You really need to understand the depth the GOP hardliners here have for Flake, I don't think Trump could have saved him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/t...on-racism.html

Not a great look for Schumer.


Edit: Also that whole article is insane. Facebook is such a terrible company.

Michael Avenatti was arrested in LA today for domestic violence against his ex-wife according to TMZ. One problem with that, Avenatti's ex-wife denies it and her lawyer put out a statement denying it too. Not heard from Avenatti himself about it yet.


Edit; Avenatti denies that he has ever hit a woman, let alone last night.

It sounds like he was arrested for domestic violence but TMZ messed up the part about it being his ex-wife. Likely his new GF or someone else.

Lot of Trump tweets this morning-must be worried indictments are coming...or just watched Fox and Friends:


The inner workings of the Mueller investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion and have gone absolutely nuts. They are screaming and shouting at people, horribly threatening them to come up with the answers they want. They are a disgrace to our Nation and don’t...

Fixed that for you.

I desperately want to see a poll about the Mueller investigation that goes something like.



Has the Mueller investigation found anything?



Y/N


And just leave it at that and see what happens. Because I really want to know who the people are who vote N on that.

Good lord
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...turkey-n933996

Looks like JPhillips was voting in Florida again.


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/15/donald-trump-pushes-conspiracy-theories-florida-recount/1991767002/

Just heard that Pancho Villa may be leading the caravan in Mexico.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...led-americans/

I voted so many times my counter flipped back over to 1.

LOL! These clowns never cease to amaze me with their bullshit.

Even Mattis won't get out of this with his reputation intact.

I had seen some jokes on twitter about buying cereal-now I know why.

Avenatti blames our friend Jacob Wohl for the arrest and vows to come after him.



Michael Avenatti Suggests Jacob Wohl Was Behind His Domestic Violence Arrest in Twitter Blast Against Conspiracy Theorist

It's being reported that Trump was looking at sending Gulen to Turkey in order to get Erdogan to lay off of Saudi Arabia.

Or as this tweet says:

Some one looking at a court filing in a case totally unrelated to Julian Assange was surprised to see his name listed twice and posted on Twitter about it and soon the Washington Post picked it up and ran with it. It was an accidental use of Assange's name that if true means Assange has been charged under seal since August, and would be unsealed if arrested:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.f01e6fe1d5bc


Edit: After I read the article, someone has tweeted that Russian TV is saying Assange has been extradited by Ecuador. Given the source, not sure how accurate that is.

Do we know what for? The old stuff is obvious but he was pretty instrumental in some of the election shenanigans with Russia.

My guess is it's a "why not both" situation.

Trump would love to throw Assange in bars when Obama didn't (or couldn't), and claim the credit; if he could deflect blame on the Russian shenanigans and say "we weren't the ones who colluded, obviously, because HE'S the one getting prosecuted," I think he'd jump at it.

First amendment battle.

US 'preparing indictment against Julian Assange' of WikiLeaks - BBC News

No will know for sure unless there is another "accidental admission" But we do know Mueller's been concentrating on the timing of the revealing of the Clinton/Podesta emails as it relates to Trump, Stone, and Assange, so my guess would be federal election violations amongst them.

Trump appointed judge rules that Jim Acosta's fifth amendment rights were violated by the White House in taking his press pass away and it must be restored. There will still be a trial over this.

This judge will be asked to step down. :popcorn:

no doubt

honestly a win/win for them.

Trump/Sanders will call on him at the next press conference. Trump gets to continue a public fight with the media and CNN.

Acosta gets to make the story about him (every journalist's dream).

Actual substantive policy discussion won't happen. But that's just bad for the rest of us.

Funny how Sanders says there must be decorum at the White House.

Trump is insisting that he's writing the answers to Mueller's questions, not his lawyers.

Everything's a con.

I'm still not sure it'll be about the 1st Amendment. They've never really gone after someone like this in the past (although plenty of threats). It would also likely lose in the courts.

I still think there is probably something else they are indicting him for to avoid that conundrum. There is a line between disseminating information and actively being a part of the crime to obtain it.

FWIW, I personally am okay if he rots in the embassy (just like Snowden in Russia).

His lawyers will make it 1st Amendment issue and I would love to see it go to trial to see how it works out, it will be fascinating.

