PDA

View Full Version : Body slamming RWW leads in Montana



ron ll
05-25-2017, 11:09 PM
Thanks Trump, for making violent assault on reporters acceptable behavior.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/25/montana-special-election-results-2017-238841

Reynard38
05-25-2017, 11:46 PM
Of course he won. Havent you ever met any republicans? They love this stuff.

Joe (SoCal)
05-25-2017, 11:59 PM
A large portion of the electorate already voted by mail before this incident.

Lew Barrett
05-26-2017, 12:02 AM
It's going to be a long hot summer.

wizbang 13
05-26-2017, 01:45 AM
His ratings would have been even higher if the reporter were disabled or .... brown.

mdh
05-26-2017, 04:07 AM
Another republican win. This is getting almost tiresome.

Peerie Maa
05-26-2017, 04:44 AM
Another republican win. This is getting almost tiresome.

Yes, the US does seem to have a habit of electing total aerosols to power. Sad.

Garret
05-26-2017, 06:27 AM
A large portion of the electorate already voted by mail before this incident.

NPR said that 2/3 of voters had already voted by mail before this happened. Of course we'll never know if many would've changed their minds.

Reynard38
05-26-2017, 07:09 AM
Well the GOP owns it now and 2018 isn't that far away.
Gianforte is actually from NJ. Montanans elected a guy from NJ? The best defense the Dems could put up was a folk singer?
Reminds me of another recent election.....

CWSmith
05-26-2017, 07:27 AM
NPR said that 2/3 of voters had already voted by mail before this happened. Of course we'll never know if many would've changed their minds.

The nightly news interviewed some people on the street. It's not statistical, but they said things like, "We don't know what really happened. I don't trust the news media." Even Fox said it happened!

TomF
05-26-2017, 07:32 AM
CNN reporter gave quotes from voters going to cast ballots, who approved of the "body slamming".

It seems that the rule of law is what one imposes on the other guy.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 07:39 AM
While not condoning his action, I see he had the cohones and way with all to stand up in public acknowledge what he did, condemn what he did and apologise and also publicly apologise directly the the reporter.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 07:43 AM
CNN reporter gave quotes from voters going to cast ballots, who approved of the "body slamming".

It seems that the rule of law is what one imposes on the other guy.


Do reporters act on a code of ethical behavior, or is it a 'free for all', devil take the hindmost behavior to get a microphone in one's face?

One is reminded of results of paparazzi behavior . . . e.g. Princess Diana.

I am not sure that 'regular' reporters are much different in their behavior.

Please provide info that they are different and do comply to a code of ethical behavior.

Canoez
05-26-2017, 07:43 AM
While not condoning his action, I see he had the cohones and way with all to stand up in public acknowledge what he did, condemn what he did and apologise and also publicly apologise directly the the reporter.

Not entirely - it took the remarks of a Fox News crew which did not concur with the accounts of his press secretary.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 07:46 AM
Not entirely - it took the remarks of a Fox News crew which did not concur with the accounts of his press secretary.

It is a little over a minute long:


http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/26/gianforte-apology-sot-speech.cnn

Canoez
05-26-2017, 07:56 AM
It is a little over a minute long:


http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/26/gianforte-apology-sot-speech.cnn

Not the initial reaction of the campaign, however. See here: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/reporter-alleges-greg-gianforte-body-slammed-him-in-bozeman/article_9df533bb-9919-51aa-8d0d-5d5cb4e48923.html

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 08:02 AM
Not the initial reaction of the campaign, however. See here: http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/reporter-alleges-greg-gianforte-body-slammed-him-in-bozeman/article_9df533bb-9919-51aa-8d0d-5d5cb4e48923.html

Maybe, but he did get up and preface his victory speech with the apology.

To me it sounded sincere and not lip-service forced apology.

Canoez
05-26-2017, 08:08 AM
Maybe, but he did get up and preface his victory speech with the apology.

To me it sounded sincere and not lip-service forced apology.

Perhaps, but he chose poorly - day late and a dollar short, IMO. The delay in the apology to the reporter and the attempt to control the narrative in the initial response does not reflect well on Gianforte. The trial, likely to happen while in office, will likely undercut his administration. Were the trial not to happen, well, that would reflect very poorly on the district attorney and the state of Montana.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 08:13 AM
Perhaps, but he chose poorly - day late and a dollar short, IMO. The delay in the apology to the reporter and the attempt to control the narrative in the initial response does not reflect well on Gianforte. The trial, likely to happen while in office, will likely undercut his administration. Were the trial not to happen, well, that would reflect very poorly on the district attorney and the state of Montana.

In your view he may have chose timing poorly, BUT he did get up and do it in front of cameras before his acceptance speech.

TomF
05-26-2017, 08:16 AM
Do reporters act on a code of ethical behavior, or is it a 'free for all', devil take the hindmost behavior to get a microphone in one's face?

One is reminded of results of paparazzi behavior . . . e.g. Princess Diana.

I am not sure that 'regular' reporters are much different in their behavior.

Please provide info that they are different and do comply to a code of ethical behavior.I think, dear man, that the "established precedents" for appropriate media interaction have rather been eroded in America in this era of "enemy of the people" charges by POTUS about the 4th Estate. You might be interested in reading this post by a FOX anchor (http://www.fox5dc.com/news/trending/215985094-story), prompted by the picture below snapped at a Trump rally last November.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwnhmnOXgAEzDAT.jpg:large

What we are told of the Montana incident is that earlier in the race, the candidate had been caught in unguarded remarks supporting the GOP health proposal, but that when asked about it directly by reporters he demurred any official comments until the CBO scoring was released. This became something of an issue in the race, as folks waited for that scoring to emerge.

Emerge it did, on the eve of the election. So the reporter's job was topress the candidate to clarify his position on the health care bill, exactly because the sequence of events had made it central in this race. Both knew that the response was very time-sensitive; a response then could affect the election, but a response the following week would be worth less than a cup of cold spit.

The FOX crew in the room - competitors with the journalist who ended up on the floor, you'll recall - agree with that journalist's story about what happened. Yes, the reporter pressed for a response, and would not be put off. Yes, he held a recording device up to capture the comments. But this was ordinary, scheduled, pre-arranged eve-of-election press access in the candidate's headquarters, in a private room away from the melee of action. A FOX camera crew was waiting its turn quietly a few feet away.

This wasn't an ambush as the guy left a restaurant or bathroom. And this wasn't a question out-of-the-blue, but one the candidate should have expected ... because it had become central to the campaign, and the "tripwire" event that the candidate himself had defined - the CBO score release - had just happened. This is exactly what the "freedom of the press" looks like.

I dunno if all journalists sign a code of ethical conduct - probably not. Do you figure that all Republican candidates sign a code of ethical conduct? If so, does it include throwing journalists to the ground for asking relevant questions in the controlled setting organized by the candidate's own communications staff? ;)

Gerarddm
05-26-2017, 08:16 AM
At some point soon Democrats have to start winning these higher-profile races.

TomF
05-26-2017, 08:21 AM
At some point soon Democrats have to start winning these higher-profile races.Agreed. But it won't start in races where the Reps won the last election by 20 points.

Canoez
05-26-2017, 08:24 AM
In your view he may have chose timing poorly, BUT he did get up and do it in front of cameras before his acceptance speech.

So, if I choose to lie about your behavior to others, putting your reputation in doubt, and then decide later to tell the truth, that's OK by you?

As has been noted earlier on this thread, the fact that the man was elected to office is not in any way a reflection of his actions with the reporter or his delayed apology. Most of the votes in this election were cast prior to the event in question. Also, Montana is a deeply conservative State to begin with.

CWSmith
05-26-2017, 08:30 AM
While not condoning his action, I see he had the cohones and way with all to stand up in public acknowledge what he did, condemn what he did and apologise and also publicly apologise directly the the reporter.


Not entirely - it took the remarks of a Fox News crew which did not concur with the accounts of his press secretary.

He said nothing until after the Speaker of the House publicly rebuked him on national TV. When daddy forces you to apologize, it isn't much of an apology.

oznabrag
05-26-2017, 08:47 AM
So, if I choose to lie about your behavior to others, putting your reputation in doubt, and then decide later to tell the truth, that's OK by you?

As has been noted earlier on this thread, the fact that the man was elected to office is not in any way a reflection of his actions with the reporter or his delayed apology. Most of the votes in this election were cast prior to the event in question. Also, Montana is a deeply conservative State to begin with.

I disagree.

Neither Montana, nor any other State in this Union is 'deeply conservative'.

Sure, that's what the voters tell themselves, but it's just a lie they feel comfortable with.


The violent POS they just elected should prove my point, if their backing of Trump does not.

These are not conservatives by any measure.

Osborne Russell
05-26-2017, 09:06 AM
I disagree.

