If the nineth seat on the Supreme Court is filled by someone who wants to overturn Roe V. Wade, then Roe V. Wade will be automatically overturned, with absolutely no legal case being filed.
Has this fricken idiot ever even read the constitution?
Just read Breitbart and the other alt- right sites.
Peter Porcupinesays
Not great but a little less sideshow
sabutaisays
Many Nevadans are just more polite? This was a generally grown-up crowd. Wallace proved he belonged in that spot.
doublemansays
I think we need to create an F-
Stunning.
Christophersays
…was when Donald accused Hillary of inciting violence. She didn’t respond I assume because what can you say to something so outrageous?
doublemansays
At least on MSNBC, all the pundits, including GOP are saying his comment about “looking into” the election results is “disqualifying.”
I wonder if more Republicans will break really hard with Trump in attempts to save the Senate and maintain a wide House margin.
centralmassdadsays
Without losing their own voters
jconwaysays
And I was born 28 years ago during the height of Willie Horton and the tank ads. Even Kerry/Bush came across as a more civil and substantive affair than these. Hillary Clinton did an outstanding job articulating her experience and goals for the country, Trump engaged in conspiracy theories and shouting matches. He even called her a “Nasty woman” right before the closing statements.
Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole and HW Bush for all their flaws and bad policy ideas, never treated their Democratic opponent with the open contempt and vitriol of Donald Trump. We have truly reached a new low, one I fear will be hard to recover from.
hoyapaulsays
The debates are all about shoring up base voters and getting some of the last-minute undecideds (not a large % of the electorate, but potentially important) into your camp.
Is there anyone other than those already strongly committed to Trump (a significant, yet minority, 37-39% of the electorate) who think that he accomplished both goals tonight? He needed to show he was “presidential.” It’s hard to see how he did that, since a major part of running for president in the United States is an ability to accept the results of a democratic election. He needed to do better among women. Nothing he said helps there (if anything, his “nasty woman” comment won’t help). He also needed to demonstrate an understanding of the issues. I would think his response to Wallace’s question about the Syrian city of Aleppo would clear this up — frankly, he had no idea what he was talking about (seriously, read the transcript).
I don’t doubt that the 37% who love Trump loved his debate style. That’s the style that got him the nomination, after all. But is it enough to win? It’s hard to see how. Trump’s base simply isn’t large enough to win the general election. Yet again, just like the first two debates, he failed to expand his support beyond his most committed base voters.
JimCsays
“Obama’s regime”
and “Military and civilian intelligence agencies.” What’s a civilian intelligence agency? If that means the CIA, why do we military intelligence agencies?
theloquaciousliberalsays
Most intelligence agencies are “military” (organized under the Department of Defense and/or a branch of the US Military. However, in addition to the independent Central Intelligence Agency, there are a half dozen other “civilian” intelligence agencies working under other non-military branches of the U.S. government. To wit:
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Energy)
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Homeland Security)
Bureau of Intelligence and Research (State Dept.)
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury)
Office of National Security Intelligence DEA (Justice Dept.)
Intelligence Branch of the FBI (Justice)
bob-gardnersays
seventeen intelligence agencies investigate the source? Even though the material was not from the US government?
Seems like overkill.
As I tweeted last night, the man Republicans selected as their presidential candidate came out against democracy. Let that sink in.
Jasiusays
I’m trying to arrange a show at a local club featuring two of my all-time favorite bands, Nasty Women and The Bad Hombres (aka Los Hombres Malos). Stay tuned…
johnksays
how far he has fallen, it wasn’t high to begin with as he was always losing. But he seems to have fallen off a cliff. He’s losing, even possibly to historic levels. Whining and complaining all the way.
jconwaysays
Saying Wallace and the Commission gave Hillary all the other answers. I remember when progressives saw the bulge from Bush’s best and thought it was a microphone, but Kerry never made that accusation nor did anyone from his campaign. We have the candidate arguing the debate itself was illegitimate. He’s increasingly going into Mugabe/Chavez territory.
JimCsays
My friend said Trump brought up the O’Keefe video, and she didn’t even deny it? Is that correct?
I would have liked a strong denial there.
centralmassdadsays
Al that would do is throw Trump a lifeline, and allow him to keep talking about it.
Your pitcher pretty much threw an 81-pitch, 27 strike-out perfect game. While the opposing batters repeatedly smashed themselves in the face with the bat. And then set themselves on fire. Why grumble that the 15th out should have been a fastball for a swinging strike instead of a devastating curve for a strikeout looking?
JimCsays
Her non-answer threw him a lifeline.
A Sherman statement-level denial and/or condemnation of rogue actors acting roguely would have been better.
JimCsays
The accusation is too disturbing to ignore.
My take is that it’s a few people freelancing. But if I’m right that should be said.
johnksays
agree with CMD. Questionable and heavily edited O’Keefe videos only wingnuts would believe and they are already voting for Trump.
Trump got hit so hard about made up non-sense, saying things that everyone has see in video over and over and he just lies in our face. It doesn’t need a response. Clinton looked over at him with a disapproving nod when he said it, and look like he’s just unbelievable. I’m fine with not engaging in the bowels of wingnuttism.
JimCsays
The videos have been covered on CNN and NPR, and last night they were brought up in the final debate.
I’d be happy with “I certainly would not condone such actions, nor would my campaign. Though I have doubts about the source, with good reason, the charge is a serious one. Anyone found to have done anything like that will be fired immediately.”
Or something. Anything would be better than nothing.
johnksays
At the third presidential debate, Donald Trump invoked a video that says supporter of Hillary Clinton were paid to incite violence at one of his rallies in Chicago. It was an attack thread to emphasize that her campaign was “sleazy.”
But what Trump didn’t say is that he has paid the filmmaker who he says uncovered the accurate story.
Peter Porcupinesays
In a way, this film maker ‘scandal’ is related to WikiLeaks.
Trump paid the film maker. The Russians helped hack the emails. Let’s say both statements are entirely accurate. What does that matter?
The DNC people like Brazile say they don’t want to validate stolen emails, like that changes the content somehow. There is lots of noise about Russians trying to manipulate a foreign nation’s election (although when Obama did that with Netanyahu, it was not a bad thing, apparently). When Carter’s grandson taped Mitt at a fundraiser, progressives trumpeted that as proof positive that he hated the little people with no thoughts of editing or context. You accepted that as OK on its face, like the right does with the O’Keefe video.
