Republicans: candidate who assaulted reporter is fine with us!

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Bricker

I would in turn argue that despite the case you make above, as a first offender charged with a misdemeanor he won’t get jail time. Moreover, that sentencing decision will be absolutely in line with other first offender sentences. The concerns you have about ineffectiveness and salary due to jailing won’t arise.

You may be right, but I’ve given you my opinion on why that would be unwise.

Let’s assume he ends up in front of a judge who decides to throw the book at him. It’s not completely out of the realm of possibility and we both know it wouldn’t be the first time a first offender receives the maximum sentence. So, why don’t you answer the hypothetical I posed? It’s based in fact, so there’s no reason to dispute the punishment Gianforte is facing.

Let me refresh you memory:

[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
The punishment for assault in MT is up to six months in jail. How effective would you say a representative of the U.S. House of Representatives who is serving a six-month jail sentence in Montana would be in representing his constituents? Further, should he receive his full salary for only serving 75% of his term?
[/QUOTE]

[Just_Asking_Questions]

@Bricker

But Gianforte is in fact going to be the US Representative from Montana, anyway.

Winning!
It’s all that matters. That, and liberal tears.

[The_Tooth]

@Bricker

But Gianforte is in fact going to be the US Representative from Montana, anyway.

I take comfort in the fact that no matter how many mad anti-abortionist criminals you elect, I still live in Canada.

[Just_Asking_Questions]

@The_Tooth

I take comfort in the fact that no matter how many mad anti-abortionist criminals you elect, I still live in Canada.

Give them time. An invasion of Canada is probably in the works as we speak.

Canadian citizen: “They hate our freedoms!”

PS. maybe y’all should buy some Apache helicopters while you can.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Bricker

The press has been relentlessly liberal. It’s no surprise that Trump, and the GOP, are tired of a press that is routinely biased against conservative positions. I’m sorry, but I don’t regard the general vituperative tone taken with the press as unjustified. Reporters are overwhelmingly liberal, and frame stories from liberal perspectives. A story about marriage equality and a story about homosexual marriage may be factually identical, but the choice of words makes a big difference in the impact. The press reported that Trump’s plan would throw 23 million people off of health care when the more honest point to be made was that the number 23 million was composed mostly of people that don’t have insurance now and would choose not to buy it because no mandate forced them to. Call that a bad outcome if you wish, but it’s not “thrown off.”

Except that your interpretation is flat-out wrong, because at least 10 million of those are people who were previously on medicaid. And by the way, when your party embraces anti-intellectualism to such an absurd degree as the Republican party, I have no idea why you would expect equal (not fair, you clearly aren’t asking for a fair treatment, as the media has been more than fair to the republican party) treatment.

Sorry – the press waded into the mud, and cannot complain now that they have had mud slung at them.

So the media has a liberal bias, therefore it’s okay to assault them and treat them like an enemy of the country.

Gotcha.

Tell me, are there any other constitutional freedoms you value as loosely as the free press? You fucking cretin?

[Uncle_Jocko]

@Dale_Sams

By the way…is there any evidence that “old conservative voters will die and be replaced by younger more liberal voters” is true?

Seems to me that people as they get older either become more conservative, or get disgusted by the actions of their party/fellows who hold their world-view and opt out of voting altogether.

@Richard_Parker

President Trump has, frequently, attacked both the freedom of the press and the press itself as an enemy of the people going far beyond his facile threats to change libel laws.

[ul]
[li]He says he has “a running war with the media” and called reporters “among the most dishonest human beings on earth." Indeed, the press was and remains one of a handful of central villains in his political rhetoric. [/li][li]He has convinced a substantial number of conservatives that outlets like the NY Times and Washington Post are “fake news” whose conduct is, in the words of his spokesman, “dangerous for democracy.” [/li][li]He has regularly praised leaders who murder journalists as strong and powerful, and disembled and dodged when asked how he feels about Putin’s murders of reporters. [/li][li]He has denied access to journalists because they asked tough questions and urged his FBI director to imprison others.[/li][/ul]

This anti-press rhetoric, entirely predictably, led to hostility, threats, and violence by his supporters against members of the press. That’s what happens when the leader of a political party and an entire party establishment seek to persuade members of their party that certain individuals are treasonous threats to democracy.

