Donald Trump loyalists will attempt to conduct their own crowd-funded exit polling on election day, ostensibly due to fears that electronic voting machines in certain areas may have been “rigged”, the Guardian has learned.
But the effort, led by Trump’s notorious informal adviser Roger Stone, will focus on 600 different precincts in nine Democrat-leaning cities with large minority populations, a tactic branded highly irregular by experts, who suggested that organizers could potentially use the polling as a way to intimidate voters.
Stone told the Guardian that around 1,300 volunteers from the controversial Citizens for Trump grassroots coalition would conduct exit polling in Cleveland, Detroit, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, Fort Lauderdale, Charlotte, Richmond and Fayetteville – all locations in pivotal swing states.
On Thursday, Stone, a noted conspiracy theorist, argued that the campaign had focused their efforts to combat the so-called “rigged election” in the wrong area and should instead concentrate on “election theft” via hacked or compromised voting machines.
Electronic voting machines in heavily Republican areas can’t be hacked because they’re protected by LawnOrder.
Stone, who did not identify the particular precincts volunteers would be targeting, argued that the polling methodology, was “designed by professionals”, but was unable to identify who these professionals were.
The old established firm of Seamus Corvus, Est. 1890.
But if you listen to the crowd’s response during the clip, it becomes clear that he’s still working away at the poor old Shout the enemy’s name to rile up the masses Leghorn. (Not to be confused with the Express sympathy for economic hardship Rhode Island Red or the the Commiserate over fears raised by rapid social change Blue Hen of Delaware.)
MARK HALPERIN: I’m fascinated by a parallel universe in which [Donald] Trump hadn’t said what he said about respecting the results because he had a lot of good moments. I think he got more of his message out than he ever has. He had the demeanor that a lot of people wanted to see. But there’s no doubt that it’s the revenge of the elites. Elites do not accept that that was an appropriate answer and it’s not just the coverage in the immediate aftermath of the debate, the coverage this morning, but until he explains it and gets in sync with everyone on his campaign team I don’t think he’s going to get to talk about much else and that means every bit of good he might have done last night, with a strong performance and her strong performance, I don’t think matters much.
JOE SCARBOROUGH (CO-HOST): Mark, let me ask you. And I’m sure people will disagree with me here — just the implication of my question, the suggestion of my question — how many people in Scranton, Pennsylvania, care about what he said in that answer compared to people in newsrooms that are — whimpering and whining with their, you know —
HALPERIN: Almost —
SCARBOROUGH: With their soy lattes?
HALPERIN: That’s why I said it’s the revenge of the elites. Elites in both parties have been against Trump from the beginning.
There are people who should be paid anything to comment on politics. There are people who still use “latte-drinking” as a stand-in for “snooty elitist” in 2016. (There were are than 12,000 Starbucks locations in the United States. I know it seems like they’re all in Manhattan, but…) You also have to like Halperin’s penetrating insight — surely it is unprecedented for Democratic elites to not support the Republican nominee for president.
There is no way of knowing if the NFL got this divorce file; I can only tell you that it is a public record, and was fairly simple to get. I got a copy; the NFL knew the Browns were going through a divorce; Josh Brown told reporters he was divorced back in August.
But even before that, there was very strong evidence of what happened, again provided by Molly Brown to law enforcement, that plenty of reporters got with relative ease. Here is how the documents the NFL apparently couldn’t get have been coming out, at least at my end: When the New York Daily News story broke, I sent in a public records request to the King County Sheriff’s Office. Since then, whenever they have had records to release, they have included me on the list of reporters who get them. Getting the law enforcement documents has mostly been as simple as hitting refresh on my laptop.