But what is NOT said is that they are wrong, or inaccurate, or redacted, or anything else.
Why do you think that discrediting the source will change the content for the voting public? Which do you think voters are more interested in?
JimCsays
I don’t recall Obama interfering in an Israel election, but I can’t rule it out either.
jotaemeisays
But, I do recall Hillary Clinton’s State Department getting busted for spying on UN diplomates and stealing the credit card numbers, Angela Merkel being upset with us after she learned we had too been spying on the Germans, and shortly after that, Clinton saying that she wouldn’t run for president again. That was like only in 2009 or 2010 though, and people I meet have never either completely forgotten about it or never learned about it (Why would the US big media report that the US was busted for stealing the credit card numbers of UN diplomats?)
The excuse for Clinton that it given is that this spying started before she took office, along with conflicting stories that she did or didn’t receive some notice that she signed off on to continue the process. You know, it sounds familiar…
Christophersays
…the spying on the Germans story broke publicly while GWB was still President.
SomervilleTomsays
According to wikipedia, the order for “more aggressive intelligence gathering went back to 2008” went out under Condoleeza Rice’s name during George W. Bush administration.
From the same piece:
US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley stated that Clinton had not drafted the directive and that the Secretary of State’s name is systematically attached to the bottom of cables originating from Washington. In fact, further leaked material revealed that the guidance in the cables was actually written by the Central Intelligence Agency before being sent out under Clinton’s name, as the CIA cannot directly instruct State Department personnel. Specifically, the effort came from the National Clandestine Service, a CIA service formed in the years following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the goal of better coordinating human intelligence activities. According to former US officials, the instructions given in these cables may have been largely ignored by American diplomats as ill-advised.
There are all sorts of reasons why the CIA would want the requested information on UN diplomats. Access to credit card history is one of the more direct ways to gain information about whether or not an individual is using their role as “UN diplomat” as a cover for espionage. Pretty much every nation, including the UN, uses the UN in that way. It might be unsavory, but that’s the way the world works. Amidst the necessary and pro forma public outrage, Germany knows as well as anybody else that the US collects whatever it can, as does Germany.
Regarding the claim that she said she would not run for President again, sources like CNN suggest that she avoided answering:
“This is a great job,” Clinton said in the interview broadcast Monday. “It is a 24-7 job. And I am looking forward to retirement at some point.”
Hillary Clinton, like most serious candidates, has always been famously tight-lipped about whether or not she would run in a future election. She clearly did decide to run in 2016. The above statement in no way precludes that.
Finally, there is a world of difference between collecting intelligence and actively interfering in an election. Since our primary adversaries (like Russia, China, and Iran) don’t have elections, the question of whether or not we would do the same is moot.
It is nevertheless very clear that Russia is most definitely interfering in this election, with Wikileaks and Mr. Assange as exhibits A and B.
SomervilleTomsays
You write: “But what is NOT said is that they are wrong, or inaccurate, or redacted, or anything else.”
I think that’s inaccurate. The DNC, in particular, has not confirmed that the alleged Donna Brazile email is accurate. It appears that some of the email headers have been manipulated to change the date.
Meanwhile, the content of the video in question most certainly has been challenged — that lies at the center of the “project Veritas” scandal, in no small part because Mr. O’Keefe has a long history of deceptive video editing.
I think that the actual content of the released Wikileaks material is far less significant than the way they were acquired. I like to think that most voters are far more concerned about Russian interference in a US election than they are about some occasionally unsavory aspects of making sausage.
johnksays
You have an unsavory person with a history with editing videos which do not reflect the truth. You have to be completely separated from reality to not understand.
THE SOURCE IS ALREADY DISCREDITED BY HIS OWN HISTORY AND ACTIONS
Then knowing this, Trump pays this person a significant sum of money and then he starts creating another doctored video.
What difficult to understand here?
JimCsays
That answer won’t do, John. The charge made in the video is that people incited violence at Trump rallies.
HRC doesn’t get to just pass on that. Period! If Trump himself shot the video with help from O’Keefe, the Planned Parenthood video guy, and Curveball, the charge still needs to answered (or at least denied).
She’s out there saying Trump can’t be trusted, doesn’t have the temperament to be President, etc. This video appears to show people who support her confessing to violence. They allege that the campaign knows and approves.
Planned Parenthood didn’t ignore the videos against them — they fought back, and won.
Maybe she thinks she’s winning so it doesn’t matter. But sorry, it does. This needs to be answered. I want to hear the answer.
centralmassdadsays
I see no reason to respond to that guy. He fabricates his material.
Nor should President Obama have been required to send a certified copy of his birth certificate to Donald Trump, news commentator.
Nor should he be required to respond to allegations that he is a member of ISIS.
SomervilleTomsays
When dealing with scum like Mr. O’Keefe, attempting to deny the attack only brings more. Nobody bothers to deny the countless videos that attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. This rubbish from Mr. O’Keefe is no different.
We see something similar in the scientific literature. When an allegedly neutral researcher is shown to have accepted funding in exchange for a particular outcome of their “research”, the paper is pulled and the researcher is drummed out of the community. Nobody bothers attempting to discredit the “research” itself because it’s a waste of time.
As johnk observes, the Donald Trump campaign chose to commission work from Mr. O’Keefe after his reputation for deception was already widely established.
This was nothing but a commissioned hit-piece. I don’t think it needs to be answered at all.
JimCsays
You guys are both right that O’Keefe is scummy. But that doesn’t matter. Do you think the average voter knows who he is?
Trump went after her on one of her crucial messages, and she didn’t even reply.
Let’s assume for the moment that the people interviewed are lying, crazy, or crazy liars. (This is what I hope.) I see nothing wrong, strategically or otherwise, with issuing a blanket condemnation of the tactics described that can include “If anything like this ever turned out to be true, I would be shocked and would take strong action.”
The story lives on regardless, but better to get her response on the record. THEN you can remind people who O’Keefe is, and how he has no credibility.
johnksays
with a person who’s released have always been untruthful. Not getting how this is so difficult.
JimCsays
We could reasonably question whether it’s doctored, but we don’t know. I watched the first six minutes or so; it didn’t seem doctored, but I did wonder who the hell these guys thought they were talking to.
The other thing, again, is how high-profile it is, and when it arrives. Like I said upthread, the charge is too incendiary to ignore. Even more so this year.
johnksays
you believe you were viewing raw footage? Come on.