None of this has been opposed, much less denounced, by significant numbers of GOP elected figures. Instead, what you see are GOP thought leaders like Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity echoing the same messages.

Trump is a dottering old man who can’t read three sentences without losing his train of thought, and doesn’t understand how the world works. But that doesn’t diminish the effect of his campaign against the press one iota.

And this is what disheartens me about any potential future demographic changes in voter preferences. I’m just not sure it’s actually going to happen.

Why? Fox News and the GOP (Trump in particular, but you can trace the line back to Gingrich and early Limbaugh) have pretty successfully reframed the political landscape to where many GOP voters just don’t see the world in the same way “normal” people do (I know, I know, it’s a cheap shot, but bear with me).

So you have people who desperately believe the Clintons killed Vince Foster, or Hillary runs a child molestation ring out of a pizza parlor, or the DNC killed Seth Rich because he gave info to Wikileaks. You have organized efforts to tar every Democratic politician with epithets like “sick” or “pathetic” or “traitor.” You run campaigns against certified, bemedaled freakin’ war heroes to make them look like draft dodgers and cowards. And in all this, if the press ever calls you out for any of it, you turn on the press and make them the enemy.

Now we have campaign rallies where the press is gated off in a small area surrounded by angry crowds whipped into a frenzy against them, with a candidate (now President) who labels the press as “an enemy of the people,” who opened promoted violence against protesters - so why should we be surprised when a GOP candidate’s assault on a reporter doesn’t bring bipartisan outrage and condemnation, but instead actually encourages some GOP voters to support him even more?

I just don’t know if demographic changes are going to be able to counter this massive Fox/GOP campaign to reframe politics in general. I just see too many people who feel better having enemies picked out for them to attack and mistreat, the greater good of the country be damned.

(And I’m glad to see Bricker hasn’t lost his old touch of, “you guys don’t like a candidate who beat up a reporter/voter ID laws/looser gun restrictions … but they happened anyway, so nyah, nyah, nyah!”)

[The_Tooth]

@Just_Asking_Questions

Give them time. An invasion of Canada is probably in the works as we speak.

Canadian citizen: “They hate our freedoms!”

PS. maybe y’all should buy some Apache helicopters while you can.

I’m not worried. I think y’all are going to be busy for a while.

[John_Mace]

@The_Tooth

I’m not worried. I think y’all are going to be busy for a while.

Y’all? You must be from southern Canada.

[Chisquirrel]

@Bricker

Moran assaulted a fellow Congressman for comments about Moran’s bill. Why that’s more evil than a question, I have no idea. Party leadership took no actions against Moran.

Moran assaulted a fellow Congressman for insults on Moran’s character. It wasn’t innocent comments about a bill, no matter how you’d like to spin it as such.

The sixteen year old was assaulted for holding a sign. That seems less evil than asking
a question too.

Summary from a poster that’s also in this thread:

And one who isn[t:

I’ll take Selective Quoting for 400, Alex. You’ve brought three quotes, two of which agree with you, and one that doesn’t. Since Miller hasn’t popped in yet with his reasoning, but his response was more in line with Damuri Ajashi (who also identifies as a liberal) calling for a five year prison sentence for Miller-Young. Too bad you ignored the posts from liberals there, and in this thread, in your neverending quest to prove liberal hypocrisy. Is it just the lawyer in you that will go anywhere and everywhere to defend your chosen?

[Chisquirrel]

@Bricker

But Gianforte is in fact going to be the US Representative from Montana, anyway.

Jesus wept.

[marshmallow]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Hence, there’s also the old “a conservative is just a liberal who’s been mugged” bit.

The modern formulation would be something like “a conservative is just a liberal who’s been called a cishet fascist.”

[John_Mace]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

Hence, there’s also the old “a conservative is just a liberal who’s been mugged” bit.

So you’re saying that journalist is now a conservative?

[Chisquirrel]

@John_Mace

So you’re saying that journalist is now a conservative?

Maybe a British conservative. Probably still pretty liberal for the US though.

[Little_Nemo]

@Shodan

The best the Democrats can put up against a body-slamming Republican is some banjo-playing hippie with bad credit, and they still lose by seven points. This does not bode well for their prospects in 2018 - or 2020.

The Dems are now, what, 0 for 3 in special elections. I am getting a sinking feeling about whoever the Dems are going to nominate in 2020.

