20 years ago, CBS had a sitcom called Murphy Brown. It really took on George H W Bush's administration and in particular Dan Quayle. They are bringing it back. Here is the trailer about why they brought it back. Basically, an opportunity, that could not be missed.
Now, a second woman has come forward alleging sexual inappropriateness by Kavanaugh. Story Here.
Your link didn't work for me. Maybe this one will.
The original reporting was by The New Yorker. One of the most telling bits from the first paragraph:
Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.
They literally don't care whether or not they're putting a sexual predator on the Supreme Court.
“He is a fine man with an unblemished past and these are highly unsubstantiated statements from people represented by lawyers,” Trump said on the sidelines of an event at the United Nations. “We should look into the lawyers doing the representation. Judge Kavanaugh is an outstanding person, and I am with him all the way.”
“There’s a chance that this could be one of the single most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate for anything but I am with Judge Kavanaugh and I look forward to a vote,” Trump continued. “For people to come out of the woodwork from 36 years ago and 30 years ago and never mention it, all of a sudden it happens, in my opinion, it’s totally political.”
Video here, for those who want to see Trump saying this in person.
Axios is reporting that Rod Rosenstein has (verbally) submitted his resignation. Which means that in the interim the Mueller investigation will be overseen by acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio (assuming I've read the Justice Department org chart correctly).
It seems a bit odd for someone to still be the acting Associate Attorney General a year and a half into an administration. Panuccio was installed in January 2017, shortly after Trump's inauguration.
Fast-moving story. Rosenstein is at the White House now, attending a meeting as Deputy Attorney General. There were rumors flying that Rosenstein would insist on being fired rather than resigning (the distinction matters to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act), but it's looking more like someone at Axios got played, possibly in a move to force Trump's/Rosenstein's hand. I'm sure there'll be an exciting new development very soon.
I saw a news story stating the Michael Avenatti has announced that he represents a third woman who also accuses Kavanaugh of something. I expect we will hear more about this.
That'll probably just make the Republicans want to rush through his appointment even more quickly.
And as for Trump's unwavering support for this low-life, what do you expect from someone who thinks it's quite acceptable to "grab women by the pussy" if you're a "star"?
Surely even Trump would suspect such a thing? At least, his advisors will, and take steps to prevent it. I can't see Mueller's investigation being allowed to continue.
Concerning Rosenstein, as I understand it, if he resigns, he can be replaced by someone already approved by the Senate. If he is fired the president will have to nominate someone to be approved by the Senate. And if he is fired he may not be able to draw full pension--Drumpf has been known to withhold pensions.
At this stage in the election process, if Drumpf fires him it will go badly for the GOP.
No, @Gramps49. Everybody keeps saying that. But it is never going to go badly for the GOP. At least not for a long time. The Democrats will fail to turn the Senate in November, and may even fail to get the House. Drumpf, if he lasts long enough, will be reelected in 2020. This country is fatally flawed.
This country is also fatally gerrymandered, and may be fatally re-hacked by the Repugnicans' Russian allies. The Repugnicans are justifiably confident about the midterms and 2020 because of this; it's why they don't give a tinker's dam what women or Democrat voters make of their nakedly obvious contempt and disregard for even a pretense at a fair hearing re: Kavanaugh from Ford and this new person, Ramirez. They don't give a fuck that absolutely everybody can see exactly what they're up to because they know it doesn't matter; they have this country sewed up like a sack of kittens to be drowned in Grover Norquist's bathtub.
I am not talking about the Senate. If the House goes to the Democrats, they will likely launch investigations against the Trump franchise from many directions: violations of emolument clause, violation of RICO Act; Income Tax Evasion; Conduct unbecoming of a president, the failure of Homeland Security to provide for Puerto Rico--and I have yet to get to the involvement with Russia,
Other investigations likely to commence include climate change; our involvement in Yemen; the deaths of servicemen in Niger
Oh, and, the abuse of funds in various departments, Education, EPA, Energy to name a few.
All of these investigations can be pretty damaging to the GOP.