JimCsays
That would mean Trump financed a doctored video. She could make an issue out of that, no?
were done by a 400 pound guy sitting in his basement.
Do we also need a statement from the candidate denying that she has tremendous hate in her heart?
JimCsays
Can you name one time in your life when “My accuser has a record of lying” exonerated you or anyone else from an accusation of anything?
centralmassdadsays
is whether one beleives that someone is need of being exonerated.
Christophersays
..aren’t prosecution witnesses impeached all the time on the grounds that they have a history of not being credible? I guess I don’t have the stats on how often a jury buys it, but certainly defense counsel very often invokes the credibility of a witness to produce reasonable doubt.
JimCsays
David?
But in either case Christopher, if you were the defendant and that was your lawyer’s approach, would you feel confident?
My guess is you wouldn’t. You would prefer to argue the case on the merits.
SomervilleTomsays
This is not a court of law, this is a media war.
In a media war, the more you attempt to rebut a vicious lie the more you strengthen it. Each rebuttal is an excuse for the media to repeat the lie, in order to “provide context” for your rebuttal.
Further, it falls prey to the impossibility of attempting to prove a negative. It is nearly always better to ignore such rubbish, rather than give it credibility by responding to it:
Why would I decline to debate with Creationists? Would you, if you were a geographer, agree to have a debate with a Flat-Earther? There comes a point when you have to say you are — by agreeing to appear on a platform with somebody like that — you are giving them status. If a real scientist appears on a platform; if say, a reproductive scientist appeared on a platform with an advocate of the Stork Theory…
But, I will say this: that I’ve never actually dared to use the formula that my colleague, Robert May — Lord May — who’s one of Britain’s — actually, he’s Australian, come to think of it — most distinguished scientists. He was the government Chief Scientific Adviser for a while and then president of the Royal Society. What he says when he’s asked to have a debate with a Creationist, [affecting an Australian accent] “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.” 2
–Richard Dawkins
JimCsays
There we differ. They got this salvo all the way to the debate, and she didn’t fire back.
I’ll admit that part of what bothers me is that it’s so easily answered.
SomervilleTomsays
With Donald Trump as the candidate, the fact that some outlandish allegation is made during a debate has nothing to do with its credibility or whether or not it should be rebutted.
By ignoring the episode, the Hillary Clinton campaign allows it to join the growing cesspool of other totally outrageous claims put forward by Mr. Trump. That strategy also allows the uproar about Mr. Trump’s ham-handed refusal to accept the outcome of the general election to remain the topic of media attention.
The fact that the episode is so easily answered is a strong indication that it is best ignored.
It’s easy to record an opponent during an awkward moment and take their words out of context, and both sides do it during an election year. What is the effect? It makes the partisan hate the other partisan more, for supposedly playing unfair or rigging an election. Lately they are more frequent on the right. Bogus exposes of ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and now this labor organizer going against Trump. The left indulged in it too though, whether it was saying Diebold was rigging the election back in 2004 or exaggerating the mob mentality of the ‘Brooks Brothers riot’ during the 2000 recount. Reality is rarely found on a selectively edited videotape made by the opposition.
SomervilleTomsays
My best friend, fellow political junkie, and media watcher says that Donald Trump is collaborating with Steve Bannon (former CEO of Breitbart.com) to transform Brietbart.com into a Trump-owned media network that will play to the alt-right universe just as Fox played to the right-wing during its launch.
The object of Donald Trump’s political “campaign” is to pump hysteria and turn it into an audience for the new network, a new network that will be announced about the same time as the general election — perhaps timed to provide the “real” media story of the “rigged” election. He is not remotely interested in actually winning, and he’s not “playing to his base” — he is instead simply building an audience for his new media venture.
I think the premise makes sense. I still think there’s a chance that Mr. Trump bails out (claiming that the election process is so corrupt that he won’t continue to participate).
Still, I confess that it looks like I’m going to end up owing Betsey a dinner at the Saloon.
johnksays
It does seem like a natural progression, how many channels are there, Fox, OAN, The Blaze, NewsMax, must be others on cable.
centralmassdadsays
The deplorable are falling out of love with Fox, possibly because they prefer their news to be entirely fiction.
…what were the conditions of your wager with Betsey?
SomervilleTomsays
I wagered that Donald Trump would find a way to withdraw sometime between being nominated and the general election, Betsey wagered that he will stay in. I think we said that the stakes were dinner (at the Saloon, I think, but Betsey might prefer something in Maynard).
Even I have been surprised by just how crudely dangerous this man is.
centralmassdadsays
It was pretty good indeed. I hope they keep the folks who put it together.
centralmassdadsays
That was supposed to be a reply to christoper re: the Al Smith dinner.
See below.
Christophersays
The Archdiocese of New York held its annual Alfred E. Smith Dinner tonight for Catholic Charities. This is supposed to be one of the lighter moments in a presidential race, but Trump hit below the belt at least a couple of times.
Peter Porcupinesays
The Podesta emails take away any high ground she may have had.
centralmassdadsays
With respect to those Catholics who are quite offended by the comments of Mr. Podesta– who is himself Catholic– their continued support of your party’s nominee shows their evident comfort with forcible physical control of women, even to the point of violence.
I’m Catholic, and actively so. Anecdotal evidence though it may be, I can say that most Catholics agree with Podesta, and have long been by the willingness of the political prelates and politicians to throw an intellectual fig leaf over the superstitious fever swamps populated by the Falwells, Robertsons, and Roberts.
Honestly, support by Catholics for the GOP is, at this point, a forthright betrayal of the faith and its history in this country– as rather devastatingly illustrated by our next President at the Smith dinner. It appears that Mormons get this, and may fail to turn out for the GOP nominee for the first time since Goldwater. Catholics get it as well.
Peter Porcupinesays
And what I was saying was without these emails, his boorishness would be unquestioned. Now, some Catholics who were NOT Trump supporters are even more upset by these astroturf groups that Podesta talked about than they are by his crudity. I have no insight into how Catholics will process this comparison, but I think it is evident that his remarks took away her high ground.
JimCsays
I believe you, PP, but the Catholics you mentioned who are offended — are they reliable GOPers looking for an excuse to vote against HRC?
The Republicans I know say “She’s no better.” I can’t blame them really; it’s too much to ask someone to turn back on 25 years of hating her. But in saying she’s no better … they’re essentially conceding how awful Trump is. They’re going to vote for him anyway.