If reporters armed with little more than laptops can get detailed sheriff’s office records, why can’t the NFL? Why did it not only fail to get them but then blame Molly Brown herself, essentially re-victimizing her for the umpteenth time, for their failure to gather basic, public facts? These are perfectly fine questions; the only possible answers here are that the NFL didn’t want to know badly enough to not file basic public-records requests, or that it didn’t want to know badly enough not to read coverage from people who did. Add to that today’s SportsNet New York report by Ralph Vacchiano that the Giants (via the NFL) knew Molly Brown needed a new hotel room at the Pro Bowl in January because her then-husband was drunk and pounding on her door, and you come to a simple conclusion: The NFL knows what it would like to know, and continues to treat domestic violence as little more than a PR crisis.
This is no surprise if you look over previous NFL investigations. An NFL investigation of its Ray Rice investigation (yes, they did such a thing) found that the lead investigator assigned to Rice’s case was a dunce who at one point was just hitting refresh on a web browser. The NFL was so clueless it also interviewed Janay Rice with her husband in the room and then blamed her, not its own incompetence or public-relations-first mindset disguised as a player conduct policy, for doling out a lax punishment.
And yet, time after time, the NFL swore it had learned and that the next time would be different. In the Greg Hardy case, it did get documents—only after reaching sketchy agreements with local law enforcement to allow them see what the public could not. And within that veil of secrecy, with special access to records, they conducted a hearing in which Hardy’s lawyer was allowed to give his version of events, which included using a woman’s sex life against her and saying that what happened to her was just a slip and fall, with very little pushback from the NFL.
The information on offer in the new Brown documents was here all along. Yesterday’s release added color and detail to what was known months ago and reported weeks ago, here and elsewhere. That it took a man saying it was true for it to become a story is only affirmation that the word of women and children and law enforcement officers is not enough.
Well, at least Brown didn’t do anything really bad worthy of the NFL’s sustained attention, like smoke pot.
I didn’t think anything could top the ridiculous ineptitude of the NFL’s Ballghazi’s investigation, but this comes close.
It’s her period!!!!! HER PERIOD!!!-John C. Wright, probably
Oh man, is this a sad I’m hazzing? Or is it just my sides aching from laughing so hard? Oh, it must be the latter, because it appears that John C. Wright has fallen on hard times. This is a shame because no one can veer manically between florid, overwrought, unreadable prose and seething, overwrought, unreadable prose like Wright. I mean, do you want to live in a world where Wright can’t stab his fingers into his keyboard while frothing at both the mouth and butt and typing out stuff like “I didn’t like this animated film because Batwoman is a lesbian“?
The premise is that Bats is missing, and it is up to Nightwing, an annoying kid named Damian Wayne (Bruce’s son by Thalia Al-Ghul), Lucien Fox’s son Iron Batman, and an annoying sexual pervert dressed as Batgirl, but who uses a gun to find and save him.
She is named Batwoman (the second or third of that name, if my count is right) and she has the same origin story as the Huntress or, for that matter, the Punisher.
If they film makers had kept the sexual pervert stuff in the background, or even the annoying brat quality of how annoying she was, or made the rest of the film good, I would be more understanding. They did not, it was not, and I am not.
THE SEXUAL PERVERT STUFF IS IN THE FOREGROUND!!! HOLD ON TO YOUR PRIVATES, FOLKS! I MEAN, DON’T! DON’T DO THAT! THAT’S PERVERTED!
Nothing is kept in the background. Instead we have scene of her father asking her over coffee in a kindly fashion is she had found the right girl yet, because all widowers want their remaining daughter to expend her life in sterile sexual abnormality rather than, you know, give him grandkids; and then a scene of her hitting on a girl in bar, and the girl looking pleasing; and when Dick Grayson says it took him a while for figure out how to talk to girls, she says it took her a while, too.
Get it? Because she is a homosexual, and, so, as a girl, she had to learn how to chat up girls. To have sex with them. Because homosexual girls have sex with girls. See? It is meant to be funny. Or something.
So the sexual pervert thing is made fairly obvious and in-your-face.
Gonna defend Wright here for a moment–that is disgusting! Fathers and daughters having innocuous conversations about dating is pretty much THE WORST. I’m bleaching my brain as soon as I hit “publish.”