Neither Montana, nor any other State in this Union is 'deeply conservative'.

Sure, that's what the voters tell themselves, but it's just a lie they feel comfortable with.

Left to themselves, they would hard pressed to describe their world view -- too incoherent to be a philosophy, and besides, a philosophy is not an identity.

Thus an entire industry is devoted to telling them that they are something, to fill that awful void, that sense of being neglected, disregarded . . . let's see . . . conservative! Yeah ! That's what I am ! Duh, what's a conservative?

Duncan Gibbs
05-26-2017, 09:18 AM
In your view he may have chose timing poorly, BUT he did get up and do it in front of cameras before his acceptance speech.
What?

This is supposed to absolve him of his responsibility for a criminal assault how exactly?

He can apologise all he wants. I wonder if the judge will take any pity of the 'remorseful' SOB.

What happens to elected officials if they are found guilty of a criminal offence in the USA? Are they removed from office and lead to prison, resulting in a new election?

Canoez
05-26-2017, 10:09 AM
I disagree.

Neither Montana, nor any other State in this Union is 'deeply conservative'.

Sure, that's what the voters tell themselves, but it's just a lie they feel comfortable with.


The violent POS they just elected should prove my point, if their backing of Trump does not.

These are not conservatives by any measure.

You can choose to disagree if you wish, but as a measure they have voted for only two Democratic Presidential candidates since 1952, and I think they said that State Office holders have been Republicans for the last 20 years or so.

Whether or not you choose to consider Republicans to be "conservative", is a label of your own making.

The "POS" they elected, wasn't necessarily a "violent POS" at the time many Montanans cast their votes. To be quite honest, I think that the recent actions of Gianforte had little sway on the election.

S.V. Airlie
05-26-2017, 10:25 AM
You can choose to disagree if you wish, but as a measure they have voted for only two Democratic Presidential candidates since 1952, and I think they said that State Office holders have been Republicans for the last 20 years or so.

Whether or not you choose to consider Republicans to be "conservative", is a label of your own making.

The "POS" they elected, wasn't necessarily a "violent POS" at the time many Montanans cast their votes. To be quite honest, I think that the recent actions of Gianforte had little sway on the election.From all of the reports, it didn't. Keep in mind, something like 2/3s of the voters had already voted. What I'm interested in is that his voters didn't think an apology was necessary and it was the reporter's fault anyway.

oznabrag
05-26-2017, 10:26 AM
You can choose to disagree if you wish, but as a measure they have voted for only two Democratic Presidential candidates since 1952, and I think they said that State Office holders have been Republicans for the last 20 years or so.

Whether or not you choose to consider Republicans to be "conservative", is a label of your own making.

The "POS" they elected, wasn't necessarily a "violent POS" at the time many Montanans cast their votes. To be quite honest, I think that the recent actions of Gianforte had little sway on the election.

Oh, I don't disagree that Gianforte is a POS, he's just not a 'conservative' POS.


The label 'conservative' is a lie of the Republican's own making.

Do you think the Republican Party would go around crowing about how it was out to destroy the Constitution and sell your children's souls to Putin for 27¢/ea. without any candy coating?

NO! They want these Morons to believe their self-destruction and traitorous, venal regression into greed and xenophobia is somehow 'honorable' and 'traditional', so they call it 'conservatism', to give it some veneer of acceptability.

They are NOT 'conservatives'.

The people who elected Eisenhower . . .

Canoez
05-26-2017, 10:31 AM
from all of the reports, it didn't. Keep in mind, something like 2/3s of the voters had already voted. what i'm interested in is that his voters didn't think an apology was necessary and it was the reporter's fault anyway.

^^^^
this!!!

Osborne Russell
05-26-2017, 11:18 AM
What?

This is supposed to absolve him of his responsibility for a criminal assault how exactly?

He can apologise all he wants. I wonder if the judge will take any pity of the 'remorseful' SOB.

What happens to elected officials if they are found guilty of a criminal offence in the USA? Are they removed from office and lead to prison, resulting in a new election?

Maybe. Usually state laws provide for impeachment and removal. Even if he makes it past that, the House of Representatives can expel him. I hope his state fails to remove him so that he may face a second vote of his "peers" ha ha. Then the people of Montana as well as of the nation as a whole may go on record as to their morals.

Whether he goes to prison is a matter of the state's criminal law. Federal criminal law might be involved in a case where there was a violation of civil rights, but it would not necessarily mean prison, and it doesn't automatically mean removal from office; although people have agreed to resign elected office as part of a plea bargain.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 12:03 PM
Do reporters act on a code of ethical behavior, or is it a 'free for all', devil take the hindmost behavior to get a microphone in one's face?

One is reminded of results of paparazzi behavior . . . e.g. Princess Diana.

I am not sure that 'regular' reporters are much different in their behavior.

Please provide info that they are different and do comply to a code of ethical behavior.

The ethical ones may be the ones you *don't* see news stories about.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 12:10 PM
The ethical ones may be the ones you *don't* see news stories about.


Interesting that the much maligned and disparaged Fox reps were reported as "A FOX camera crew was waiting its turn quietly a few feet away" from TomF's earlier post.

So those (FOX) are the 'ethical ones?

Osborne Russell
05-26-2017, 12:22 PM
Interesting that the much maligned and disparaged Fox reps were reported as "A FOX camera crew was waiting its turn quietly a few feet away" from TomF's earlier post.

So those (FOX) are the 'ethical ones?

Right, they're the ones that didn't have it coming, which means the others did, because they got it, and the Fox ones didn't.

oznabrag
05-26-2017, 12:36 PM
Right, they're the ones that didn't have it coming, which means the others did, because they got it, and the Fox ones didn't.

We all have it comin'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYVS8aRQ1U

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 02:48 PM
Seems some reporters are no longer content to report *what is*, but feel they have to manufacture some kind of confrontation. Push anyone too hard, and you can trigger a defensive response. After luring Buzz Aldrin to a hotel under false pretenses, some bozo with a microphone & camera started an "ambush interview", claiming the Moon landings were fake and calling Buzz a liar, a coward, and a fraud. When bozo got too close to Buzz & his daughter, and shoved Buzz, Aldrin punched him. Police refused to file charges after viewing video of the event, and witnesses described bozo's threatening behavior.

A press pass is not a free ticket to instantaneous unrestricted access to public figures. Respect their personal and security boundaries, or you move from 'reporter doing a job' to 'threat', and will be dealt with accordingly. People are nervous these days. Look what happened when the wrong guy got too close to Pres. Reagan; and I'd bet that Rep. Giffords wishes she had had some 'aggressive' security folk around her.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 03:02 PM
Seems some reporters are no longer content to report *what is*, but feel they have to manufacture some kind of confrontation. Push anyone too hard, and you can trigger a defensive response. After luring Buzz Aldrin to a hotel under false pretenses, some bozo with a microphone & camera started an "ambush interview", claiming the Moon landings were fake and calling Buzz a liar, a coward, and a fraud. When bozo got too close to Buzz & his daughter, and shoved Buzz, Aldrin punched him. Police refused to file charges after viewing video of the event, and witnesses described bozo's threatening behavior.

A press pass is not a free ticket to instantaneous unrestricted access to public figures. Respect their personal and security boundaries, or you move from 'reporter doing a job' to 'threat', and will be dealt with accordingly. People are nervous these days. Look what happened when the wrong guy got too close to Pres. Reagan; and I'd bet that Rep. Giffords wishes she had had some 'aggressive' security folk around her.

Just to clarify - what's your point? Are you defending this guy? Saying the reporter 'had it coming'? That's what it looks like. Please clarify, so that I might respond accordingly.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 03:05 PM
Interesting that the much maligned and disparaged Fox reps were reported as "A FOX camera crew was waiting its turn quietly a few feet away" from TomF's earlier post.

So those (FOX) are the 'ethical ones?

Tap-dancing your way around your ethics, per usual. Is 'waiting quietly (submissively)' your gold-standard? Did you bother listening to the audio of this beat down? I suspect not - if you had, it would be apparent (even to you) that this was not an aggressive confrontation instigated by this reporter. In fact, he sounds quite calm, aside from asking a question this Republican had no intention of answering. Maybe that's his transgression - asking questions you and yours don't want to answer.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 03:11 PM
Tap-dancing your way around your ethics, per usual. Is 'waiting quietly (submissively)' your gold-standard? Did you bother listening to the audio of this beat down? I suspect not - if you had, it would be apparent (even to you) that this was not an aggressive confrontation instigated by this reporter. In fact, he sounds quite calm, aside from asking a question this Republican had no intention of answering. Maybe that's his transgression - asking questions you and yours don't want to answer.

Regretful that one has to introduce and accuse negatively personal involvement etc in a discussion on a forum.

