the electorate. That is very low and in most cases would guarantee a blue state. But it is a wacky distribution because 44% of the electorate self-identifies as conservative. For reference, the national breakdown is 71% white voters and only 35% of them conservative.
So instead of 2 whites include 1 conservative nationwide in Texas it is basically 5 whites include 4 conservatives.
Close enough, anyway. Obviously there are non-whites who self identify as conservative and contribute to the 35% and 44%.
Bottom line, whites in Texas are much more likely to be conservative, which is acting like a plug to keep Texas red. The website Texas politics polls Texas frequently. On a scale of 1-7 with 1 being most liberal and 7 being most conservative, a full 35% of Texans place themselves at 6 or 7. Normally when a state is trending the other way there are enough moderates and soft conservatives who go allow with the shift. Texas is considerably more stubborn.
Blacks in Texas also are not as lopsided toward Democrats as nationally. Trump carried 11% blacks in Texas compared to 8% nationally.
I've become more interested in Texas the more I look at it, primarily due to the low number of whites. Logically the state cannot continue to be a red guarantee with that distribution.
Hoo? wrote:
What the what? wrote:
Apology? From Flagpole? That would be refreshing.
Ha! Get in line for that one. You'll get it right after he admits that he was wrong about something - nutrition thread with Rexxing, for example.
I give you the same response I gave the previous poster:
I do it when warranted...not warranted here. When I do, I USUALLY do so with this phrase - "I apologize unreservedly", so you can search on "unreservedly" and see several times when I have done that, and those aren't even all the times I have done so.
I actually don't enjoy being right all the time, but too many of you just make it so.
Something new for you - go do it - go search on the word "unreservedly" and then get back to me about how I never apologize. Again, I don't even use that phrase EVERY time I apologize or admit to being wrong.
People like you have me thinking that I'm the only one who states the truth here. Your falsehood wasn't intentional, so not a LIE, but it isn't true nonetheless and was based on ignorance.
Don't be ignorant, brother. Educate yourself before you write or speak or dance.
Fat hurts wrote:
L L wrote:
Well, come on.
Hurry up and read the 76 pages and give us a summary.
I'm too busy. Flagpole might have the time.
But the latest news reports do seem to make it clear that Manafort has flipped. This is despite the reporting from the past couple of days that Manafort would plead guilty without a cooperation agreement.
Just shows us all once again, MUELLER DOES NOT LEAK.
Also, now we have Trump's campaign chairman who has plead guilty to the crime of "Conspiracy against the United States".
Let that sink in. Trump's campaign chairman is GUILTY of CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
Awsi Dooger wrote:
Texas is only 57% whites in the electorate. That is very low and in most cases would guarantee a blue state. But it is a wacky distribution because 44% of the electorate self-identifies as conservative. For reference, the national breakdown is 71% white voters and only 35% of them conservative.
So instead of 2 whites include 1 conservative nationwide in Texas it is basically 5 whites include 4 conservatives.
Close enough, anyway. Obviously there are non-whites who self identify as conservative and contribute to the 35% and 44%.
Bottom line, whites in Texas are much more likely to be conservative, which is acting like a plug to keep Texas red. The website Texas politics polls Texas frequently. On a scale of 1-7 with 1 being most liberal and 7 being most conservative, a full 35% of Texans place themselves at 6 or 7. Normally when a state is trending the other way there are enough moderates and soft conservatives who go allow with the shift. Texas is considerably more stubborn.
Blacks in Texas also are not as lopsided toward Democrats as nationally. Trump carried 11% blacks in Texas compared to 8% nationally.
I've become more interested in Texas the more I look at it, primarily due to the low number of whites. Logically the state cannot continue to be a red guarantee with that distribution.
That's racist!
Fat hurts wrote:
. . .
Let that sink in. Trump's campaign chairman is GUILTY of CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
Just thought that was worth repeating.
L L wrote:
Trollminator wrote:
To simplify, Dems have 26 seats now, they need 28, which means they will need to grab 2 of the available 9 held by GOP, which are all not very competitive for Dems. I think they will lose at least N Dakota and don’t think they have a realistic shot at taking 3 to get a majority. I think they have the best shot at Nevada, but that will just leave them even. AZ is a long shot - I think the state is dying for a trumper with McCain gone. The number of seats for grabs is too low and of those the GOP is super strong. Let me put it to you this way, if they take the Senate somehow in this election that would signal a fundamental shift in US politics. I don’t think we are there yet, trumpers are still trumping.
I agree the math is against the Democrats.