I remember Mike Huckabee (in 2008 maybe?) thanking the media for “Doing something I never thought possible, uniting the party.” Nonsense. The GOP wasn’t divided then, and it isn’t divided now.
Cognitive dissonance over Trump, yes. Actual disunity, no.
But back to Podesta … I would like to hear more about these groups. Especially since it indirectly gives credence to O’Keefe’s charge that no one wants to talk about.
centralmassdadsays
For the most part, those offended are the same ones “offended” by the dire imposition on their religious liberty to make sure other people don’t use birth control.
I believe that the organisation to which porcupine refers is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an organization formed in 2005 and which opposes the Church’s exclusive emphasis on sexual politics at the expense of the wider aspects of Catholic teaching on social morality. As such, it turns out that the group found itself NOT supporting GOP policies over the last 11 years. Hence the pearl clutching, and the denunciations from the John Paul II-political Catholics.
This is purely an instance of IOKIYAR. When the execrable Cardinal Dolan, or Paul Ryan or Rick Santorum or other Opus Dei types pretend that “Thomism” and “subsidiarity” give theological support for psuedo-intellectual social Darwinism of Ayn Rand (which, you might be surprised to learn, is a lie), they are exemplary fighters for their religious values. When their opponents engage in political activity, they must be denounced as perfidious.
The Podesta email was sent in the context of the 2012 mini-crisis over birth control and Obamacare. Recall that Cardinal Dolan, who is an evil man, was quite gung-ho to support keeping people without health insurance in order to protect his religious liberty to control what other people do. In true John Paul II fashion, Dolan pretended to be the monolithic voice of Catholicism and thus thundered away, as he is wont to do.
In response, Podesta wrote something like “this is why we formed CAPG.” The use of the first person plural is why porcupine is using the “astroturf” talking point that she read on redstate. It ignores that Podesta is actually Catholic, and likely is involved in the organization, because it supports his view of Catholic social teaching. I would hope he is: that’s why I support him and his boss.
The other thing that is producing faux pearl clutching is that he stated a wish for a “Catholic Spring” in response to Dolan, who is an evil man. This, of course, is a wish that was then, is now, and has long been shared by the overwhelming majority of American Catholics. The irony is that, just a year later, something that could be just that began with the election of Pope Francis.
Just look what all those people who, in 2012, were horrified that a Catholic might disagree publicly at all with a Price of the Church, now sayabout the Pope himself, once it became clear that he would not provide moral justification for social Darwinism.
This email scandal is a non-issue, except to those whom are trying to rationalize their support of a forthrightly depraved candidate. Pretending that Clinton somehow “lost the high ground” is simply a continuation of their absurd campaign tactics this season:
hesterprynnesays
Indeed You Should Be Skeptical
For the most part, those offended are the same ones “offended” by the dire imposition on their religious liberty to make sure other people don’t use birth control.
I believe that the organisation to which porcupine refers is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an organization formed in 2005 and which opposes the Church’s exclusive emphasis on sexual politics at the expense of the wider aspects of Catholic teaching on social morality. As such, it turns out that the group found itself NOT supporting GOP policies over the last 11 years. Hence the pearl clutching, and the denunciations from the John Paul II-political Catholics.
This is purely an instance of IOKIYAR. When the execrable Cardinal Dolan, or Paul Ryan or Rick Santorum or other Opus Dei types pretend that “Thomism” and “subsidiarity” give theological support for psuedo-intellectual social Darwinism of Ayn Rand (which, you might be surprised to learn, is a lie), they are exemplary fighters for their religious values. When their opponents engage in political activity, they must be denounced as perfidious.
The Podesta email was sent in the context of the 2012 mini-crisis over birth control and Obamacare. Recall that Cardinal Dolan, who is an evil man, was quite gung-ho to support keeping people without health insurance in order to protect his religious liberty to control what other people do. In true John Paul II fashion, Dolan pretended to be the monolithic voice of Catholicism and thus thundered away, as he is wont to do.
In response, Podesta wrote something like “this is why we formed CAPG.” The use of the first person plural is why porcupine is using the “astroturf” talking point that she read on redstate. It ignores that Podesta is actually Catholic, and likely is involved in the organization, because it supports his view of Catholic social teaching. I would hope he is: that’s why I support him and his boss.
The other thing that is producing faux pearl clutching is that he stated a wish for a “Catholic Spring” in response to Dolan, who is anevil man. This, of course, is a wish that was then, is now, and has long been shared by the overwhelming majority of American Catholics. The irony is that, just a year later, something that could be just that began with the election of Pope Francis.
Just look what all those people who, in 2012, were horrified that a Catholic might disagree publicly at all with a Price of the Church, now say about the Pope himself, once it became clear that he would not provide moral justification for social Darwinism.
This email scandal is a non-issue, except to those whom are trying to rationalize their support of a forthrightly depraved candidate. Pretending that Clinton somehow “lost the high ground” is simply a continuation of their absurd campaign tactics this season.
jconwaysays
Fairly certain that was your nominee, not mine. There will always be secular progressives disdainful of any organized religion, to the point that they scare off would be allies. Just as the religious right and libertarian right have found it much harder to forge common ground in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. That’s a given. Attacking major religious figures is not, but it’s one of the many lines Trump has crossed this year. Lines Sec. Clinton herself has not crossed, even if her aides have from time to time.
Christophersays
…but she picked a Catholic running mate – enough said.
petrsays
I have no insight into how Catholics will process this comparison, but I think it is evident that his remarks took away her high ground.
Did you even go past “somebody connected to Clinton said something I think somebody else won’t like”…???
Jennifer Palmieri, who works at CAP, was emailing John Halpin, who also works at CAP, and CC’d John Podesta’s GMAIL account on the mail. Jennifer Palmieri, a Catholic, was talking with John Halpin, whose denomination is unknown, and which she Cc’d John Podesta, himself Catholic, about Catholics voting Republican and why. They were trying to strategize on ways to shame the Catholics who voted Republican — the central tenets of Catholicism being love and forgiveness and, therefore, in diametric opposition to Republican orthodoxy.
Podesta chimed in only to say, “this isn’t something we can do anything about. Change has to come from the bottom on this.”
Those VERY SAME Republican Catholics are PISSED because Palmieri, Halpin and Podesta were talking about them (and in my estimation, having grown up Catholic with priests in family, correctly) and since they are fanatics, by definition carrying a secret doubt, they must loudly and in a most irreligious manner claim victimhood (a victimhood which Catholicism teaches should be accepted and embraced…)
Fake Catholics defending Republicans against accurate statements made between real Catholics…
Here’s the thing: This had FUCK ALL and NOTHING to do with Hillary Clinton or her campaign. Not one thing.