What was that quote ? ah yes . . . "when debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

George Jung
05-26-2017, 03:14 PM
Regretful that one has to introduce and accuse negatively personal involvement etc in a discussion on a forum.

What was that quote ? ah yes . . . "when debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."

Wrong answer, Rummy, but on pace for your usual deflection. And... it aptly describes your positions, from years of postings. Why would you consider that 'slander'? Are you not proud of the positions you've staked out?

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 03:29 PM
Wrong answer, Rummy, but on pace for your usual deflection. And... it aptly describes your positions, from years of postings. Why would you consider that 'slander'? Are you not proud of the positions you've staked out?

I am discussing the topic.

I am not accusing negatively anybody in the discussion of being like those in the topic, unlike others are doing. :ycool:

As to your actions, if that floats your boat so be it. C'est la vie.

I don't know about you but I'd rather discuss the topics than negatively attack fellow forum users.

C'est la vie.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 03:31 PM
Nice spin, but - not a personal attack, though your position is odiferous. And... apparently defenseless.

Good - that's a start.

C. Ross
05-26-2017, 03:33 PM
He apologized to the reporter and said he was in the wrong.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 03:37 PM
I am discussing the topic.

I am not accusing negatively anybody in the discussion of being like those in the topic, unlike others are doing. :ycool:

As to your actions, if that floats your boat so be it. C'est la vie.

I don't know about you but I'd rather discuss the topics than negatively attack fellow forum users.

C'est la vie.


Nice spin, but - not a personal attack, though your position is odiferous. And... apparently defenseless.

Good - that's a start.

No spin, just the obvious truth of a personal attack, read what you wrote . . . . What is 'You and yours' if not personal?

Canoez
05-26-2017, 03:40 PM
No spin, just the obvious truth of a personal attack, read what you wrote . . . . What is 'You and yours' if not personal?

The problem here is that you are being an apologist for a man who assaulted a reporter for asking a question. Whether or not he apologized really doesn't erase the central issue - it was assault. The other issue is the delay, and the attempt to smear the reporter as the individual inciting the assault, which, per the Fox news crew witnessing the event, was not the case.

TomF
05-26-2017, 03:51 PM
RP, the now-Congressman has been charged with assault.

You've been obliquely questioning the ethics of the victim in this assault; why? The FOX folks' account apparently convinced the police etc. that his ethics weren't the issue.

OTOH, Gianforte had a few ethical lapses.

His unguarded remarks about the GOP health bill were a big campaign issue - and became bigger when he wouldn't "own" or "disown" during the campaign. He refused to publicly give his opinion on one of the most controversial domestic policy issues, which would directly affect thousands of his constituents.
Gianforte promised a clarification after the CBO scoring was released ... a promise which itself became a campaign issue in this race - because it would likely be fulfilled too late for voters to factor in his views when casting a ballot.
Gianforte reneged on that promise, when the CBO scoring came in at the last minute.
When a reporter did his job in trying to hold Gianforte to his promise, the man repeatedly refused, got angry, threw the reporter to the ground and began punching him.


That last point is both an ethical lapse, and why Gianforte's being prosecuted for assault. It's also a textbook illustration of one form of attack on the free press - the reporter was attacked because he was doing his job as a reporter, and Gianforte apparently felt that he was above such accountability checks/balances.

Yes, the FOX staff should be commended for their ethics. It must have been intimidating as hell to see Gianforte physically attack a colleague for doing .. what they were probably also going to do. But they spoke up anyway. It probably crossed their minds that FOX' suits could potentially see their testimony against Gianforte in a poor light; perhaps a career-limiting-move. Good for them, for doing the right thing.

Can we get back to the actual ethical lapses now, including an actual assault charge and attack of press freedoms by a GOP congressman?

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 04:16 PM
Just to clarify - what's your point? Are you defending this guy? Saying the reporter 'had it coming'? That's what it looks like. Please clarify, so that I might respond accordingly.

I don't think the reporter deserved to be assaulted, but he needs to learn patience and manners. He pushed into a room set aside for a TV interview and started asking questions without preamble. At the beginning of the recording (click) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQwu4wff7lI), when Mr. Gianforte says he plans to "talk to you about that later", the reporter says "there isn't time" and keeps pushing. Who is he to dictate a government official's schedule? Mr. Gianforte directs him to "talk to Shane", the reporter keeps pushing and the scuffle happens. I can't tell how much time has passed between the release of the C.B.O. report and the interview, but I get the impression it wasn't much. Giving Mr. Gianforte the benefit of the doubt, I think he wanted time to analyze the report and work with his people to prepare a comprehensive statement rather than make some off-the-cuff remarks for which he might be vilified.

Rum_Pirate
05-26-2017, 04:19 PM
Just to clarify - what's your point? Are you defending this guy? Saying the reporter 'had it coming'? That's what it looks like. Please clarify, so that I might respond accordingly.
Sorry I missed this post.
To answer the questions raised.
My point is that I am not in any way shape or form condoning the assault. I did however raise the question, on what 'code of ethics' reporters follow, for debate.

The man assaulted another person, he is being charged for the incident. Apparently he waited until the election was over (would he have apologized if he had lost, we don't know) and apologized before he acknowledged his victory.
Despite doing so he is being continually being castigated (on this forum)for making the apology, not soon enough, too late the manner in which he did it, etc etc, nothing about the fact that he was man enough to publicly admit what he had done (which will no doubt be used against him in court - although I think will just plead guilty) and apologized.

BTW Did a certain Mr Clinton admit what he did and apologize at the earliest opportunity? YES/NO - single word answer please.
BTW Did a certain Mrs Clinton admit what all the things she did (long list) and apologise at the earliest opportunity? YES/NO - single word answer please.

I am not defending what the man did.
I do question why forumites are continuing to attack him like a pack of rabid dogs. Oops, sorry just realized he is a Republican, or 'deplorable repugnant' that educated forumites use.
He did it, he apologized, he has been charged. The Courts will decide.

I am absolutely not saying that "the reporter 'had it coming'" that would be like saying a woman in a nice dress should be blamed for being raped.

Trust that clarification is satisfactory for you. :rolleyes:

S.V. Airlie
05-26-2017, 04:21 PM
I don't think the reporter deserved to be assaulted, but he needs to learn patience and manners. He pushed into a room set aside for a TV interview and started asking questions without preamble. At the beginning of the recording (click) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQwu4wff7lI), when Mr. Gianforte says he plans to "talk to you about that later", the reporter says "there isn't time" and keeps pushing. Who is he to dictate a government official's schedule? Mr. Gianforte directs him to "talk to Shane", the reporter keeps pushing and the scuffle happens. I can't tell how much time has passed between the release of the C.B.O. report and the interview, but I get the impression it wasn't much. Giving Mr. Gianforte the benefit of the doubt, I think he wanted time to analyze the report and work with his people to prepare a comprehensive statement rather than make some off-the-cuff remarks for which he might be vilified.Then, he should have said that right away!

George Jung
05-26-2017, 04:26 PM
I don't think the reporter deserved to be assaulted, but he needs to learn patience and manners. He pushed into a room set aside for a TV interview and started asking questions without preamble. At the beginning of the recording (click) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQwu4wff7lI), when Mr. Gianforte says he plans to "talk to you about that later", the reporter says "there isn't time" and keeps pushing. Who is he to dictate a government official's schedule? Mr. Gianforte directs him to "talk to Shane", the reporter keeps pushing and the scuffle happens. I can't tell how much time has passed between the release of the C.B.O. report and the interview, but I get the impression it wasn't much. Giving Mr. Gianforte the benefit of the doubt, I think he wanted time to analyze the report and work with his people to prepare a comprehensive statement rather than make some off-the-cuff remarks for which he might be vilified.

And that is an apologist approach to defense. It doesn't hold water, suspect you know that. Time? You really think this guy didn't know the implications of the CBO report, prior to its release? How much 'time' do you think he needed - this was on the eve of the election. Of course, you knew that, too.

I'm surprised.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 04:30 PM
Sorry I missed this post.
To answer the questions raised.
My point is that I am not in any way shape or form condoning the assault. I did however raise the question, on what 'code of ethics' reporters follow, for debate.

The man assaulted another person, he is being charged for the incident. Apparently he waited until the election was over (would he have apologized if he had lost, we don't know) and apologized before he acknowledged his victory.
Despite doing so he is being continually being castigated (on this forum)for making the apology, not soon enough, too late the manner in which he did it, etc etc, nothing about the fact that he was man enough to publicly admit what he had done (which will no doubt be used against him in court - although I think will just plead guilty) and apologized.

BTW Did a certain Mr Clinton admit what he did and apologize at the earliest opportunity? YES/NO - single word answer please.
BTW Did a certain Mrs Clinton admit what all the things she did (long list) and apologise at the earliest opportunity? YES/NO - single word answer please.