If that comes to pass, where is policy and legislation in all this? Note, I am not saying these investigations should not take place. I do not have enough information or knowledge to comment. I am wondering if the Ds get the House and the Rs keep the Senate do you foresee a deadlock in legislation? And what impact may that have in these strange times?
You may indeed be right in your predictions, given the present state of affairs. I pray that you are not. The only short term measure I can see is to plead, plead, plead, with those who see the current dishonour and abuse for what it is to get out and vote.
Of what earthly use is the vote against the gerrymander?
A gerrymandered area can get swing startlingly if the vote that's been gerrymandered gets out in substantial force. A gerrymanderer is sacrificing their safe seats for more less safe seats.
What is the alternative? Gerrymandering arises when the desire to win or maintain power wins out over fairness.
The options are to try to use the democratic process, however flawed, to dethrone such power. Or despair. Or revolutionary overthrow. I don't think the US is yet in a position where those second and third options are all you have left.
You may indeed be right in your predictions, given the present state of affairs. I pray that you are not. The only short term measure I can see is to plead, plead, plead, with those who see the current dishonour and abuse for what it is to get out and vote.
I remember people predicting GOP invincibility in the early 90s, after Reagan's two successive electoral majorities, followed by GHW Bush creaming Dukakis and going on to win the Gulf War. But, of course, it didn't work out that way.
I'm not saying Trump WILL lose in 2020, just that it wouldn't surprise me.
I remember people predicting GOP invincibility in the early 90s, after Reagan's two successive electoral majorities, followed by GHW Bush creaming Dukakis and going on to win the Gulf War. But, of course, it didn't work out that way.
I've thought for a while that losing the White House in 1992 was what started the Republican insanity. The idea was that the Great Leader Reagan the Magnificent had realigned American politics so greatly it was the start of 1,000 years of Republican domination, a "permanent Republican majority" to borrow a phrase Karl Rove would use later. The idea that their thousand year reich could collapse after only twelve years was intolerable. Under this worldview, any Democratic president was, by definition, illegitimately holding office. That goes double if you're some hick outsider from Arkansas (and let's not even get into how illegitimate your presidency had to be if you weren't white).
It's easy to forget how inevitable a fourth-consecutive GOP term was considered in the run-up to the '92 election.
I do think that the Gulf War, in addition to the Reagan afterglow, played a big role in all that. And, further, I think that those predictions might have been related to media commentators overestimating how important the Gulf victory would be to the average-voter by the time the election rolled around.
And this gets me further into another pet theory of mine, and that is that Vietnam Syndrome was largely a concoction of the chattering classes, and actually played little role in how people voted in the subsequent elections.
What is the alternative? Gerrymandering arises when the desire to win or maintain power wins out over fairness.
The options are to try to use the democratic process, however flawed, to dethrone such power. Or despair. Or revolutionary overthrow. I don't think the US is yet in a position where those second and third options are all you have left.
There is no viable alternative. It's just that all this VOTE THEM OUT! discussion worries me. It teeters on the same edge as HAVE FAITH! urgings when someone gets a dread disease: we blame an undesitable result on the victims. But we must not forget what we're up against:
1. Gerrymandering
2. The Russians (we never seem to come to grips with this)
3. The fact that voting is done on a work day during (mostly) working hours (there's no early voting, no mail-in pre-election in my state; don't know how widespread that is; absentee ballots are the only work-around here, and even that's a bit of a hassle), and many people in low-wage jobs simply cannot pull off a visit to a polling place without losing wages and/or even risking the job.
4. Our governor promised to sign a bill making it possible for out-of-state college students to register and vote here and then vetoed said bill at the last minute.
Other states pull tricks like closing or moving polling places in areas where there's no public transport and poor people without private transport; purging voter rolls of legitimate voters, and on and on. Some states just "lose" boxes of votes wholesale.
And the Russians . . .
So, sure. By all means, vote. It's pretty much all we've got left. I'm just warning against counting any blue chickens until they show up to get sworn in.
3. The fact that voting is done on a work day during (mostly) working hours (there's no early voting, no mail-in pre-election in my state; don't know how widespread that is; absentee ballots are the only work-around here, and even that's a bit of a hassle), and many people in low-wage jobs simply cannot pull off a visit to a polling place without losing wages and/or even risking the job.