SomervilleTomsays
It appears to me that you may be confusing “high” and “low” ground — perhaps your eagerness to support your party may be overwhelming simple common sense. I’ve seen nothing in these emails that is offensive enough to “take away [] high ground” from anybody.
I might add that this private and stolen correspondence is far less insulting than the frequently and loudly repeated attacks on atheists, agnostics, and non-believers that have been a staple of public statements of at least some Catholic officials for decades.
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said the two Democratic operatives who were caught on tape talking about instigating violence at Donald Trump rallies had no relationship with the Clinton camp. “No one who is working for the Clinton campaign or the DNC. This is again an attempt by Donald Trump to distract from the real issues of this campaign,” Mook said.
I can’t watch the video right now, maybe the video is better. If it isn’t … yikes.
JimCsays
It’s the firm denial I was looking for.
Again, I’m glad they answered this. So thanks Robby.
He has to do something extraordinary. The mind boggles at what may be brewing in his confused thoughts.
what’s going on?
I’m worried about his health.
So much for small government.
If the nineth seat on the Supreme Court is filled by someone who wants to overturn Roe V. Wade, then Roe V. Wade will be automatically overturned, with absolutely no legal case being filed.
Has this fricken idiot ever even read the constitution?
Curse you tiny iPhone screen!
It is a totally rigged system. However, I will keep you in suspense about whether I accept you apology…
you need tiny hands.
A dog whistle to the white supremacynutjobs everywhere?
Just read Breitbart and the other alt- right sites.
Not great but a little less sideshow
Many Nevadans are just more polite? This was a generally grown-up crowd. Wallace proved he belonged in that spot.
I think we need to create an F-
Stunning.
…was when Donald accused Hillary of inciting violence. She didn’t respond I assume because what can you say to something so outrageous?
At least on MSNBC, all the pundits, including GOP are saying his comment about “looking into” the election results is “disqualifying.”
I wonder if more Republicans will break really hard with Trump in attempts to save the Senate and maintain a wide House margin.
Without losing their own voters
And I was born 28 years ago during the height of Willie Horton and the tank ads. Even Kerry/Bush came across as a more civil and substantive affair than these. Hillary Clinton did an outstanding job articulating her experience and goals for the country, Trump engaged in conspiracy theories and shouting matches. He even called her a “Nasty woman” right before the closing statements.
Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole and HW Bush for all their flaws and bad policy ideas, never treated their Democratic opponent with the open contempt and vitriol of Donald Trump. We have truly reached a new low, one I fear will be hard to recover from.
The debates are all about shoring up base voters and getting some of the last-minute undecideds (not a large % of the electorate, but potentially important) into your camp.
Is there anyone other than those already strongly committed to Trump (a significant, yet minority, 37-39% of the electorate) who think that he accomplished both goals tonight? He needed to show he was “presidential.” It’s hard to see how he did that, since a major part of running for president in the United States is an ability to accept the results of a democratic election. He needed to do better among women. Nothing he said helps there (if anything, his “nasty woman” comment won’t help). He also needed to demonstrate an understanding of the issues. I would think his response to Wallace’s question about the Syrian city of Aleppo would clear this up — frankly, he had no idea what he was talking about (seriously, read the transcript).
I don’t doubt that the 37% who love Trump loved his debate style. That’s the style that got him the nomination, after all. But is it enough to win? It’s hard to see how. Trump’s base simply isn’t large enough to win the general election. Yet again, just like the first two debates, he failed to expand his support beyond his most committed base voters.
“Obama’s regime”
and “Military and civilian intelligence agencies.” What’s a civilian intelligence agency? If that means the CIA, why do we military intelligence agencies?
Most intelligence agencies are “military” (organized under the Department of Defense and/or a branch of the US Military. However, in addition to the independent Central Intelligence Agency, there are a half dozen other “civilian” intelligence agencies working under other non-military branches of the U.S. government. To wit:
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Energy)
Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Homeland Security)
Bureau of Intelligence and Research (State Dept.)
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury)
Office of National Security Intelligence DEA (Justice Dept.)
Intelligence Branch of the FBI (Justice)
seventeen intelligence agencies investigate the source? Even though the material was not from the US government?
Seems like overkill.
As I tweeted last night, the man Republicans selected as their presidential candidate came out against democracy. Let that sink in.
I’m trying to arrange a show at a local club featuring two of my all-time favorite bands, Nasty Women and The Bad Hombres (aka Los Hombres Malos). Stay tuned…
how far he has fallen, it wasn’t high to begin with as he was always losing. But he seems to have fallen off a cliff. He’s losing, even possibly to historic levels. Whining and complaining all the way.
Saying Wallace and the Commission gave Hillary all the other answers. I remember when progressives saw the bulge from Bush’s best and thought it was a microphone, but Kerry never made that accusation nor did anyone from his campaign. We have the candidate arguing the debate itself was illegitimate. He’s increasingly going into Mugabe/Chavez territory.
My friend said Trump brought up the O’Keefe video, and she didn’t even deny it? Is that correct?
I would have liked a strong denial there.
Al that would do is throw Trump a lifeline, and allow him to keep talking about it.
Your pitcher pretty much threw an 81-pitch, 27 strike-out perfect game. While the opposing batters repeatedly smashed themselves in the face with the bat. And then set themselves on fire. Why grumble that the 15th out should have been a fastball for a swinging strike instead of a devastating curve for a strikeout looking?
Her non-answer threw him a lifeline.
A Sherman statement-level denial and/or condemnation of rogue actors acting roguely would have been better.
The accusation is too disturbing to ignore.
My take is that it’s a few people freelancing. But if I’m right that should be said.
agree with CMD. Questionable and heavily edited O’Keefe videos only wingnuts would believe and they are already voting for Trump.
Trump got hit so hard about made up non-sense, saying things that everyone has see in video over and over and he just lies in our face. It doesn’t need a response. Clinton looked over at him with a disapproving nod when he said it, and look like he’s just unbelievable. I’m fine with not engaging in the bowels of wingnuttism.
The videos have been covered on CNN and NPR, and last night they were brought up in the final debate.
I’d be happy with “I certainly would not condone such actions, nor would my campaign. Though I have doubts about the source, with good reason, the charge is a serious one. Anyone found to have done anything like that will be fired immediately.”