Yes, having standards is a handicap that Democrats have to deal with. Republicans have it easy in comparison.

But I feel that while it can be a burden in getting candidates elected, it’s worth it for the better results it produces after the elections.

[Evil_Economist]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Tell me, are there any other constitutional freedoms you value as loosely as the free press? You fucking cretin?

He’s not a big fan of people voting (if they’re politically opposed to him). And remember, this guy is the poster child on this board for a sane conservative.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Bricker

The press has been relentlessly liberal. It’s no surprise that Trump, and the GOP, are tired of a press that is routinely biased against conservative positions…

Oh bullshit. This claptrap again.

You are just repeating The Donald’s mantra. "Mean press. So unfair. So mean to me. "

Look. Printing The Donald’s words verbatim as they spewed out of his mouth hole is not being “biased”. Reporting factual information is not being “biased”. Taking a reality based position that it is INCORRECT that tax cuts for the wealthy will work out great THIS time, PROMISE! Is not biased.

Reporting the utterly stupid things The Donald says is not “bias”.

The press is only “liberal” in that it reports the truth, the facts. They say that up is up and down is down.

Jesus. This whole “liberal press” crap is exactly why your boy feels he is perfectly justified in assaulting a reporter. YOU are part of the problem. YOU are still enabling the criminal assaulter. By giving him the “mean mean liberal media” excuse. It’s disgusting.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Just_Asking_Questions

Winning!
It’s all that matters. That, and liberal tears.

True. When it comes down to it, the response seems to be:

“The assault on a reporter for asking the wrong questions is OK, because fuck you we won, ha ha ha ha!”

Nice to know what we’re dealing with.

[Jack_Batty]

That’s the thing. The press hasn’t been “relentlessly liberal” it just hasn’t been relentlessly coservatve, and when conservatives don’t get their way in every little thing that goes down, they started whining like six-year-olds that everyone’s being mean to them.

Like I said before … no character with these right wing pussies.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Shodan

The best the Democrats can put up against a body-slamming Republican is some banjo-playing hippie with bad credit, and they still lose by seven points. This does not bode well for their prospects in 2018 - or 2020.

The Dems are now, what, 0 for 3 in special elections. I am getting a sinking feeling about whoever the Dems are going to nominate in 2020.

Regards,
Shodan

@Evil_Economist

Montana went to Trump by like +20 over Clinton. A banjo-playing hippie cut that lead by 2/3. This is actually really bad news for Republicans.

What is amazing is why the dems have such a hard time fielding a decent candidate. Maybe none want to try in Montana which is a deeply red state. Since 1950 they have voted republican in all but two of seventeen elections and went to the likes of Nixon and Reagan and Bush and Trump by 20+ points.

So yeah, cutting that lead by 2/3 by a hippy ain’t bad at all.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

The press reported that Trump’s plan would throw 23 million people off of health care when the more honest point to be made was that the number 23 million was composed mostly of people that don’t have insurance now and would choose not to buy it because no mandate forced them to. Call that a bad outcome if you wish, but it’s not “thrown off.”

Nitpick, but not a minor one at all.

First, the majority of the 23 million will be removed from the insurance immediately, around 14 million, so the statement that most of them don’t have insurance now is wrong on that part.

Second, many of the remaining people to not have insurance by 2024 do have insurance now. They are either on a childhood insurance program, their parent’s insurance, or they have insurance through their job, which will be either dropping its coverage, or laying off the employee, who will not be able to buy insurance, so they would be another group of people who have insurance now, who will not have insurance because of the changes to our healthcare laws.

Third, the idea that removing the mandate just gives people the choice of not having insurance is not really true. The mandate did not require you to have insurance, it just made you pay out about a thousand bucks if you did not. So, by removing the mandate, you are increasing the effective opportunity cost of having insurance by a thousand dollars. Those who drop their insurance because the change in opportunity cost can very well be said to have been removed from insurance. Many will also not get insurance because the cost of premiums is going up, the ACA tried to address this, and had arguably effective controls on the rate of increase of premiums. The AHCA does not even try to address this, and it is quite likely that premiums will become unaffordable for anyone who actually needs insurance. Choosing food, clothing, and shelter over insurance premiums is not the same as choosing to not have insurance.