According to this, there are thirteen American states that have neither no-excuse absentee ballots nor early voting.
4. Our governor promised to sign a bill making it possible for out-of-state college students to register and vote here and then vetoed said bill at the last minute.
I'm pretty sure (IANAL) not allowing students to vote where they attend college is unconstitutional, even if they reside out-of-state during the summer months.
It looks like three women have reported sexual misbehaviour/ sexual assault of trumpy's judge choice. Severity as compared to reports of trump's own behaviour is difficult to sort.
Tell me this is a dream. Or a nightmare. I know there exist people so far up their own arses they believe they are better than everyone else. But I've never seen anyone so delusional...or worse, so knowingly able to lie without any trace of not believing it.
Good Lord. I am so sorry Americans. So very sorry for you. I think we got a shit for PM; no comparison.
Is he a bumbling idiot or an evil prick or both? Trump, I mean. I suspect that his natural style is bumbling idiot, but he has learned how to use that to manipulate people.
I also think that Australians, at least, can misread some American men who speak in a certain slow drawl. We perceive it as evidence of a mild brain injury, but that's not at all the case. I think Americans perceive it as an honest and modest way to present yourself. The classic example is Ronald Reagan, who did have a brain impairment, but that's not the point. Someone who Australians saw as an obvious fool was very much not a fool.
I think something similar is happening with Trump. The boastfulness and the displays of wealth are seen as certain evidence by Australians that the man is fatally flawed. These things are not done by our politicians, or indeed many people at all. The stockbroker Rene Rivkin is the last person I can think of, and he was not well-regarded. Indeed, if you do display your wealth you are regarded with suspicion: you are a parvenue, or worse still a criminal. I don't think many Americans view displays of wealth as negative. I think its something many Americans see as desirable or appropriate for wealthy people to do.
Trump's failure to speak in sentences or articulate ideas is seen as evidence that he lacks the intellectual capacity to be President. But it seems to be seen as evidence of his capacity to relate to people by some Americans, a plus.
What I don't understand is why Trump is immune to sex scandals, and why he can lie so shamelessly and get away with it.
What I don't understand is why Trump is immune to sex scandals, and why he can lie so shamelessly and get away with it.
Part of the answer to this one comes from Slate's Slow Burn. There's very good evidence that a lot of people were not angry at Clinton for what he had or hadn't done with an intern. (Remember at that point it was not known that it was true). A lot of people were angry at the media for talking about it so much. The achetypal quote is something like "How dare you talk about this on the evening news! Now I have to tell my 11 year old daughter what a 'Blow-job' is."
Trump taps into an angry constituency who believe he's on their side. They don't care what he might or might not have done.* They can rationalise that away and be angry at the media for talking about it.
And for me, that speaks to a deeper problem. I understand why parents don't want sexual assault on the news. However our squemishness about this is dangerous. One of the reasons why abusers get away with it so much is because we as a society want to hide from the reality of abuse. That's a perfectly natural reaction. I have heard enough first hand stories to last me more than a lifetime; but my discomfort is such a ridiculously small price to pay for (hopefully) being some comfort - for being someone who can listen. I know some people were shocked by #MeToo and others sceptical; surely sexual assault/harrassment isn't this ubiquitous? Yes. Yes it is.
So in a culture that is completely in denial about the reality of sexual assault, it is really easy to ignore his sex scandals.
AFZ
*I have written previously why am convinced that the accusations of assault against Mr Trump are entirely true.
Could I ask two questions of US nationals on the Ship about Trump being laughed at in the UN? I'd be really interested to know.
The first is, as shown by the links on this thread, this has been widely reported here. But has it been reported widely at home? Or is it just too embarrassing for the media to cover?
The second, if you're a Trump supporter, obviously, this will make you feel very angry, 'how dare these people mock our President?', 'just proves what a collection of wasters the UN is?' etc. But, if you're not a Trump supporter, do you feel much the same, that this is an outrage and that not just Mr Trump but your country is being mocked, do you feel he got what he deserved and you would have laughed if you'd been there, or do you feel emotionally conflicted or even perhaps a bit ashamed?