I am not defending what the man did.
I do question why forumites are continuing to attack him like a pack of rabid dogs. Oops, sorry just realized he is a Republican, or 'deplorable repugnant' that educated forumites use.
He did it, he apologized, he has been charged. The Courts will decide.

I am absolutely not saying that "the reporter 'had it coming'" that would be like saying a woman in a nice dress should be blamed for being raped.

Trust that clarification is satisfactory for you. :rolleyes:

Weak. Really weak. Apologist 101, all the way. A few points - 1) There are no Clintons (or Obama's) in this particular story, though appreciate the 101 deflection technique. Thought you might have 'progressed'. 2) Nice swipe at the 'educated' - apparently you, ain't? And as a matter of clarification - that 'deplorable repugnant' is seemingly a Republican tool, rather than a liberals. 3) and yes... you continue to defend the indefensible. Nothing new about that - but you should be held accountable for it.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 04:31 PM
Then, he should have said that right away!

Agreed, when he told the reporter "later" and the reporter wouldnt accept that; maybe he (the reporter) was under pressure to meet a deadline.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 04:31 PM
Then, he should have said that right away!

Yeah. And then 'commented' on it - right after the election. The good news is - karma is alive and well. The 'good folks' of Montana are likely getting what they deserve.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 04:31 PM
Agreed, when he told the reporter "later" and the reporter wouldnt accept that; maybe he (the reporter) was under pressure to meet a deadline.

Yeah. Like 'the election'.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 04:33 PM
He apologized to the reporter and said he was in the wrong.

I'm a bit surprised to see where you land on this.

TomF
05-26-2017, 04:38 PM
The election was the very next day. Any delay in remarking on the cbo report would have made his comments useless to electors still trying to make up their minds.

The reporter accurately imo understood that this had been Gianforte's objective all along in not clarifying his earlier remarks, and called him on it.

That is, he did his job. Gianforte's intent was to avoid doing his own as long as possible, to enhance his own electoral chances in an unexpectedly tight race.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 04:43 PM
And that is an apologist approach to defense. It doesn't hold water, suspect you know that. Time? You really think this guy didn't know the implications of the CBO report, prior to its release? How much 'time' do you think he needed - this was on the eve of the election. Of course, you knew that, too.

I'm surprised.

Sorry to disappoint you. The first I knew of this incident was this thread. From what I've read, it seems Mr. Gianforte and the Guardian's reporters have a long-standing antagonistic relationship. I think this poor reporter was the straw that broke the camel's back.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 04:44 PM
Nice summation, though I suspect all the 'players' know all this. Doesn't help the apologist game plan, though.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 04:45 PM
Sorry to disappoint you. The first I knew of this incident was this thread. From what I've read, it seems Mr. Gianforte and the Guardian's reporters have a long-standing antagonistic relationship. I think this poor reporter was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Antagonistic? You mean, like asking pertinent questions on policy positions?

Yeah, that's aggravating.

S.V. Airlie
05-26-2017, 04:55 PM
Agreed, when he told the reporter "later" and the reporter wouldnt accept that; maybe he (the reporter) was under pressure to meet a deadline.How do you know, do you have a crystal ball? Look stop coming up with far fetched BS to defend GOP's who pull this BS. They shouldn't need interpreters to come in and tell voters what they really meant or what they meant to say.

Overtime I turn around and Trump says something stupid, a fleet of gophers are standing there explaining what he meant by his comment.And often, the gophers disagree among themselves.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 04:59 PM
Antagonistic? You mean, like asking pertinent questions on policy positions?

Yeah, that's aggravating.

It's not the questions, it's the hubristic lack of respect and dignity with which answers are demanded by some reporters. Shoot-from-the-hip may work in cowboy movies, but not so much in politics. I'll take a delayed, thoughtful response over off-the-cuff any day.

CWSmith
05-26-2017, 05:00 PM
Where are all these "maybes" coming from? It is established that the reporter followed the candidate through an open door, that he asked a legitimate question, and that the candidate physically abused him in response. Even the reporter from Fox News has said this.

No more maybes. Face the facts and admit them.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 05:03 PM
How do you know, do you have a crystal ball?
{SNIP}


I listened to the recording.

S.V. Airlie
05-26-2017, 05:04 PM
Where are all these "maybes" coming from? It is established that the reporter followed the candidate through an open door, that he asked a legitimate question, and that the candidate physically abused him in response. Even the reporter from Fox News has said this.

No more maybes. Face the facts and admit them.Facts, they don't believe facts.

S.V. Airlie
05-26-2017, 05:07 PM
I listened to the recording.I did too and 90% of what you heard wasn't on it.You made assumptions.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 05:09 PM
Apparently. Hadn't seen that side, to a couple of the 'conservatives' here. It's disappointing. But you know where they 'stand'; and it gives a pretty good insight as to how otherwise reasonable folk have got us all in this mess.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 05:32 PM
I did too and 90% of what you heard wasn't on it.You made assumptions.



As the time for the interview neared, Gianforte came into the room. We exchanged pleasantries and made small talk about restaurants and Bozeman.

During that conversation, another man —who we now know is Ben Jacobs of The Guardian —walked into the room with a voice recorder, put it up to Gianforte's face and began asking if he had a response to the newly released Congressional Budget Office report on the American Health Care Act. Gianforte told him he would get to him later. Jacobs persisted with his question. Gianforte told him to talk to his press guy, Shane Scanlon.

At that point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him. Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the reporter. As Gianforte moved on top of Jacobs, he began yelling something to the effect of, "I'm sick and tired of this!"

FOX source (click) (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html)



“This happened behind a half closed door, so I didn’t see it all, but here’s what it looked like from the outside –Ben walked into a room where a local TV crew was set up for an interview with Gianforte. All of a sudden I heard a giant crash and saw Ben’s feet fly in the air as he hit the floor. Heard very angry yelling (as did all the volunteers in the room) –sounded like Gianforte…”

Levinson told the Guardian by phone that before the incident, she overheard Gianforte’s staff telling Jacobs that the campaign was upset with the Guardian’s previous reporting and that the candidate would likely not have time to talk to him. Jacobs then entered the side room to try to talk to Gianforte

Guardian source (click) (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/greg-gianforte-bodyslams-reporter-ben-jacobs-montana?CMP=edit_2221 )

Canoeyawl
05-26-2017, 05:39 PM
I listened to the recording.

You listened to "a" recording...

And perhaps it was pertinent, perhaps it was edited, or perhaps it was a complete fraud. Unless you were there, and or spoke with eyewitnesses what you or I heard doesn't mean anything.
The local sheriff however, seems to think he has some pertinent information, enough to support a charge of assault. In the event of bodily injury that charge may change.
Probably best to just let the sherriff do his job. Although he is a contributor to the campaign and a republican, he may be an honest man. We shall see.
It is encouraging to note how easy it was for a reporter to cause this kerfuffle resulting in assault charges. Not exactly a politic maneuver.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 05:40 PM
http://journalstar.com/opinion/columnists/why-montana-just-elected-greg-gianforte-a-man-charged-with/article_a2cca01a-30f6-50ae-a060-e9fa1c62a42a.html




An actual issue?

The last piece of the puzzle, and the one that triggered the now-infamous assault, was the emergence of health care as a major issue in this campaign.

In 2015, a bipartisan group in the Republican-led Montana legislature worked with the Democratic governor to pass a Medicaid expansion bill. The decision provided 70,000 Montanans – about 7 percent of the state – with health insurance. In a big, sparsely populated state like Montana, rural hospitals and clinics soon found that the coverage helped keep their lights on and provided needed money for services.

The American Health Care Act threatened all of that. Quist’s campaign used it to produce a highly effective one-minute ad that ran all over the state.

The ad put Gianforte on the spot. The Republican had publicly hedged about the plan, saying he wanted to see the full Congressional Budget Office report on the proposal. He was also caught on tape telling donors he was “thankful” for the GOP bill (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/05/us/politics/montana-house-special-election-greg-gianforte-health-bill.html?_r=0).

It was that dispute that prompted Ben Jacobs to push Gianforte to finally answer the question one way or another.

The rest is history.

Now, Gianforte takes office a deeply scarred politician. He faces a court date in June and has to somehow rebuild a reputation badly tarnished by a 30-second outburst.

S.V. Airlie
05-26-2017, 05:42 PM
If you believe FOX which is the most despicable media that tends to lie it's butt off 95% of the time, feel free to believe what it tells you to believe sharpiefav. I personally believe very little of what it says as it has a very poor reputation for telling the truth.

CWSmith
05-26-2017, 05:44 PM
Now, Gianforte takes office a deeply scarred politician. He faces a court date in June and has to somehow rebuild a reputation badly tarnished by a 30-second outburst.