Or something. Anything would be better than nothing.
At the third presidential debate, Donald Trump invoked a video that says supporter of Hillary Clinton were paid to incite violence at one of his rallies in Chicago. It was an attack thread to emphasize that her campaign was “sleazy.”
But what Trump didn’t say is that he has paid the filmmaker who he says uncovered the accurate story.
In a way, this film maker ‘scandal’ is related to WikiLeaks.
Trump paid the film maker. The Russians helped hack the emails. Let’s say both statements are entirely accurate. What does that matter?
The DNC people like Brazile say they don’t want to validate stolen emails, like that changes the content somehow. There is lots of noise about Russians trying to manipulate a foreign nation’s election (although when Obama did that with Netanyahu, it was not a bad thing, apparently). When Carter’s grandson taped Mitt at a fundraiser, progressives trumpeted that as proof positive that he hated the little people with no thoughts of editing or context. You accepted that as OK on its face, like the right does with the O’Keefe video.
But what is NOT said is that they are wrong, or inaccurate, or redacted, or anything else.
Why do you think that discrediting the source will change the content for the voting public? Which do you think voters are more interested in?
I don’t recall Obama interfering in an Israel election, but I can’t rule it out either.
But, I do recall Hillary Clinton’s State Department getting busted for spying on UN diplomates and stealing the credit card numbers, Angela Merkel being upset with us after she learned we had too been spying on the Germans, and shortly after that, Clinton saying that she wouldn’t run for president again. That was like only in 2009 or 2010 though, and people I meet have never either completely forgotten about it or never learned about it (Why would the US big media report that the US was busted for stealing the credit card numbers of UN diplomats?)
The excuse for Clinton that it given is that this spying started before she took office, along with conflicting stories that she did or didn’t receive some notice that she signed off on to continue the process. You know, it sounds familiar…
…the spying on the Germans story broke publicly while GWB was still President.
According to wikipedia, the order for “more aggressive intelligence gathering went back to 2008” went out under Condoleeza Rice’s name during George W. Bush administration.
From the same piece:
There are all sorts of reasons why the CIA would want the requested information on UN diplomats. Access to credit card history is one of the more direct ways to gain information about whether or not an individual is using their role as “UN diplomat” as a cover for espionage. Pretty much every nation, including the UN, uses the UN in that way. It might be unsavory, but that’s the way the world works. Amidst the necessary and pro forma public outrage, Germany knows as well as anybody else that the US collects whatever it can, as does Germany.
Regarding the claim that she said she would not run for President again, sources like CNN suggest that she avoided answering:
Hillary Clinton, like most serious candidates, has always been famously tight-lipped about whether or not she would run in a future election. She clearly did decide to run in 2016. The above statement in no way precludes that.
Finally, there is a world of difference between collecting intelligence and actively interfering in an election. Since our primary adversaries (like Russia, China, and Iran) don’t have elections, the question of whether or not we would do the same is moot.
It is nevertheless very clear that Russia is most definitely interfering in this election, with Wikileaks and Mr. Assange as exhibits A and B.
You write: “But what is NOT said is that they are wrong, or inaccurate, or redacted, or anything else.”
I think that’s inaccurate. The DNC, in particular, has not confirmed that the alleged Donna Brazile email is accurate. It appears that some of the email headers have been manipulated to change the date.
Meanwhile, the content of the video in question most certainly has been challenged — that lies at the center of the “project Veritas” scandal, in no small part because Mr. O’Keefe has a long history of deceptive video editing.
I think that the actual content of the released Wikileaks material is far less significant than the way they were acquired. I like to think that most voters are far more concerned about Russian interference in a US election than they are about some occasionally unsavory aspects of making sausage.
You have an unsavory person with a history with editing videos which do not reflect the truth. You have to be completely separated from reality to not understand.
THE SOURCE IS ALREADY DISCREDITED BY HIS OWN HISTORY AND ACTIONS
Then knowing this, Trump pays this person a significant sum of money and then he starts creating another doctored video.
What difficult to understand here?
That answer won’t do, John. The charge made in the video is that people incited violence at Trump rallies.
HRC doesn’t get to just pass on that. Period! If Trump himself shot the video with help from O’Keefe, the Planned Parenthood video guy, and Curveball, the charge still needs to answered (or at least denied).
She’s out there saying Trump can’t be trusted, doesn’t have the temperament to be President, etc. This video appears to show people who support her confessing to violence. They allege that the campaign knows and approves.
Planned Parenthood didn’t ignore the videos against them — they fought back, and won.
Maybe she thinks she’s winning so it doesn’t matter. But sorry, it does. This needs to be answered. I want to hear the answer.
I see no reason to respond to that guy. He fabricates his material.
Nor should President Obama have been required to send a certified copy of his birth certificate to Donald Trump, news commentator.
Nor should he be required to respond to allegations that he is a member of ISIS.
When dealing with scum like Mr. O’Keefe, attempting to deny the attack only brings more. Nobody bothers to deny the countless videos that attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. This rubbish from Mr. O’Keefe is no different.
We see something similar in the scientific literature. When an allegedly neutral researcher is shown to have accepted funding in exchange for a particular outcome of their “research”, the paper is pulled and the researcher is drummed out of the community. Nobody bothers attempting to discredit the “research” itself because it’s a waste of time.
As johnk observes, the Donald Trump campaign chose to commission work from Mr. O’Keefe after his reputation for deception was already widely established.
This was nothing but a commissioned hit-piece. I don’t think it needs to be answered at all.
You guys are both right that O’Keefe is scummy. But that doesn’t matter. Do you think the average voter knows who he is?
Trump went after her on one of her crucial messages, and she didn’t even reply.
Let’s assume for the moment that the people interviewed are lying, crazy, or crazy liars. (This is what I hope.) I see nothing wrong, strategically or otherwise, with issuing a blanket condemnation of the tactics described that can include “If anything like this ever turned out to be true, I would be shocked and would take strong action.”
The story lives on regardless, but better to get her response on the record. THEN you can remind people who O’Keefe is, and how he has no credibility.
with a person who’s released have always been untruthful. Not getting how this is so difficult.
We could reasonably question whether it’s doctored, but we don’t know. I watched the first six minutes or so; it didn’t seem doctored, but I did wonder who the hell these guys thought they were talking to.
The other thing, again, is how high-profile it is, and when it arrives. Like I said upthread, the charge is too incendiary to ignore. Even more so this year.
you believe you were viewing raw footage? Come on.