Neat graphical illustration of who the 2 parties represent. And no, Pirates aren't counting as far as diversification goes :p

The pirate who got his eye blown up by an IED.

Man, I'm not even a fan of Ocasio-Cortez, but the Fox News obsession over her is hilarious.

She makes too much money! She doesn't make any money! She has a savings account! She's wearing a nice jacket!

I visited the in-laws after she won her primary and Fox News was basically non-stop coverage of her. They either want to build her up as a new punching bag to represent the left, are afraid of her, or a little of both.

Both. She is going to be a handy demon as the "extreme left." But it also scarring them to death that she and people like her could win elections as a socialist.

Yeah, she checks off all the boogey man boxes, woman, person of color, socialist.

On the right, Socialists are more dangerous than White Nationalists.


{edit: More dangerous, worse was a little vague.}

I'm trying not to harp on things Trump says/tweets, but this one takes the cake. He's visiting victims of the fires in California who have basically lost everything and this is what he says:


Trump: "You gotta take care of the floors. You know the floors of the forest, very important... I was with the President of Finland... he called it a forest nation and they spent a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things and they don't have any problem."

Socialists and white nationalists are bad for everyone.

QFT. The only reason I'd say socialists are more dangerous - though I'm not really 'on the right', is that there are so many more of them.

The right is basically just white nationalists these days.

Our Armed Forces are socialist institutions. They have universal health care, subsidized housing and child care, even the clothing is socialized. It's insane to see Socialists in a more negative way than freakin' white supremacists. This is crazy.

So the right then comprises 10% or less of America? Pretty impressive that they have any power at all.

** 2016 ANES results showed that less than 8% of those who self-identify as Independent, just over 4% of Democrats, and about 6.5% of Republicans agreed with alt-right philosophy. Specifically in that case, the issues presented were whether race was highly important to their identity, whether it was important for whites to change laws that are unfair to whites, and whether white Americans are discriminated against.

** 2017 Washington Post poll, taken shortly after Charlottesville, had a 10% overall support for the Alt-Right. I literally can't find anything higher.

63 million people voted for a white nationalist. It's not some fringe element of the party, it is the party.

There are people on the right who have spoken out against it and they've largely been marginalized.

That kind of logic is super-simplistic. It doesn't allow for any nuance. Poll people on why they voted for trump, and they don't say in large numbers 'because he's a white nationalist'. A lot of them voted against Hillary. Some were because of economic issues like trade. Some were because, as many people vote on, of SCOTUS, etc.

I don't agree with any of those stances, but it's absurd to reduce support for any politician to one issue like that. These things are never that one-dimensional.

For instance: Bill Kristol Wanders the Wilderness of Trump World | The New Yorker



To quote from the above article...

There's elements of truth there, but again is not really accurate and is a gross oversimplification. Thought exercise to prove it; name any other modern president who:

** Received as little endorsement or support from members of his own party during the campaign(hint: there's nobody remotely close)

** Received anything approaching the level of criticism for their official duties as Trump got after things like the Putin or Charlottesville press conferences from their own party.

That's before you get into things like the ACA repeal getting voted down repeatedly and so on. GOP leadership has been far too accomodated; there is again an element of truth in the stated position. To say in a carte blance manner Trump's philosophy has completely taken over the party though is such a reductionist absurdity that it can't survive the most casual observation of what has happened in the last three years.

We spend much more than any country on our military yet we told the military is underfunded. We hardly get our bang for the buck from the military and I say that as a veteran. Our military institution is hardly the pinnacle of fiscal efficiency.

I can say socialism is bad as well as white supremacists because they both lead to terrible results.

Holy shit. PilotMan nailed it, I guess.

He received little support from party leaders early on, but from people on the right he received a ton of support. He won the primary rather easily and dominated every other candidate when it came to rallies and excitement. No one will challenge him in 2020 on the Republican side. And if someone did, they'd get trounced.

As for criticism, I think it's tough to compare to other Presidents. I don't think we've had a President speak of Nazis in glowing terms. I don't think we've had a President with such an odd relationship with a foreign adversary.

The guy has the support of the people on the right. Has high approval ratings among people on the right. And candidates that run on the right are mimicking his style. Not sure how you can argue that he's not the focal point of their political philosophy today.

I guess it's a good thing that I did not in any way argue that then.