I have to wonder what he will do in the future. No politician can survive if he never speaks to the press. He seems like someone who can't take the pressure and now he is stepping into a pressure cooker.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 05:48 PM
You listened to "a" recording...

And perhaps it was pertinent, perhaps it was edited, or perhaps it was a complete fraud. Unless you were there, and or spoke with eyewitnesses what you or I heard doesn't mean anything.
The local sheriff however, seems to think he has some pertinent information, enough to support a charge of assault. In the event of bodily injury that charge may change.
Probably best to just let the sherriff do his job. Although he is a contributor to the campaign and a republican, he may be an honest man. We shall see.
It is encouraging to note how easy it was for a reporter to cause this kerfuffle resulting in assault charges. Not exactly a politic maneuver.

I listened to the recording posted by The Guardian on their website (click). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQwu4wff7lI)

Encouraging in what way? I find it sad.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 05:51 PM
If you believe FOX which is the most despicable media that tends to lie it's butt off 95% of the time, feel free to believe what it tells you to believe sharpiefav. I personally believe very little of what it says as it has a very poor reputation for telling the truth.

Even when they support the Guardian's reporter? :)

S.V. Airlie
05-26-2017, 05:59 PM
Even when they support the Guardian's reporter? :)The Guardian didn't see a heck of a lot and that reporter admitted it. In other words, told the truth.

johnw
05-26-2017, 06:13 PM
I listened to the recording posted by The Guardian on their website (click). (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQwu4wff7lI)

Encouraging in what way? I find it sad.

I listened to the reporting too, and found it hard to believe that a man running for congress had so little control over his temper.

Naturally, he would have preferred not to respond to the question until the election was over. He could have calmly told the reporter no comment, and the reporter would have had to settle for a recording of no comment. Instead, he totally lost it. I would have hoped for a more responsible adult in the House.

I don't know about you, but I've never body slammed or hit anyone for asking a question, no matter how irritating.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 06:43 PM
I listened to the reporting too, and found it hard to believe that a man running for congress had so little control over his temper.

Naturally, he would have preferred not to respond to the question until the election was over. He could have calmly told the reporter no comment, and the reporter would have had to settle for a recording of no comment. Instead, he totally lost it. I would have hoped for a more responsible adult in the House.

I don't know about you, but I've never body slammed or hit anyone for asking a question, no matter how irritating.

Nor have I, but I know what it feels like to want to. When my aunt was murdered and we were waiting for the police to finish their investigation, the very last thing we needed was some dimbulb shoving a camera at us and asking, "How do you feel right now?". I couldn't believe anyone could be that stupid and rude. I said nothing, but felt like saying,"I don't know, let me kill one of your relatives,and you can tell me." My friends at work said they were amazed the reporter didn't shrivel like a spider on a hot plate from the angry look I gave.

PS -- The murderers, a gang of teens, were caught when they killed another elderly woman and her neighbor saw them loading her stuff into their car. They're still in prison.

C. Ross
05-26-2017, 07:01 PM
I'm a bit surprised to see where you land on this.

The guy seems like a hot head. He was lukewarm on Trump when he ran last November for governor, now he's a Trump fan boy.

I have a visceral dislike for guys like this. I note that he apologized not to exonerate him, but to point out that it's silly to argue about what he did. Mr. WWF wanna-be himself said it was wrong. Is still be interested in seeing him prosecuted

George Jung
05-26-2017, 07:03 PM
Disappointing the voters were so easily swayed by someone so transparently willing to 'say anything' to get elected - but OTOH, the candidates were nothing to brag about on either side.

Can't they bring better options to these elections?

C. Ross
05-26-2017, 07:13 PM
Can't they bring better options to these elections?

We live in the Age of Midgets.

And the land of voters with ridiculously low expectations and a taste for clownish behavior.

Chicken or egg?

johnw
05-26-2017, 07:20 PM
We live in the Age of Midgets.

And the land of voters with ridiculously low expectations and a taste for clownish behavior.

Chicken or egg?

Given how vicious our politics can be, would you want to run for office?

johnw
05-26-2017, 07:23 PM
Nor have I, but I know what it feels like to want to. When my aunt was murdered and we were waiting for the police to finish their investigation, the very last thing we needed was some dimbulb shoving a camera at us and asking, "How do you feel right now?". I couldn't believe anyone could be that stupid and rude. I said nothing, but felt like saying,"I don't know, let me kill one of your relatives,and you can tell me." My friends at work said they were amazed the reporter didn't shrivel like a spider on a hot plate from the angry look I gave.

PS -- The murderers, a gang of teens, were caught when they killed another elderly woman and her neighbor saw them loading her stuff into their car. They're still in prison.

I really don't see how this clown's irritation compares to your grief. He was being asked a question related to his job, and should have been able to handle that. Not everything journalists do is defensible, but I don't put these two incidents in the same category.

George Jung
05-26-2017, 07:24 PM
We live in the Age of Midgets.

And the land of voters with ridiculously low expectations and a taste for clownish behavior.

Chicken or egg?

I'll have the chicken.

L.W. Baxter
05-26-2017, 07:50 PM
We live in the Age of Midgets.

And the land of voters with ridiculously low expectations and a taste for clownish behavior.

Chicken or egg?

Yep.

And as I'm sure you'll agree;), not only was Hillary Clinton not a "poor candidate", she was better (more competent) than we deserved.

johnw
05-26-2017, 07:55 PM
Yep.

And as I'm sure you'll agree;), not only was Hillary Clinton not a "poor candidate", she was better (more competent) than we deserved.

And, she was an excellent example of what can happen to people who go into public life.

sharpiefan
05-26-2017, 09:26 PM
I really don't see how this clown's irritation compares to your grief. He was being asked a question related to his job, and should have been able to handle that. Not everything journalists do is defensible, but I don't put these two incidents in the same category.

I haven't found it yet, but there are hints that this reporter's action was the tip of the iceberg -- there's a backstory missing; or Mr. G. has a heck of a persecution complex.

C. Ross
05-26-2017, 09:47 PM
Yep.

And as I'm sure you'll agree;), not only was Hillary Clinton not a "poor candidate", she was better (more competent) than we deserved.

Ms. Clinton, as has been rehashed exhaustively, bimodal. Highly competent, and yet blind to her own limitations.

David G
05-26-2017, 09:59 PM
We live in the Age of Midgets.

And the land of voters with ridiculously low expectations and a taste for clownish behavior.

Chicken or egg?

When Acton referred to people with the mentality of gangsters coming to the fore... he didn't mean just politicians. He was referring to a general upswing in social degradation and lowest common denominator sorta schtuff. From politicians to teachers. From tv offerings to the voting public.

David G
05-26-2017, 10:00 PM
I'll have the chicken.


I haven't found it yet, but there are hints that this reporter's action was the tip of the iceberg -- there's a backstory missing; or Mr. G. has a heck of a persecution complex.

Oops... looks like we're out of eggs an chicken. I guess it's catfish for everyone.

When you have actual information... let's talk.

Chip-skiff
05-26-2017, 10:03 PM
Montana's a lot like Wyoming. Why vote for him?

1. He's Republican.

2. He hasn't raped his daughter (yet).

David G
05-26-2017, 11:12 PM
Montana's a lot like Wyoming. Why vote for him?

1. He's Republican.

2. He hasn't raped his daughter (yet).

Or any of his neighbor's cattle. That we know of.

johnw
05-27-2017, 01:01 AM
I haven't found it yet, but there are hints that this reporter's action was the tip of the iceberg -- there's a backstory missing; or Mr. G. has a heck of a persecution complex.
.

I'm sure there are people willing to make excuses, if that's what you mean by hints.

L.W. Baxter
05-27-2017, 09:42 AM
Ms. Clinton, as has been rehashed exhaustively, bimodal. Highly competent, and yet blind to her own limitations.

Oh, I know. If only she had owned up to her limitations to the American people!

I mean, all she had to say was, "Look, I know I don't have male genitalia, but if you elect me, I'm baking cookies!"

ccmanuals
05-27-2017, 10:07 AM
I haven't found it yet, but there are hints that this reporter's action was the tip of the iceberg -- there's a backstory missing; or Mr. G. has a heck of a persecution complex.

Can you name any possible scenario in which you think this would have been ok?

I can't think of any myself.

oznabrag
05-27-2017, 10:23 AM
Oh, I know. If only she had owned up to her limitations to the American people!

I mean, all she had to say was, "Look, I know I don't have male genitalia, but if you elect me, I'm baking cookies!"

I'm sorry, man.

HRC was a horrible candidate.

Do you want me to tell you why?

No?

I'm sorry, but I think you need to hear this.

HRC campaigns like a man.