That would mean Trump financed a doctored video. She could make an issue out of that, no?
out of a one day story.
were done by a 400 pound guy sitting in his basement.
Do we also need a statement from the candidate denying that she has tremendous hate in her heart?
Can you name one time in your life when “My accuser has a record of lying” exonerated you or anyone else from an accusation of anything?
is whether one beleives that someone is need of being exonerated.
..aren’t prosecution witnesses impeached all the time on the grounds that they have a history of not being credible? I guess I don’t have the stats on how often a jury buys it, but certainly defense counsel very often invokes the credibility of a witness to produce reasonable doubt.
David?
But in either case Christopher, if you were the defendant and that was your lawyer’s approach, would you feel confident?
My guess is you wouldn’t. You would prefer to argue the case on the merits.
This is not a court of law, this is a media war.
In a media war, the more you attempt to rebut a vicious lie the more you strengthen it. Each rebuttal is an excuse for the media to repeat the lie, in order to “provide context” for your rebuttal.
Further, it falls prey to the impossibility of attempting to prove a negative. It is nearly always better to ignore such rubbish, rather than give it credibility by responding to it:
There we differ. They got this salvo all the way to the debate, and she didn’t fire back.
I’ll admit that part of what bothers me is that it’s so easily answered.
With Donald Trump as the candidate, the fact that some outlandish allegation is made during a debate has nothing to do with its credibility or whether or not it should be rebutted.
By ignoring the episode, the Hillary Clinton campaign allows it to join the growing cesspool of other totally outrageous claims put forward by Mr. Trump. That strategy also allows the uproar about Mr. Trump’s ham-handed refusal to accept the outcome of the general election to remain the topic of media attention.
The fact that the episode is so easily answered is a strong indication that it is best ignored.
skepticism is in order. But I repeat myself.
but I like the metaphor.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/18/undercover-video-shows-democrats-saying-they-hire-/
It’s easy to record an opponent during an awkward moment and take their words out of context, and both sides do it during an election year. What is the effect? It makes the partisan hate the other partisan more, for supposedly playing unfair or rigging an election. Lately they are more frequent on the right. Bogus exposes of ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and now this labor organizer going against Trump. The left indulged in it too though, whether it was saying Diebold was rigging the election back in 2004 or exaggerating the mob mentality of the ‘Brooks Brothers riot’ during the 2000 recount. Reality is rarely found on a selectively edited videotape made by the opposition.
My best friend, fellow political junkie, and media watcher says that Donald Trump is collaborating with Steve Bannon (former CEO of Breitbart.com) to transform Brietbart.com into a Trump-owned media network that will play to the alt-right universe just as Fox played to the right-wing during its launch.
The object of Donald Trump’s political “campaign” is to pump hysteria and turn it into an audience for the new network, a new network that will be announced about the same time as the general election — perhaps timed to provide the “real” media story of the “rigged” election. He is not remotely interested in actually winning, and he’s not “playing to his base” — he is instead simply building an audience for his new media venture.
I think the premise makes sense. I still think there’s a chance that Mr. Trump bails out (claiming that the election process is so corrupt that he won’t continue to participate).
Still, I confess that it looks like I’m going to end up owing Betsey a dinner at the Saloon.
It does seem like a natural progression, how many channels are there, Fox, OAN, The Blaze, NewsMax, must be others on cable.
The deplorable are falling out of love with Fox, possibly because they prefer their news to be entirely fiction.
http://adage.com/article/campaign-trail/fox-news-longer-a-top-20-favorite-brand-republicans/306362/
😉
…what were the conditions of your wager with Betsey?
I wagered that Donald Trump would find a way to withdraw sometime between being nominated and the general election, Betsey wagered that he will stay in. I think we said that the stakes were dinner (at the Saloon, I think, but Betsey might prefer something in Maynard).
Even I have been surprised by just how crudely dangerous this man is.
It was pretty good indeed. I hope they keep the folks who put it together.
That was supposed to be a reply to christoper re: the Al Smith dinner.
See below.
The Archdiocese of New York held its annual Alfred E. Smith Dinner tonight for Catholic Charities. This is supposed to be one of the lighter moments in a presidential race, but Trump hit below the belt at least a couple of times.
The Podesta emails take away any high ground she may have had.
With respect to those Catholics who are quite offended by the comments of Mr. Podesta– who is himself Catholic– their continued support of your party’s nominee shows their evident comfort with forcible physical control of women, even to the point of violence.
I’m Catholic, and actively so. Anecdotal evidence though it may be, I can say that most Catholics agree with Podesta, and have long been by the willingness of the political prelates and politicians to throw an intellectual fig leaf over the superstitious fever swamps populated by the Falwells, Robertsons, and Roberts.
Honestly, support by Catholics for the GOP is, at this point, a forthright betrayal of the faith and its history in this country– as rather devastatingly illustrated by our next President at the Smith dinner. It appears that Mormons get this, and may fail to turn out for the GOP nominee for the first time since Goldwater. Catholics get it as well.
And what I was saying was without these emails, his boorishness would be unquestioned. Now, some Catholics who were NOT Trump supporters are even more upset by these astroturf groups that Podesta talked about than they are by his crudity. I have no insight into how Catholics will process this comparison, but I think it is evident that his remarks took away her high ground.
I believe you, PP, but the Catholics you mentioned who are offended — are they reliable GOPers looking for an excuse to vote against HRC?
The Republicans I know say “She’s no better.” I can’t blame them really; it’s too much to ask someone to turn back on 25 years of hating her. But in saying she’s no better … they’re essentially conceding how awful Trump is. They’re going to vote for him anyway.
I remember Mike Huckabee (in 2008 maybe?) thanking the media for “Doing something I never thought possible, uniting the party.” Nonsense. The GOP wasn’t divided then, and it isn’t divided now.
Cognitive dissonance over Trump, yes. Actual disunity, no.
But back to Podesta … I would like to hear more about these groups. Especially since it indirectly gives credence to O’Keefe’s charge that no one wants to talk about.
For the most part, those offended are the same ones “offended” by the dire imposition on their religious liberty to make sure other people don’t use birth control.
I believe that the organisation to which porcupine refers is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an organization formed in 2005 and which opposes the Church’s exclusive emphasis on sexual politics at the expense of the wider aspects of Catholic teaching on social morality. As such, it turns out that the group found itself NOT supporting GOP policies over the last 11 years. Hence the pearl clutching, and the denunciations from the John Paul II-political Catholics.