But your analysis just looks at states and parties.
The elections are about people.
When you say the Dems will lose N. Dakota, you are saying that the incumbent Heide Heitkamp will lose to Kevin Cramer.
Do you have any reason behind this pick other than ND is a red state?
Heitkamp is ahead in the current polls, though it is very close.
Are the people in that state motivated to back Trump's agenda? Are there quiet liberals there that don't normally vote but want to send an anti-Trump message?
You really think Arizona is dying for a Trumper with McCain dead? Trump put the flag back up two days after McCain died and he was uninvited to his funeral and had be pestered to say a good word about McCain. I think Arizonans have a bone to pick with Trump.
The current polls give the edge to Sinema (D) over McSally (R). Trump will campaign there. Will that help or hurt the Republican?
You didn't mention Texas. Beto is closing in on Ted. Willie Nelson is campaigning for Beto and the 85 year old folk star had never done a political concert before. Willie will lose some fans but Beto will game some and Willie doesn't need votes or any more record sales.
Beto would be a big upset, and that fundamental shift you were talking about.
I overlooked Indiana. Donnelly (D) is favored over Braun but Republicans think they can flip that back.
All of these senators were elected in 2012 when Obama won re-election.
So a lot of "red" states split their ticket - picking Romney for president but a Democrat for senate.
They will pick the candidate they like, not the party.
I give a lot of weight to Trump’s margin of victory in states because it gives you an idea of how motivated the base is in those places.
ND - margin was 36 points. Trump will be on the ground plus Cramer is a huge trumper so locally I thing republicans will be much more encounraged. Heitkamp will keep it close but her stance on abortion, immigration and taxes will limit her.
AZ - you have to remember McCain was a dinasour, voters had grown tired of him. Trump on the ground is going to give McSally the win. Trump’s approval ratings has spiked +17% among voters in the 55-64 age bracket. I’m not as certain about this one as I am about ND but I just don’t think sentiment turns this quickly in a place like AZ.
Texas - the gap will narrow but I don’t think Beto can take it. He is way too left and Cruz has not only matched his funding but is fully connected in local and national circles. Trump didn’t crush it there by too much but I have no doubt republicans have enjoyed his policies (the ones that actually went into effect not immigration BS). The dark horse will be democratic turnout because they have the numbers.
As I said I wish the Dems could wipe the floor in the Senate too but I can’t see it.
L L wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Trump will never grant a "thank you pardon". He will only pardon someone if it serves his own interests.
But I guess that all doesn't matter now. Manafort has just agreed to cooperate with Mueller!!!!
I'm sure Trump made a deal with Manafort in advance - shut up and I will pardon you.
So this is in Trump's own interest.
Manfort cooperating with Mueller just means, ok I am guilty, give me a sentence.
It's not giving dirt.
I think when you are right there facing that prospect of being behind bars for the rest of your life you will not take chances. He has no guarantee that Trump will pardon him, his word means nothing. The only guarantee can come from Mueller, so he will give up what he has.
Make America Great Again wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
She wrote the letter right after Kavanaugh was nominated. So she didn't wait at all.
It's just that it has taken this long for the secret letter to be revealed.
The alleged incident took place more than three decades ago. And this was not the first time he was nominated for a federal bench. Why didn't this story surface 12 years ago? It is a political set-up.
unless he was a Democrat, right?
Black Rifles Matter wrote:
Happy Friday to all of you patriots and socialists.
https://i.imgur.com/N4mk5NV.jpg
I like the idea of you being Gary because I miss attacking his victimhood, but you are just a pretty good troll, gotta give you credit for filling his seat.
Fat hurts wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I'm too busy. Flagpole might have the time.
But the latest news reports do seem to make it clear that Manafort has flipped. This is despite the reporting from the past couple of days that Manafort would plead guilty without a cooperation agreement.
Just shows us all once again, MUELLER DOES NOT LEAK.
Also, now we have Trump's campaign chairman who has plead guilty to the crime of "Conspiracy against the United States".
Let that sink in. Trump's campaign chairman is GUILTY of CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
Yep. Count one is GUILTY of CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. Absolutely nutso. Where are the "best people"? Should be noted too that these dates are up to and include 2017.
Count two - Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice (Witness Tampering)
Reporting now is that it IS a cooperation agreement, so that goes against what it looked like to me initially...meaning I was wrong...something I say whenever it is true.
Some charges will be dropped upon successful cooperation.
Will be interesting to see what the cooperation entails.
Flagpole wrote:
Count one is GUILTY of CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
^ This is why he flipped.