Good questions. I can confirm it got a substantial run on PBSNewshour without much editorial, and I think I saw something from Steven Colbert on Facebook, so the Late Show did something with it. I have no doubt that every current affairs satirical show will use it against Trump and for laughs.
Comments
Now, a second woman has come forward alleging sexual inappropriateness by Kavanaugh. Story Here.
Your link didn't work for me. Maybe this one will.
🙄🙄
Skeletons in the cupboard rattling.
I do not see how Grassley can avoid a reference back to the FBI. A number of people now have to be lying or misremembering.
Kavanaugh is probably toast.
The original reporting was by The New Yorker. One of the most telling bits from the first paragraph:
They literally don't care whether or not they're putting a sexual predator on the Supreme Court.
Trump, of course, is standing by his man:
Video here, for those who want to see Trump saying this in person.
It seems a bit odd for someone to still be the acting Associate Attorney General a year and a half into an administration. Panuccio was installed in January 2017, shortly after Trump's inauguration.
Rosenstein is resigning and has apparently said so to Kelly. Early signs that the market foresees increased instability.
(xposted with Croesos)
And as for Trump's unwavering support for this low-life, what do you expect from someone who thinks it's quite acceptable to "grab women by the pussy" if you're a "star"?
Maybe he can borrow Scott Pruitt's soundproof booth.
Thank you.
At this stage in the election process, if Drumpf fires him it will go badly for the GOP.
Actually, they are only my darkest fears for the USA.
@Pigwidgeon that crack about Pruitt gave me a welcome chuckle.
Other investigations likely to commence include climate change; our involvement in Yemen; the deaths of servicemen in Niger
Oh, and, the abuse of funds in various departments, Education, EPA, Energy to name a few.
All of these investigations can be pretty damaging to the GOP.
You may indeed be right in your predictions, given the present state of affairs. I pray that you are not. The only short term measure I can see is to plead, plead, plead, with those who see the current dishonour and abuse for what it is to get out and vote.
What is the alternative? Gerrymandering arises when the desire to win or maintain power wins out over fairness.
The options are to try to use the democratic process, however flawed, to dethrone such power. Or despair. Or revolutionary overthrow. I don't think the US is yet in a position where those second and third options are all you have left.
I remember people predicting GOP invincibility in the early 90s, after Reagan's two successive electoral majorities, followed by GHW Bush creaming Dukakis and going on to win the Gulf War. But, of course, it didn't work out that way.
I'm not saying Trump WILL lose in 2020, just that it wouldn't surprise me.
I've thought for a while that losing the White House in 1992 was what started the Republican insanity. The idea was that the Great Leader Reagan the Magnificent had realigned American politics so greatly it was the start of 1,000 years of Republican domination, a "permanent Republican majority" to borrow a phrase Karl Rove would use later. The idea that their thousand year reich could collapse after only twelve years was intolerable. Under this worldview, any Democratic president was, by definition, illegitimately holding office. That goes double if you're some hick outsider from Arkansas (and let's not even get into how illegitimate your presidency had to be if you weren't white).
It's easy to forget how inevitable a fourth-consecutive GOP term was considered in the run-up to the '92 election.
I do think that the Gulf War, in addition to the Reagan afterglow, played a big role in all that. And, further, I think that those predictions might have been related to media commentators overestimating how important the Gulf victory would be to the average-voter by the time the election rolled around.
And this gets me further into another pet theory of mine, and that is that Vietnam Syndrome was largely a concoction of the chattering classes, and actually played little role in how people voted in the subsequent elections.
There is no viable alternative. It's just that all this VOTE THEM OUT! discussion worries me. It teeters on the same edge as HAVE FAITH! urgings when someone gets a dread disease: we blame an undesitable result on the victims. But we must not forget what we're up against:
1. Gerrymandering
2. The Russians (we never seem to come to grips with this)
3. The fact that voting is done on a work day during (mostly) working hours (there's no early voting, no mail-in pre-election in my state; don't know how widespread that is; absentee ballots are the only work-around here, and even that's a bit of a hassle), and many people in low-wage jobs simply cannot pull off a visit to a polling place without losing wages and/or even risking the job.
