I’m only vaguely aware that someone said something about “monkey around”. I’m not clear on the context of the statement and the like. Before I comment on it, I’d like to better understand the full comment and perhaps the event it was said at, and about who. If you sincerely are interested in my opinion, provide a link where I can see it in context, and I’ll review it and then share my opinion on the matter.
My news sources are primarily RealClearPolitics.com, which links off to a wide variety of media outlets. However, I certainly don’t read everything that gets posted there.
Perhaps we need a thread discussing how to do Google searches. (I certainly could use some help with many of my searches, though breaking news stories generally pose little problem.)
Here’s a Bing URL. Note the “news:”, convenient for news items.
Click on the above and select your news source of choice. As often, the N.Y. Times provides a good objective summary:
The issue of course, is not whether Mr. Gillum’s election would in fact foul things up. The question is why did Mr. DeSantis say “monkey things up” instead of “foul things up.” Ordinary diction? Or racist dog-whistle? Nobody is certain one way or the other, and “reasonable doubt” might be the order of the day if DeSantis’ words were on criminal trial.
But what is the chance that Mr. Gillum’s skin color led to DeSantis’ choice of verb? 5%? Or closer to 95%? This page (which is ridiculously hard to load) provides further evidence that DeSantis is racist and pro-Nazi. (He’s an Admin for a “lunatic racist” Facebook account.) OTOH, Laura Ingraham thinks Gillum should apologize for DeSantis’ racist comment.
Obama was not our best president. FDR and LBJ were better. Obama was a good president, but he wasn’t the best (although he was probably the best since LBJ).
not really “arguing”. Sharing a hastily-formed opinion at the request of another poster, after I told them I didn’t have an opinion on the matter and they insisted they’d like me to share one.
But (a) he lied much less than most other politicians, and (b) he lied within the norms of United States politics, such as those norms are.
Trump, in contrast, lies more than most other politicians, if not literally ALL other politicians, and his lies are blatant and apparently without the slightest hint of self-conscious shame. There really is no comparison as to truthfulness between the two.
For the most part Obama was just taken out of context. The purpose of the comment was to correct the misconceptions spread by the GOP that the ACA was an entire government take over of the healthcare market, and so that all those who have healthcare through their employer would have to switch to a government program. Since it wasn’t a complete government take over Obama couldn’t force insurance companies to keep offering plans if they decided that they decided to discontinue them rather than bring them up to compliance. But that could have happened anyway with or without Obama.
Imagine you are a public planner in a small town in rural Louisiana about to upgrade a sewer system. There is rumor started by your oppenents that as a result of the construction alligators would sneak up the Toilet and bit them in the ass. So you publically declare that “No one is going to be bitten in the ass by an alligator as a result of this project.” Are you lying? What if some of the consituents are so scared that they start using outhouses instead of indoor plumbing and one of them gets bit in the ass by an Alligator?
Which is ironic, since the only way he could have guaranteed the truth of that statement would have been if he had taken over the entire health coverage system.
Avenatti is implying he has evidence that Kavanaugh engaged in gang rape of drugged women in his younger years now. I saw a tweet that a chief of police in MD is willing to investigate if someone files a complaint.
This is the kind of ruthless efficiency the democrats need, because we are fighting to defend our country from morally bankrupt white nationalists and begging them for friendship and being scared they will call us names is not a viable strategy. Yes maybe Avenatti is not the best choice for president, but we need cold blooded fighters like him on our side in some capacity. Honestly he is probably accomplishing more as a private attorney then he could as a senator or representative anyway.
…on the same day Avenatti implied he had evidence that Kavanaugh engaged in gang rape of drugged women Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer released a meticulously detailed thoroughly-fact-checked article that comprehensively detailed what allegedly happened to Deborah Ramirez.
Farrow and Mayer have been ruthlessly efficient.
Avenatti has not.
And this in a nutshell is why he is not Presidential material IMHO.
I don’t have faith that what Avenatti has claimed is going to actually pan out. And that’s a problem. Its the difference between a quiet achiever who gets things done and just being person who demands attention but is really full of hot air. If Avenatti wants to be taken seriously then he better deliver on his claims. Because they are pretty fucking serious allegations and if he doesn’t have anything he may be a “cold blooded fighter” but he isn’t helping the cause of the Democrats at all.
I’m very glad Avenatti is fighting for America. Heaven knows the Democrats aren’t doing enough. The top fighter of all, Robert Mueller, is a Republican.
But when I hear the flabbergastingly stupid idea of Avenatti running for President, I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. :smack: It is the GOP that fields absurd jokes like Palin, Carson, Pizza-Guy, Rick Parry, and Little Marco. Have we sunk to their level?
I don’t know how I feel. Yeah, maybe it makes me an idiot but I don’t know how I feel.
It wouldn’t matter, because without a tough and efficient senate majority leader nothing will be accomplished.
Sometimes experience is helpful. LBJ had a ton of political experience and he got a lot accomplished. But Sanders has a lot of political experience too and he doesn’t really have any accomplishments to his name (he has ideas, but very few have actually become law).
I like Avenatti though, he is probably more effective as a lawyer than he would be as a politician.