When invited to blow in the front doors of the Church, Fox smirks “God ain’t going to like this…” and Batwoman replies, “She has not been here for a long time….”
Get it? She? Calling God a ‘she’ is a sign of hipness, or smirkiness, or godlessness. Or something. It is meant to be funny.
What it actually is, is a blasphemy, because the writer has contempt for at least half his audience.
I’m not a religious woman, but it was my understanding that blasphemy was not nearly as serious as the prospect of upsetting psychotic comics fans.
Please read and support my work on Patreon!
OK, but this doesn’t seem very in keeping with the libertarian spirit. (Thanks to old pal, BBBB and Origami Isopod for these links!)
“While the two sides made significant progress in the talks that began Oct. 14, including reaching tentative agreements on more than a dozen issues, including distance education, recruitment and retention of high-quality faculty, and professional responsibilities of faculty outside the classroom, they were not able to reach overall agreement. The union rejected the System’s offer to provide raises to all permanent and temporary faculty and the identical healthcare package that other System employees have.”
Of course, people driving past the strikers, people on comment boards, and other ignorant people are saying this is about wages and greedy professors. But it is not about wages. The offer on salaries is basically terrible. But there are 3 core issues. First is the huge increases in employee healthcare costs. Second is that the schools want to vastly increase the contingent faculty they can hire, of course at very low wages and no benefits. Third, the schools want to destroy shared governance by greatly reducing the power of the Faculty Senate. So far student support has been very strong and very few professors have scabbed, less than 10 at my wife’s school, mostly right-wing Latin Americans and Asians in the business programs, as well as the president’s wife.
My question is where is Pennsylvania governor Tom Wolf? APSCUF got on board the Wolf Train early. He hasn’t exactly paid them back here. There are rumors that Wolf is furious with the PASSHE chancellor for creating this strike. I can’t verify those rumors but if true, a public statement that this needs to end and the state system needs to accept the union’s call for binding arbitration would help a lot. Of course, PASSHE doesn’t want to accept that because they know they will get killed in the arbitration because the contract offer is so unfair.
The relationship would hinge on how Clinton decides to begin her presidency. She could claim an electoral mandate and launch a pitched battle to pass the more progressive parts of her agenda. Or she could start with a relatively incremental push on a menu of domestic issues on which she and Ryan have shared interests, including infrastructure investment, criminal-justice issues and anti-poverty measures.
Remember, Ryan is a nice guy who wants to help the disadvantaged by leaving them at the mercy of people like Scott Walker, Sam Brownback and capitalist pigs who flock to right-to-work states.
People who know Ryan said his amiable disposition can do only so much to help him connect with Clinton. “He’d be gracious and a gentleman, sure — less confrontational than Newt, and he’d be smoother than John Boehner,” said William J. Bennett, a close friend of Ryan’s and a former education secretary under President Ronald Reagan. But, Bennett said, “these aren’t people who are going out to dinner.”
And don’t overlook the bothsidesism!
There is a glaring fault line between optimism and pessimism about Clinton and Ryan forging a productive partnership. Some see the pair as policy wonks with pragmatic instincts who are poised to break the logjam. Others say their political caution and entrenched ideologies would prevent them from defying their bases to resolve disputes and build agreements.
At this point I stopped and checked the author of the article. My surprise that Robert Costa was involved could fit in here . with room to rattle.
And I was not kidding about Newt.
“Paul Ryan will not be dealing with Bill Clinton,” Gingrich said. “I had a guy I could talk to who had been the governor of Arkansas and dealt with that state’s legislature and helped to found a centrist organization,” he added, referring to the Democratic Leadership Council. “Hillary, on the other hand, is someone who is hard left. They are totally different people with different instincts.”
That guy you could work with? The one you impeached?
