This is a helluva way to screw the pooch the day before you're up for election. And let's see the conservative apologists on her wiggle out of this, what with the source of the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... orter.html

Simply another indication that Republicans are unfit to govern, and feel that they are accountable to no one.

Hillis wrote:

This is a helluva way to screw the pooch the day before you're up for election. And let's see the conservative apologists on her wiggle out of this, what with the source of the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... orter.html

Simply another indication that Republicans are unfit to govern, and feel that they are accountable to no one.

Even if the story given by the reporter is the one accepted in court, why do you indict all Republicans for the boorish actions of one or a few?

Republicans care deeply about free speech. When they're not legislating away free speech by launching dozens of bills criminalizing protesters, or bankrolling actual Nazis to push 'free speech' on campuses, they're body slamming them. 'murrica!

BobPatterson wrote:

why do you indict all Republicans for the boorish actions of one or a few?

Why do conservatives indict all liberals for the actions of one or a few? Two wrongs don't make a right, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

He'll still win and probably pull it off with a big margin(250,000 votes have already been cast). This kind of thing actually appeals heavily to the Republican base.

330west wrote:

He'll still win and probably pull it off with a big margin(250,000 votes have already been cast).

This is a great case study in the perils of early voting.

BobPatterson wrote:

Hillis wrote:

This is a helluva way to screw the pooch the day before you're up for election. And let's see the conservative apologists on her wiggle out of this, what with the source of the story.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... orter.html

Simply another indication that Republicans are unfit to govern, and feel that they are accountable to no one.

Even if the story given by the reporter is the one accepted in court, why do you indict all Republicans for the boorish actions of one or a few?

You want the recent list, without even including the Orange Menace?

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/p ... 64444.html

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/ ... 115220.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop ... a7de14d627

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -move.html

http://www.caller.com/story/news/politi ... /91930694/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... fef515f4fb

Shall I go on? And all these stories, which are verified, are very recent.

Right now, the GOP is filled with angry white men (and I am a white man), who sincerely think they are not answerable to their constituents. That's not a good thing in a free society.

BobPatterson wrote:

Even if the story given by the reporter is the one accepted in court, why do you indict all Republicans for the boorish actions of one or a few?

I agree that we should be very careful about generalizing. I would like to point out, however, almost no prominent Republicans have condemned this behavior. One could argue that inaction and lack of political courage are also boorish.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Republicans care deeply about free speech. When they're not legislating away free speech by launching dozens of bills criminalizing protesters, or bankrolling actual Nazis to push 'free speech' on campuses, they're body slamming them. 'murrica!

Sort of like Peter Thiel, who wrote a book about restrictions on free speech at Stanford, then bankrupted a media organization that exercised its free speech right to out him. I don't per se agree with Gawker's decision, but they have a right to do it, and if you're going to write a book whining that you feel you were deprived of said right at Stanford, you should at least have the decency to practice what you preach. Free speech phoniness at its finest.

DfwRevolution wrote:

This is a great case study in the perils of early voting.

Moot point.

1. The main drive behind the reduction/elimination of early voting is party advantage (early voters are usually among the Democratic base more so than the Republican base) and the ever popular voter fraud. Look no further than North Carolina as an example.
2. This all can be fixed with a law to allow voters to change their vote. Several other states allow it. Montana stands out as one of the few that do not. You can provisionally cast a ballot at your precinct, sealed in an envelope with a voted ID known only to you and a database. Those ballots should then be brought on election day in case you decide to cancel your vote. Your provisional ballot is then marked as invalid while the one cast that day will be the one counted.

In Maryland, when I voted absentee, I was kept up to date on whether my ballot arrived at the voting center, whether it had been processed and validated, and whether it was counted. I don't see why other states can't implement this system. In caucuses and even in Congress, people can switch their votes. A fail safe system can be designed for this.

Early voting is a great asset to any democracy, especially if you won't be present to physically cast a ballot on election day. The only peril I see is making up your mind so early and not being able to switch as more information becomes available. Eliminating early voting is a bigger peril.

I posted all those recent stories, about boorish GOP behavior, and said none involved The Orange Menace.

Add this The Menace to the recent behavior, as he shoves another head-of-state aside with an incredible look of contempt on his face.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102144808/

Shouldn't be long before the Trump butt-kissers on her rationalize this embarrassment.