She tries to give that growling, go-get-em, man-type, pep rally talk, and it sounds contrived.

That's because it IS contrived.

Her husband Bill had a Trump-like following. Loyal, committed to voting. . . Hillary's 'base' didn't have a chance against the O'Bama juggernaut, and then Trump ran her over like an armadillo, caught in the headlights.


There should be no doubt in the mind of any rational, sane, politically-aware individual that HRC would be a better POTUS than the Spit-For-Brains-In-Chief, but electoral politics is NOT her forte'.

Your remark about 'baking cookies' shows your confusion.

It's not that she should have rolled over and played her role, like a good, little girl, it's that she should have owned her womanhood, and beat the crap outta either of those opponents with it, rather than ignore that side of herself and try to win over the support of the 'undecideds' with her stilted, pseudo-macho posing.




Once again, Clinton would be definitely in a league with O'Bama as a careful, diplomatic, studied and insightful POTUS, and that's about as high a compliment as any President of the past 50 years should hope for.

L.W. Baxter
05-27-2017, 10:31 AM
Whatever, Oz. You're still telling the story that Hillary lost the election because of her character.

You readily admit--as nearly everybody does now--that she was significantly more competent and better qualified for the job than the man we picked.

But, you still claim, "if she'd only been a little more competent, she would have won."

oznabrag
05-27-2017, 11:00 AM
Whatever, Oz. You're still telling the story that Hillary lost the election because of her character.

I knew there was a risk that you would remain close-minded about my assertions.

I have never been leery of Mrs. Clinton's 'character'. You are flailing at straws.



You readily admit--as nearly everybody does now--that she was significantly more competent and better qualified for the job than the man we picked.


No. I do NOT 'admit' it. I have been screaming it from the rooftops for nearly two years.

The fact that you are trying to cast me as some sort of Johnny-come-lately should tell you just how wrong you are on this.





But, you still claim, "if she'd only been a little more competent, she would have won."

Straw Man, much?

If your remark is about 'competency' in ability to perform the duties of the office of the POTUS, then there is no question, there CAN BE no question as to which of the two major-party candidates is competent.


Unfortunately for us, on must first demonstrate one's competency as an electoral candidate, and she did not.



It's like slut-shaming a rape victim. "You probably wouldn't have been raped if you didn't wear a miniskirt to the club".

You REALLY ought to let go of that position if you want to launch an attack against me, my friend. I do not occupy that position, so you will never in a million years beat me that way.

I can think of no way in which to respond to your analogy.


I think that's because it's so blatantly Straw Man.

What I'm saying is that Hillary is a victim of sexism, yes, but not in the way you seem to see it.


Hillary has internalized a lot of garbage that tells her she needs to act like a man on the campaign trail.

Lots of 'fiery' speeches at the limits of her vocal cords, and talking tough about the p***y grabber.


It was fake. It wasn't her. Maybe it was Bill, speaking through her. There was no way in Hell she was going to capture the imaginations and the loyalty of the electorate by acting like someone she isn't.


--------------------


I have heard an interview with the woman who wrote a biography of Hillary.

She said that when Hillary got up to make a speech ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD, she was warm, confident, engaging and was able to rouse the crowd to supporting her point of view EVEN IF MOST OF THEM DIDN'T SPEAK A WHOLE LOT OF ENGLISH.


This journalist traveled everywhere with Clinton for several years, and says that the oddest thing about her is just this. While HRC was in the States, she was wooden, staid, overly-cautious and uninteresting, but as the aircraft would leave US airspace, it was like a second skin was peeled away from her, and she became this exciting, engaging, and incandescently-intelligent dynamo.

Now it's easy to blame the ratfreakers, mainly because they're guilty, but damage her they did. The conclusion drawn by that journalist was that as long as HRC was in the US, she felt she had to wear the psychic armor to protect her from the constant, ratfreaker din.


So, you can accuse me of rape-shaming-slut-shaming-whatever makes you feel good, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was a TERRIBLE candidate.

George Jung
05-27-2017, 11:12 AM
All true- and yet, except for the combination of rat frequers/media assault in combo with Comey committing his crime, she would have still won. Had not so many voters stayed home, she would have won. 'We have met the enemy. And he is stupid'

oznabrag
05-27-2017, 11:19 AM
All true- and yet, except for the combination of rat frequers/media assault in combo with Comey committing his crime, she would have still won. Had not so many voters stayed home, she would have won. 'We have met the enemy. And he is stupid'

I don't disagree, George.

We were robbed.

L.W. Baxter
05-27-2017, 11:41 AM
Your whole argument about Hillary's oratory style is more of the same, Oz.

Are you suggesting that if she had been more "feminine", she would have won? If that's not what you're saying...then I don't know what you are going on about.

It's like Mr. Ross saying she's "blind to her own limitations". As if her character flaws caused her to lose. As if Hillary gave us Donald Trump. Which is exactly the American-white-male-dominant narrative that makes us the laughingstock of the world.

Is it really some kind of accident that, the first time in our history we nominate a woman as major party candidate for President, we elect the most obviously white-male-dominant oaf since the 19th century?

Obviously, Hillary is a flawed and imperfect human being. We all are.

But her imperfections didn't cost her election. Our imperfections did. Which is why I mentioned her on this thread to begin with.

The white-male-dominant electorate in this country--which includes lots of women, of course--has gone batshyte crazy with the politics of resentment.

And "enlightened" men who dog Hillary and her character deficiencies for "losing" are part and parcel of the crazy.

How'd you put it above, Oz? "She should have owned her womanhood". lolz.

Canoeyawl
05-27-2017, 11:55 AM
Well said...



Is it really some kind of accident that, the first time in our history we nominate a woman as major party candidate for President, we elect the most obviously white-male-dominant oaf since the 19th century?

I think we should include the bit about the previous 8 years of an extremely competent black president being a significant factor. As I drove through Charlottesville into southern Virginia and then on to Dallas last summer I noticed a lot of bumper stickers about that. Not permissible to post the content here, but it is a disgusting place (country) that would publically tolerate this.

L.W. Baxter
05-27-2017, 12:02 PM
I think we should include the bit about the previous 8 years of an extremely competent black president being a significant factor. As I drove through Charlottesville into southern Virginia and then on to Dallas last summer I noticed a lot of bumper stickers about that. Not permissible to post the content here, but it is a disgusting place (country) that would publically tolerate this.

Yes, that's the "batshyte crazy with the politics of resentment" part.

C. Ross
05-27-2017, 12:10 PM
It's like Mr. Ross saying she's "blind to her own limitations". As if her character flaws caused her to lose.

They weren't all the reasons. But they were important.

I'm thinking about things like: her failure to have an explicit pitch for lower middle class white people, especially men. Her inability to be likeable. Even among women she was the most disliked candidate ever - except for Donald Trump. (Criminey, what does THAT tell us?)


As if Hillary gave us Donald Trump. Which is exactly the American-white-male-dominant narrative that makes us the laughingstock of the world.

Is it really some kind of accident that, the first time in our history we nominate a woman as major party candidate for President, we elect the most obviously white-male-dominant oaf since the 19th century?

I definitely think gender bias was a factor. Racial bias lies near the root of Obama Hysteria, IMO.


Obviously, Hillary is a flawed and imperfect human being. We all are.

But her imperfections didn't cost her election. Our imperfections did.

I agree. I just wished for a less imperfect candidate who could have stemmed the Alt Right tide.

oznabrag
05-27-2017, 12:16 PM
Your whole argument about Hillary's oratory style is more of the same, Oz.

I don't give a rip about her 'style'. It isn't her 'style' it's her lack of substance.

HRC is definitely long on substance, but she simply could not get that across to/connect with undecided voters.

This means that she is a terrible candidate, not a terrible person. If you want to argue with someone who has issues with HRC's 'character', then you need to move along, 'cause that ain't me.

Somehow or another you have erected a straw man, and named him oznabrag.




Are you suggesting that if she had been more "feminine", she would have won? If that's not what you're saying...then I don't know what you are going on about.

Gee, I don't know, Lee. IS she more feminine? I think she is. I think her 'persona' during her stump speeches looks contrived. I think she failed MISERABLY to come across to the undecided voter as the genuine, open, incandescently intelligent person she no doubt is, and this is an abject failure on her part.

Electoral politics is brutal, and she has several weaknesses that make her a TERRIBLE CANDIDATE.

ONCE AGAIN, THAT DOES NOT MAKE HER A BAD PERSON, JUST A POOR CANDIDATE.




It's like Mr. Ross saying she's "blind to her own limitations". As if her character flaws caused her to lose. As if Hillary gave us Donald Trump. Which is exactly the American-white-male-dominant narrative that makes us the laughingstock of the world.