House Republican leaders have said that if Clinton is elected, they intend to continue their investigation into her use of a private email server as secretary of state, forecasting a stormy atmosphere. “Next year could be very much like 1998, when we impeached Bill Clinton,” Gingrich said.
Yep, that guy. Regarding Emailghazigate, Ryan’s statement – issued after the WaPo article was published – suggests that Clinton has already failed in her attempt to win Ryan over.
In his statement, the House speaker reiterated his criticisms of Clinton’s email practices while serving as secretary of state, saying the exchange demonstrated a “complete disregard for properly handling classified information.”
“This is exactly why I called on DNI Clapper” — Director of National Intelligence James Clapper — “to deny her access to classified information,” Ryan said.
What McCain said on Monday is almost certainly an honest account of what Republicans plan to do — that is, create a constitutional crisis should Hillary Clinton win the presidency and the GOP retain control of the Senate. The Supreme Court could be stuck with eight members for years, unable to resolve many crucial divisions in the federal courts. If the norm that presidents should be able to nominate qualified, mainstream judges who generally share their constitutional views disappears, the Constitution leaves no way to resolve the issue and staffing the federal government when the Senate and White House are in the hands of different parties will become increasingly difficult.
McCain’s comments, first of all, should underscore that it’s massively unlikely that Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee to fill the seat on the Court left vacant by the death of Antonin Scalia, will be confirmed during a lame-duck session. Republican senators will be under intense pressure not to collaborate with a Democratic president after what is likely to be a crushing defeat in the Electoral College. Throughout Mitch McConnell’s tenure as leader of the Republican conference, Senate Republicans have consistently refused to make deals with Democrats even at the price of leaving substantial policy concessions on the table. Getting a slightly older and less liberal justice than might be confirmed otherwise is not the hill this practice is going to die on.
The more interesting question is what happens if Hillary Clinton wins the White House but Republicans maintain control of the Senate. This is possible — as of this writing, Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEightgives Republicans roughly a one in four chance of retaining the Senate, and two weeks ago it was closer to a 50-50 proposition. The conventional wisdom has been that it will be impossible for Republicans to keep Clinton from filling Scalia’s seat for four years.
As McCain’s unguarded comments indicate, this is dead wrong. Serial Republican obstruction of a Democratic replacement for Scalia is, in fact, entirely thinkable. The key question is this: What causal mechanism can force Republicans to confirm any Clinton nomination to the Court? They will surely get criticism from the press, but so what? Even if this particular form of obstructionism makes Senate Republicans marginally less popular, the electoral map in 2018 is so favorable to the GOP that it almost certainly wouldn’t stop them from adding to their majority. The typical Republican senator has much more to fear from a primary electorate if a Democratic justice who would immediately become the swing justice creating majorities for liberal Supreme Court decisions was confirmed because of their vote.
One thing the conventional wisdom can’t explain is why the extraordinary and unprecedented obstruction of Merrick Garland has been an utter non-issue in the presidential campaign. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court should be an important issue to most voters, in practice it isn’t. Many Senate Republicans, having gotten away with it for a year, will assume they could get away with again — and they’re probably right. It’s true that congressional Republicans have eventually cut deals to end government shutdowns or to avoid defaulting on the national debt, but those are issues with direct, easily discernible material consequences to the public at large. The typical voter notices if they can’t get into a national park or if there’s massive economic collapse. They won’t notice if the Supreme Court is failing to resolve circuit splits.
It’s not certain that a Republican Senate would continue the Supreme Court blockade for another four years — we know the old norms are no longer operative but we can’t be sure what new ones will be established. But it’s entirely possible, and indeed likely.
Should Clinton win but the Democrats fail to take the Senate, you will hear a lot of pundits going to say something like “Republicans can’t block Supreme Court for 4 years.” The question to ask, that they won’t be able to answer, is “who’s going to make them?” And if they start mentioning the august traditions of the Senate just laughing as you fix yourself four fingers of bourbon.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan was in a hotel room in Cincinnati last May when he learned that Donald J. Trump — a man he barely knew, with no institutional ties to his party and a mouth that had already clacked his nerves — had secured the Republican nomination for president.