Hillis wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

Even if the story given by the reporter is the one accepted in court, why do you indict all Republicans for the boorish actions of one or a few?

You want the recent list, without even including the Orange Menace?

Right now, the GOP is filled with angry white men (and I am a white man), who sincerely think they are not answerable to their constituents. That's not a good thing in a free society.

The question was "Why do you indict ALL Republicans?".

You reply by first insulting the President by using an infantile name for him. Please grow up.

Then you publish a list of links without annotation or description in your own words. Robots can do that. I prefer not to follow the postings of robots.

Try to convey your thoughts in a civil manner. You will win some opinions to your cause.

Lastly, you present a rather juvenile picture of the GOP as being a few white men (I presume you mean those who have been elected to office, dismissing elected women) and NOT including all members of the party (their constituents). You also paint all these "white men" as being angry.

It has been my observation (feel free to disagree with me) that YOU are more angry, MUCH more angry, than the average Republican (elected or not).

And, you are far from alone in your hate and anger, even in this small forum. When it comes to anger and hateful speech it is perfectly obvious that the liberal/democratic faction that participates here is MUCH angrier/hateful than the conservative/republican faction.

Should this sampling be used to indict ALL liberals or ALL democrats? Of course not.

In BOTH factions there are also many warm, patriotic, caring individuals.

In fact, there have been a few times when you have permitted your other self to be revealed as a "normal" reasoning human being. You should concentrate on being that person all the time and get rid of the hateful persona that presently dominates you.

Well, Gianforte's been declared the winner. Both parties will claim a victory:

Republicans will talk about how they blunted the anti-Trump movement and kept a red seat in their hands. They will also, no doubt, boast about how Trump is still popular in many of the states where he won.

Democrats will talk about how they reduced Zinke's 15 point margin to just around 7-8 in a state that went overwhelmingly red last fall, how Gianforte still is being charged (a great start to his term in office) and early voting was what allowed him to go over the top, and how (combined with KS-4 and GA-6 (round 1)) they have some momentum on their side, even though most of these are seats they didn't expect to be competitive in.

The real test, IMO, will be GA-6 (runoff). Trying to win seats that had PVI indexes of R+15 (KS-4) and R+11 (MTAL) and where Trump crushed Clinton was a farfetched goal (though worth a shot). Trying to win a seat with R+8 but where Trump barely won is more realistic.

As soon as the 4 special elections were placed, all experts agreed on the same thing: Democrats' best target is GA-6. All others were simply too red, though with the environment, KS-4 and MTAL were more competitive than expected.

Hillis wrote:

I posted all those recent stories, about boorish GOP behavior, and said none involved The Orange Menace.

Add this The Menace to the recent behavior, as he shoves another head-of-state aside with an incredible look of contempt on his face.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 102144808/

Shouldn't be long before the Trump butt-kissers on her rationalize this embarrassment.

No rationalization needed my good friend. All you need to do to understand what is happening in the world right now is listen to the words of President Donald Trump from his stump speech during the elections:

"We are gonna win!
We're gonna win, win, win!
We're going to win so much
That you are going to say:
Mr. President -
Stop!
No more winning!
We cant take all of this winning!
But I'm going to say:
No! We're gonna keep on winning!
Because we are going to
Make America Great ...
Again!"

Cheers!

Yeah. so why isn't it making America great? So far his presidency has made it less great.

Tugg

I am glad that the reporter wasn't seriously injured i hope he sues the pants off this millionaire , and Trump wannabee. i am not surprised he won, this is Montana, after all. I;m just surprised that the race was so close. I'm sure republicans will take this as a victory, but the writing is on the wall. Trump is losing his popularity even in states where he won by big margins.

einsteinboricua wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

why do you indict all Republicans for the boorish actions of one or a few?

Why do conservatives indict all liberals for the actions of one or a few? Two wrongs don't make a right, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm... goose.

Airstud wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

BobPatterson wrote:

why do you indict all Republicans for the boorish actions of one or a few?

Why do conservatives indict all liberals for the actions of one or a few? Two wrongs don't make a right, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm... goose.

After all that hit the media today, I'm thinking that goose is cooked well-done.