What sort of garbage are you choking on, now? Where are all these allegations of moral turpitude against me coming from? Are you that desperate? Really?

Clinton lost for a number of reasons, Trump's treasonous trickery not the least of them, but that does not mean that Hillary is a good candidate. She's not.



Is it really some kind of accident that, the first time in our history we nominate a woman as major party candidate for President, we elect the most obviously white-male-dominant oaf since the 19th century?

No. It's not because she's a woman, though, it's because she's a terrible candidate. She could not build a coalition. The reason she could not build a coalition is because she comes across as a faker.

All the people who were going to vote for her and stayed home stayed home because she did not lead them.

She should have been riding that wave that kept showing her with a substantial lead, and calling for everyone to make sure they went and voted so we could crush this infestation of ratfreakers once and for all.


SHE DID NOT.


Obviously, Hillary is a flawed and imperfect human being. We all are.

Feeling compelled to state the obvious?


But her imperfections didn't cost her election. Our imperfections did. Which is why I mentioned her on this thread to begin with.

So, you feel as though an electoral candidate has no responsibility to campaign effectively?

Really?




The white-male-dominant electorate in this country--which includes lots of women, of course--has gone batshyte crazy with the politics of resentment.

More Captain Obvious?


And "enlightened" men who dog Hillary and her character deficiencies for "losing" are part and parcel of the crazy.

Am I to take this mumble as some sort of cogent indictment of me? 'Cause you really need to clean up your argument A LOT before it starts to make sense.



How'd you put it above, Oz? "She should have owned her womanhood". lolz.

Well, you have not even considered the idea that she REJECTED her womanhood. I have seen Elizabeth Warren speak, and she is definitely a powerful, honest and compelling speaker. She does not flail around trying to act masculine for the audience,

HILLARY DOES. SHE IS NOT 'HERSELF' ON THE STUMP, and people can tell, too, at a visceral level.




Who are you arguing with, again?

Also, what part of this did you ignore?:
This journalist traveled everywhere with Clinton for several years, and says that the oddest thing about her is just this. While HRC was in the States, she was wooden, staid, overly-cautious and uninteresting, but as the aircraft would leave US airspace, it was like a second skin was peeled away from her, and she became this exciting, engaging, and incandescently-intelligent dynamo.

C. Ross
05-27-2017, 12:46 PM
I like agreeing with JT. Hate disagreeing with Lee.

Osborne Russell
05-27-2017, 12:49 PM
We live in the Age of Midgets.

And the land of voters with ridiculously low expectations and a taste for clownish behavior.

Chicken or egg?

What was the contribution of the Chimp Squad?

mdh
05-27-2017, 12:57 PM
Dems will have to run hiliary again in 2020; she was the "most qualified candidate ever" last time, and she will still be the most qualified. Don't they have to offer the people their very best?

S.V. Airlie
05-27-2017, 01:12 PM
Dems will have to run hiliary again in 2020; she was the "most qualified candidate ever" last time, and she will still be the most qualified. Don't they have to offer the people their very best?As you did? You see how that's turning out for you don't you?

Glen Longino
05-27-2017, 01:22 PM
As you did? You see how that's turning out for you don't you?

Nope! He does Not see!

oznabrag
05-27-2017, 02:12 PM
I like agreeing with JT. Hate disagreeing with Lee.

I like it when you agree with me, too, Mr. Ross.

I don't like disagreeing with Mr. Baxter, either.

It seems that somehow, a system of logic he has developed requires that the recognition that Hillary was a woefully poor candidate is 100% correlated with white male privilege and the Trump Brand.



Frankly, I think Hillary's biggest flaw was her 'I am the first woman candidate for POTUS, therefore I am entitled to win' attitude.

Her SECOND biggest was refraining from being herself. This is nowhere so evident as in her wooden stump speeches.


The proportion of the population who is willing to vote, if it's not too much trouble, and who are capable of grasping that health care might actually BE complicated, who understand what it means to be an American, and comprehend the existential threat to the continued Republic represented by the Republicans is too small to carry an election by themselves.



Believe it or not, 200 years of 'My Country 'Tis Of Thee's don't mean squat at the ballot box.

I think this is the brutal reality that HRC ignored, and Trump exploited, while Hillary ignored his exploitations as well.

Brutal.

If there is any Feminist Revelation to be seen here, it should be 'never let your husband run your campaign'.

Seriously.


I think the entire Democratic Party Machine behaved shamefully.

I think HRC was the insider-Democrat, privy to the backroom deal, and if she had won, that's the 'scandal' she'd be mired in for the next 8 years.



What we see here is a tremendous opportunity at tremendous risk.


Step:

1) Indict the Republican Party. :ycool:

2)Make the Democratic Party fess up to being the moderate right creature that it has become.

3)Foster and foment a moderate-left party or parties to give voice to those who want one.


There has never been a shortage of moderate-right Americans, but ever since Nixon made it OK to use treasonous means to sway elections, the Democrats have been drifting rightward to fill the hole those Morons made when they wanted all the democracy to themselves.


It has been ably argued that the entire 'destroy the Clintons' agenda has been motivated by the Democrats' role in destroying Nixon.

Now, the Clintons are destroyed, and the cost for this little Republican tantrum of the past 40-odd years may end up being the very existence of our little Republic.

Ugh. [/RAMBLE]

johnw
05-27-2017, 02:34 PM
I like it when you agree with me, too, Mr. Ross.

I don't like disagreeing with Mr. Baxter, either.

It seems that somehow, a system of logic he has developed requires that the recognition that Hillary was a woefully poor candidate is 100% correlated with white male privilege and the Trump Brand.



Frankly, I think Hillary's biggest flaw was her 'I am the first woman candidate for POTUS, therefore I am entitled to win' attitude.

Her SECOND biggest was refraining from being herself. This is nowhere so evident as in her wooden stump speeches.


The proportion of the population who is willing to vote, if it's not too much trouble, and who are capable of grasping that health care might actually BE complicated, who understand what it means to be an American, and comprehend the existential threat to the continued Republic represented by the Republicans is too small to carry an election by themselves.



Believe it or not, 200 years of 'My Country 'Tis Of Thee's don't mean squat at the ballot box.

I think this is the brutal reality that HRC ignored, and Trump exploited, while Hillary ignored his exploitations as well.

Brutal.

If there is any Feminist Revelation to be seen here, it should be 'never let your husband run your campaign'.

Seriously.


I think the entire Democratic Party Machine behaved shamefully.

I think HRC was the insider-Democrat, privy to the backroom deal, and if she had won, that's the 'scandal' she'd be mired in for the next 8 years.



What we see here is a tremendous opportunity at tremendous risk.


Step:

1) Indict the Republican Party. :ycool:

2)Make the Democratic Party fess up to being the moderate right creature that it has become.

3)Foster and foment a moderate-left party or parties to give voice to those who want one.


There has never been a shortage of moderate-right Americans, but ever since Nixon made it OK to use treasonous means to sway elections, the Democrats have been drifting rightward to fill the hole those Morons made when they wanted all the democracy to themselves.


It has been ably argued that the entire 'destroy the Clintons' agenda has been motivated by the Democrats' role in destroying Nixon.

Now, the Clintons are destroyed, and the cost for this little Republican tantrum of the past 40-odd years may end up being the very existence of our little Republic.

Ugh. [/RAMBLE]

I don't think it was her attitude that made her a bad candidate, I think it was more than a generation of smears against her by the conservative noise machine. Most people thought she was less honest than Trump, of all people, whereas when you look at their statements over the years, it's obvious that Trump is less honest. She's a libeled lady, and unfortunately, the perceptions the reds worked so hard to establish tied in with the hacked emails & the whole phony email server scandal.

oznabrag
05-27-2017, 03:52 PM
I don't think it was her attitude that made her a bad candidate, I think it was more than a generation of smears against her by the conservative noise machine. Most people thought she was less honest than Trump, of all people, whereas when you look at their statements over the years, it's obvious that Trump is less honest. She's a libeled lady, and unfortunately, the perceptions the reds worked so hard to establish tied in with the hacked emails & the whole phony email server scandal.

In my opinion, it was a contributing factor.

I think the same sort of criticism was noised about back in 2008, as well.


Attribute it to whatever motive you'd like, but one got the feeling she considered herself entitled to the Oval Office.

This is electoral suicide.

Being qualified to be President means absolutely nothing on election day, as can clearly be seen.

What matters on election day is ballots cast FOR YOU.


I don't think it was her attitude that made her a bad candidate, I think it was more than a generation of smears against her by the conservative noise machine.

If you look at this sentence, it confirms that she was a bad candidate, then names the cause as smears.

Smears can not make a 'bad candidate'. They can make an election difficult or impossible to win, but the candidate herself is answerable for her failure to lead. Her failure to engage with the meat of the middle. Her weird inability to be herself in front of a US audience, while being effortlessly comfortable in front of foreign audiences.