Who knew that Paul Ryan was actually a Mongolian yak herder (and one without internet access)?
This is predictably a prelude to yet another explanation of how Paul Ryan, one of the two highest-ranking Republican elected officials in America, who endorsed Donald Trump for president months ago and continues to endorse him as of this morning, eighteen days before the election, is like totally in a bind not of his own making, and we should feel real sorry for him, and not hold any of it against him, because he ran a marathon to the top of Pikes Peak in 2:54 or something:
Mr. Sykes [Charlie Sykes, former right wing talk radio host and apparently now Paul Ryan’s errand boy] let Mr. Priebus know via text that Mr. Trump was no longer welcome in Wisconsin. Mr. Sykes said Mr. Priebus responded: “I am the guy trying to fix this! I am in tears over this.’” (A spokeswoman for Mr. Priebus acknowledged that he was upset, but denied any tears.)
Mr. Ryan agonized over his options. Ultimately, he chose not to withdraw his endorsement to keep Republicans motivated to vote, which still angered some of his conference. “I think they ask far too much of the speaker,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who has renounced Mr. Trump. “His job is to help House Republicans. Period.”
Mr. Ryan will soon find out if those members of his party who support Mr. Trump might come after him in the next speaker election. “We knew they had extreme views and you kind of rolled your eyes and said they were on our team,” Mr. Sykes said. “How much damage could they do?”
Don’t cry no tears around me.
Anyway, when the whole Trump thing is suddenly discovered to be a huge misunderstanding that also never really happened at all (I estimate this discovery will be made at approximately 5:17 AM UTC on November 9, 2016) Paul Ryan will be there to stare soulfully into the eyes of liberal journalists and thinkfluencers, while gently reminding them of the agonizing dilemmas he has endured for the sake of Paul Ryan’s political aspirations the good of the country.
It finally happened. After three straight debates without a single moderator asking about climate change, Fox News’s Chris Wallace decided to focus the final presidential showdown on a slow-moving issue that would greatly affect future generations. He wasn’t going to let Trump or Clinton avoid the topic, either. He pulled out facts and figures and demanded to know why the two candidates were ignoring the problem.
Wait, sorry, I’m just kidding. Wallace didn’t ask about climate change at all. He wanted to talk about the national debt.
The national debt is an odd, recurring fixation in Washington. The fact that the US government borrows a lot of money each year just isn’t a huge problem right now. Interest rates are incredibly low. The US Treasury has no problem rolling over its debt and never misses a payment. The one thing that might be worth fretting about is that someday in the future, our children and grandchildren could have to pay higher taxes to pay down the debt if it gets unmanageable.
But if you’re that worried about the future, why not talk about global warming? It’s an issue that’s already affecting us today — but will also shape the next 10,000 years of life on this planet. And it’s not just a question of whether our grandchildren might have to pay somewhat higher taxes, it’s a question of whether multi-century droughts will ravage the Southwest, or whether the city of Miami will drown beneath the rising seas, or whether vital coral reefs will vanish forever. Quibbling over the payroll tax seems quaint by comparison.
But none of the moderators asked about global warming at all. Not in the first presidential debate. Not in the vice presidential debate. Not in the second presidential debate.* Not in the third presidential debate. Hillary Clinton name-checked the topic, occasionally, but that was it. Humanity is departing from the stable climatic conditions that allowed civilization to thrive, yet the most powerful nation on Earth can’t set aside five minutes to discuss.
It’s possible the debate moderators don’t understand what’s at stake. It’s possible they don’t care. Or it’s possible they’re afraid that any question on the topic might seem too partisan. After all, Clinton thinks the issue is pretty serious and has a bunch of proposals around it, whereas Trump says it’s all a hoax invented by the Chinese. Under the circumstances, even a halfway intelligent question about climate policy would sound “biased.”