4. Our governor promised to sign a bill making it possible for out-of-state college students to register and vote here and then vetoed said bill at the last minute.
Other states pull tricks like closing or moving polling places in areas where there's no public transport and poor people without private transport; purging voter rolls of legitimate voters, and on and on. Some states just "lose" boxes of votes wholesale.
And the Russians . . .
So, sure. By all means, vote. It's pretty much all we've got left. I'm just warning against counting any blue chickens until they show up to get sworn in.
According to this, there are thirteen American states that have neither no-excuse absentee ballots nor early voting.
I'm pretty sure (IANAL) not allowing students to vote where they attend college is unconstitutional, even if they reside out-of-state during the summer months.
Isn't one of Trump's obsessions that "the world is laughing at us" and that this was something his presidency* was supposed to fix?
That's got to be like living his second-worst nightmare.
Hopefully.
He certainly didn’t know how to react.
Can't help you; I couldn't bear to watch.
"My administration has accomplished more than almost any other administration in the history of our country. America's...[audience: LOL] - So true."
Good Lord. I am so sorry Americans. So very sorry for you. I think we got a shit for PM; no comparison.
I also think that Australians, at least, can misread some American men who speak in a certain slow drawl. We perceive it as evidence of a mild brain injury, but that's not at all the case. I think Americans perceive it as an honest and modest way to present yourself. The classic example is Ronald Reagan, who did have a brain impairment, but that's not the point. Someone who Australians saw as an obvious fool was very much not a fool.
I think something similar is happening with Trump. The boastfulness and the displays of wealth are seen as certain evidence by Australians that the man is fatally flawed. These things are not done by our politicians, or indeed many people at all. The stockbroker Rene Rivkin is the last person I can think of, and he was not well-regarded. Indeed, if you do display your wealth you are regarded with suspicion: you are a parvenue, or worse still a criminal. I don't think many Americans view displays of wealth as negative. I think its something many Americans see as desirable or appropriate for wealthy people to do.
Trump's failure to speak in sentences or articulate ideas is seen as evidence that he lacks the intellectual capacity to be President. But it seems to be seen as evidence of his capacity to relate to people by some Americans, a plus.
What I don't understand is why Trump is immune to sex scandals, and why he can lie so shamelessly and get away with it.
How dare the world laugh at our buffon
Part of the answer to this one comes from Slate's Slow Burn. There's very good evidence that a lot of people were not angry at Clinton for what he had or hadn't done with an intern. (Remember at that point it was not known that it was true). A lot of people were angry at the media for talking about it so much. The achetypal quote is something like "How dare you talk about this on the evening news! Now I have to tell my 11 year old daughter what a 'Blow-job' is."
Trump taps into an angry constituency who believe he's on their side. They don't care what he might or might not have done.* They can rationalise that away and be angry at the media for talking about it.
And for me, that speaks to a deeper problem. I understand why parents don't want sexual assault on the news. However our squemishness about this is dangerous. One of the reasons why abusers get away with it so much is because we as a society want to hide from the reality of abuse. That's a perfectly natural reaction. I have heard enough first hand stories to last me more than a lifetime; but my discomfort is such a ridiculously small price to pay for (hopefully) being some comfort - for being someone who can listen. I know some people were shocked by #MeToo and others sceptical; surely sexual assault/harrassment isn't this ubiquitous? Yes. Yes it is.
So in a culture that is completely in denial about the reality of sexual assault, it is really easy to ignore his sex scandals.
AFZ
*I have written previously why am convinced that the accusations of assault against Mr Trump are entirely true.
The first is, as shown by the links on this thread, this has been widely reported here. But has it been reported widely at home? Or is it just too embarrassing for the media to cover?
The second, if you're a Trump supporter, obviously, this will make you feel very angry, 'how dare these people mock our President?', 'just proves what a collection of wasters the UN is?' etc. But, if you're not a Trump supporter, do you feel much the same, that this is an outrage and that not just Mr Trump but your country is being mocked, do you feel he got what he deserved and you would have laughed if you'd been there, or do you feel emotionally conflicted or even perhaps a bit ashamed?
100% both. Hopefully more and more decent republicans will see this. There are some, yes?