She just didn't bring it.

George Jung
05-27-2017, 05:08 PM
It's not so simple as either of you have said, but 'both'. The Reds spent decades smearing Clintons; the advent of hate politics (also Red), a poor campaign, and Comey. The 'tell' is how HRC performed out of country, s in; 30 years of Republican assaults takes a toll. But ultimately the fault lies with us. We blew it.

Rum_Pirate
05-29-2017, 07:17 AM
"Guardian correspondent Ben Jacobs said Mr Gianforte "body slammed" him, breaking his glasses, at an event in Bozeman."

Did Mr Gianforte actually "body slam" Mr Jacobs

<strong><span style="color: rgb(64, 64, 64); font-family: Helmet, Freesans, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5KYsIKTKfc


Or was it exaggeration on by Mr Jacobs?

TomF
05-29-2017, 07:30 AM
Like you, RP, I wish that the reporter had chosen a different term. Probably the guy did not know the technical term for the movement, so couldn't describe it in wrestling or judo terminology. My newbie's guess would be a Tai Otoshi, O Soto Gari, or De Ashi Barai ;).

A reporter in the next room heard the disturbance, and with her view partially obscured still managed to see both of the reporter's feet up in the air as he was thrown to the ground. Physics suggests that it was thus not a gentle or inadvertent push - those don't make anyone's feet gain altitude. And in case there was any remaining doubt over Gianforte's intent, the witnesses each described Gianforte to have climbed atop the downed reporter, and to have started punching him.

So whether or not the congressman lifted the reporter up to his shoulders and slammed him to the canvas in a technique worthy of Hulk Hogan, to a layman the term "body slam" probably accurately described the experience of having his body slammed with a fair bit of foot-elevating force to the floor.

Rum_Pirate
05-29-2017, 08:51 AM
Like you, RP, I wish that the reporter had chosen a different term. Probably the guy did not know the technical term for the movement, so couldn't describe it in wrestling or judo terminology. My newbie's guess would be a Tai Otoshi, O Soto Gari, or De Ashi Barai ;).

A reporter in the next room heard the disturbance, and with her view partially obscured still managed to see both of the reporter's feet up in the air as he was thrown to the ground. Physics suggests that it was thus not a gentle or inadvertent push - those don't make anyone's feet gain altitude. And in case there was any remaining doubt over Gianforte's intent, the witnesses each described Gianforte to have climbed atop the downed reporter, and to have started punching him.

So whether or not the congressman lifted the reporter up to his shoulders and slammed him to the canvas in a technique worthy of Hulk Hogan, to a layman the term "body slam" probably accurately described the experience of having his body slammed with a fair bit of foot-elevating force to the floor.

If I had been 'body slammed' I would be lying in agony and not have been able to have quickly got up and said 'You broke my glasses' as calmly as the reporter did.

Pity there was only sound and no video recording.

TomF
05-29-2017, 09:20 AM
If I had been 'body slammed' I would be lying in agony and not have been able to have quickly got up and said 'You broke my glasses' as calmly as the reporter did.

Pity there was only sound and no video recording.Pity that the FOX camera crew didn't have their equipment running, and one's forced to rely on their eyewitness account, the words of the other reporter whose comments I referred to above, and the audio recording. It was enough for a Montana police department and prosecutor to lay a charge, but apparently not enough for you to feel their decisions were credible? ;) We'll see what the judge thinks - but you know the opinion of some very highly placed people about America's judges, eh?

Have you ever been tossed to the ground in a judo or wrestling session, or maybe just roughhousing with buddies? Ever play a contact sport like football, hockey, etc.? As a kid did you ever maybe fall out of a tree you'd climbed, or off a set of monkey-bars? I've had my arm broken playing football, and ended up on the ground I dunno how many times during martial arts sparring etc. Yet still managed to get up a moment later. YMMV, I suppose.

It's quite possible to take a fairly hard fall and somehow manage to get up, provided that you didn't whack your head or break something. Especially if adrenaline's flowing.

ccmanuals
05-29-2017, 09:31 AM
Body check would have probably been more accurate

CWSmith
05-29-2017, 09:41 AM
Body check would have probably been more accurate

That does sound more credible.

Peerie Maa
05-29-2017, 10:26 AM
That does sound more credible.

Nah, a body check involves one of the protagonists moving at a run. Could not knock someone off their feet from standing.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-e6NjtnGodjM/UG8HSbkvA_I/AAAAAAAAEWY/wm9DupVwsD0/s1600/bang.jpeg

TomF
05-29-2017, 10:50 AM
I kinda suspect that Gianforte had been trying to avoid the reporter's mike shoved up in his face, so was initially turned a bit away from the reporter rather than standing toe-to-toe. And then he snapped - he lost it and stopped thinking, triggering instinctual large-motor-movements to deal with a perceived "threat."

Speculating here, I wager that Gianforte's brain identified the reporter's extended mike-holding arm as the "weapon" to be controlled, and he grabbed that arm with one hand and the reporter's jacket with the other (accidentally assuming the classic Judo sleeve/lapel grip). I figure this unexpected physical contact surprised our intrepid reporter, who flinched backwards in an instinctive defensive response. Our Judo guys here will recognize that as classic (if unconscious) "kuzushi;" getting your opponent off balance. It's the most crucial part of any successful takedown.

My guess is that once Gianforte found his hands on the guy, he instinctively turned to square up toe-to-toe (it's how we apes default to fight each other) while simultaneously stepping forwards and pushing hard. A strong push to an already unbalanced guy (especially combined with twist and a quick step forwards) is pretty good at landing an unprepared adversary on the ground, especially if your leg/foot accidentally catches your adversary's as you step forwards. Tangling a foot between the reporter's legs would have produced an accidental Ouchi Gari (inner reap) ... getting caught up behind an outside leg as you turned might produce an inadvertent Kosoto Gari (outer reap) or De Ashi Barai (foot sweep). Either of the first two options often see the "thrower" overbalancing too, and landing on the ground on top of the opponent; that sounds reasonable here, as it would position Gianforte to throw the punches that witnesses say happened next.

I don't think that any of this was pre-meditated or thought-through by Gianforte, I figure he just snapped and his lizard brain took over. Yay lizard-brain. Exactly what we want active in elected officials in a crisis. Unintended it might have been, but it's still enough to justify an assault charge.

Rum_Pirate
05-29-2017, 12:55 PM
How long will it take for the assault case to come before the Court and (provided the verdict is guilty ;)) before we learn of the sentence?

If guilty is there a 'resignation' then a by-election?

TomF
05-29-2017, 01:11 PM
First Court date is sometime before June 7; CNN's story (http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/26/politics/greg-gianforte-won-now-what-do-republicans-do/)suggests that this misdemeanor assault charge might even be decided not-guilty/guilty at that first court date.

Apparently, there's no mechanism to prevent Gianforte taking his Congress seat whichever way this goes - it's settled law from the late '60s. The House Republicans could refuse to let him join their caucus, but Ryan's already said he wouldn't do that - that it was up to Montana voters to choose who'd represent them. So there will be no real-world consequences for Gianforte until, maybe, his next electoral cycle.

oznabrag
05-29-2017, 01:14 PM
'Men with the mentality of thugs come to the fore', and so forth.

David G
05-29-2017, 09:16 PM
When push comes to shove: Kathleen Parker

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/05/when_push_comes_to_shove_kathl.html

WASHINGTON -- The shocking thing about Greg Gianforte's assault on a journalist isn't that he body-slammed and punched a reporter but that it took so long for the inevitable to occur.

Such an attack was foreshadowed way back in March last year when tough-guy Corey Lewandowski grabbed a female reporter who, apparently, was too brash for the tender sensibilities of then-candidate Donald Trump's inner circle.

A few months after his effrontery, Lewandowski left the campaign and joined CNN as a commentator. He now may be poised to rejoin Team Trump.

Gianforte, a Montana Republican, also was rewarded for his imitation of a distempered jackal. His campaign in a special congressional election reportedly reaped more than $100,000 in online donations just before the vote, most of it in the aftermath of the incident. The Bozeman businessman also managed to win the election, perhaps partly attributable to early voting before the attack.

David G
05-29-2017, 09:19 PM
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/05/something_is_not_right_ruth_ma.html

Paul G.
05-29-2017, 09:27 PM
So many threads with a common theme, americans hate each other and want a divided society. Sad

mdh
05-29-2017, 10:17 PM
There is a faction that will not honor the election.

TomF
05-30-2017, 04:23 AM
There is a faction that is appalled that their representative violently attacked a reporter for the "crime" of exercising a key right of a free and democratic society. And similarly appalled that other citizens are not troubled by it at all.