This is purely an instance of IOKIYAR. When the execrable Cardinal Dolan, or Paul Ryan or Rick Santorum or other Opus Dei types pretend that “Thomism” and “subsidiarity” give theological support for psuedo-intellectual social Darwinism of Ayn Rand (which, you might be surprised to learn, is a lie), they are exemplary fighters for their religious values. When their opponents engage in political activity, they must be denounced as perfidious.
The Podesta email was sent in the context of the 2012 mini-crisis over birth control and Obamacare. Recall that Cardinal Dolan, who is an evil man, was quite gung-ho to support keeping people without health insurance in order to protect his religious liberty to control what other people do. In true John Paul II fashion, Dolan pretended to be the monolithic voice of Catholicism and thus thundered away, as he is wont to do.
In response, Podesta wrote something like “this is why we formed CAPG.” The use of the first person plural is why porcupine is using the “astroturf” talking point that she read on redstate. It ignores that Podesta is actually Catholic, and likely is involved in the organization, because it supports his view of Catholic social teaching. I would hope he is: that’s why I support him and his boss.
The other thing that is producing faux pearl clutching is that he stated a wish for a “Catholic Spring” in response to Dolan, who is an evil man. This, of course, is a wish that was then, is now, and has long been shared by the overwhelming majority of American Catholics. The irony is that, just a year later, something that could be just that began with the election of Pope Francis.
Just look what all those people who, in 2012, were horrified that a Catholic might disagree publicly at all with a Price of the Church, now say about the Pope himself, once it became clear that he would not provide moral justification for social Darwinism.
This email scandal is a non-issue, except to those whom are trying to rationalize their support of a forthrightly depraved candidate. Pretending that Clinton somehow “lost the high ground” is simply a continuation of their absurd campaign tactics this season:
Indeed You Should Be Skeptical
For the most part, those offended are the same ones “offended” by the dire imposition on their religious liberty to make sure other people don’t use birth control.
I believe that the organisation to which porcupine refers is Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an organization formed in 2005 and which opposes the Church’s exclusive emphasis on sexual politics at the expense of the wider aspects of Catholic teaching on social morality. As such, it turns out that the group found itself NOT supporting GOP policies over the last 11 years. Hence the pearl clutching, and the denunciations from the John Paul II-political Catholics.
This is purely an instance of IOKIYAR. When the execrable Cardinal Dolan, or Paul Ryan or Rick Santorum or other Opus Dei types pretend that “Thomism” and “subsidiarity” give theological support for psuedo-intellectual social Darwinism of Ayn Rand (which, you might be surprised to learn, is a lie), they are exemplary fighters for their religious values. When their opponents engage in political activity, they must be denounced as perfidious.
The Podesta email was sent in the context of the 2012 mini-crisis over birth control and Obamacare. Recall that Cardinal Dolan, who is an evil man, was quite gung-ho to support keeping people without health insurance in order to protect his religious liberty to control what other people do. In true John Paul II fashion, Dolan pretended to be the monolithic voice of Catholicism and thus thundered away, as he is wont to do.
In response, Podesta wrote something like “this is why we formed CAPG.” The use of the first person plural is why porcupine is using the “astroturf” talking point that she read on redstate. It ignores that Podesta is actually Catholic, and likely is involved in the organization, because it supports his view of Catholic social teaching. I would hope he is: that’s why I support him and his boss.
The other thing that is producing faux pearl clutching is that he stated a wish for a “Catholic Spring” in response to Dolan, who is anevil man. This, of course, is a wish that was then, is now, and has long been shared by the overwhelming majority of American Catholics. The irony is that, just a year later, something that could be just that began with the election of Pope Francis.
Just look what all those people who, in 2012, were horrified that a Catholic might disagree publicly at all with a Price of the Church, now say about the Pope himself, once it became clear that he would not provide moral justification for social Darwinism.
This email scandal is a non-issue, except to those whom are trying to rationalize their support of a forthrightly depraved candidate. Pretending that Clinton somehow “lost the high ground” is simply a continuation of their absurd campaign tactics this season.
Fairly certain that was your nominee, not mine. There will always be secular progressives disdainful of any organized religion, to the point that they scare off would be allies. Just as the religious right and libertarian right have found it much harder to forge common ground in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. That’s a given. Attacking major religious figures is not, but it’s one of the many lines Trump has crossed this year. Lines Sec. Clinton herself has not crossed, even if her aides have from time to time.
…but she picked a Catholic running mate – enough said.
Did you even go past “somebody connected to Clinton said something I think somebody else won’t like”…???
Jennifer Palmieri, who works at CAP, was emailing John Halpin, who also works at CAP, and CC’d John Podesta’s GMAIL account on the mail. Jennifer Palmieri, a Catholic, was talking with John Halpin, whose denomination is unknown, and which she Cc’d John Podesta, himself Catholic, about Catholics voting Republican and why. They were trying to strategize on ways to shame the Catholics who voted Republican — the central tenets of Catholicism being love and forgiveness and, therefore, in diametric opposition to Republican orthodoxy.
Podesta chimed in only to say, “this isn’t something we can do anything about. Change has to come from the bottom on this.”
Those VERY SAME Republican Catholics are PISSED because Palmieri, Halpin and Podesta were talking about them (and in my estimation, having grown up Catholic with priests in family, correctly) and since they are fanatics, by definition carrying a secret doubt, they must loudly and in a most irreligious manner claim victimhood (a victimhood which Catholicism teaches should be accepted and embraced…)
Fake Catholics defending Republicans against accurate statements made between real Catholics…
Here’s the thing: This had FUCK ALL and NOTHING to do with Hillary Clinton or her campaign. Not one thing.
It appears to me that you may be confusing “high” and “low” ground — perhaps your eagerness to support your party may be overwhelming simple common sense. I’ve seen nothing in these emails that is offensive enough to “take away [] high ground” from anybody.
I might add that this private and stolen correspondence is far less insulting than the frequently and loudly repeated attacks on atheists, agnostics, and non-believers that have been a staple of public statements of at least some Catholic officials for decades.
(Not really.) But it’s upsetting.
Another non-response non-denial.
I can’t watch the video right now, maybe the video is better. If it isn’t … yikes.
It’s the firm denial I was looking for.
Again, I’m glad they answered this. So thanks Robby.
I’ll loosen the noose around my neck.