Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Lol

Where did you get that?

And why would you believe it?
Click to expand...
a link was provided.

the source was Open Secrets and the data came from the FEC. According to FEC filings, the DCCC spent no money against Democrats and 11 million against Republicans. These are verifiable facts and not subject to opinion. Your belief is not required for them to be true and valid.

So, because you claimed it, name the Progressives who were suppressed and how did the DCCC suppress them?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Center for Responsive Politics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to navigationJump to search
Center for Responsive Politics

Founded 1983[1]
Founder Former U.S. Sens. Frank Church & Hugh Scott
Type Research
Focus Money in politics
Location
  • Washington, D.C.
Area served
United States
Key people
Sheila Krumholz, Executive Director
Revenue
$1,726,112 (2013)[2]
Website www.opensecrets.org
The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) is a non-profit, nonpartisan research group based in Washington, D.C., that tracks the effects of money and lobbying on elections and public policy.[3] It maintains a public online database of its information.[4]

Its website, OpenSecrets.org, allows users to track federal campaign contributions and lobbying by lobbying firms, individual lobbyists, industry, federal agency, and bills. Other resources include the personal financial disclosures of all members of the U.S. Congress, the president, and top members of the administration. Users can also search by ZIP codes to learn how their neighbors are allocating their political contributions.[5]
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
a link was provided.

the source was Open Secrets and the data came from the FEC. According to FEC filings, the DCCC spent no money against Democrats and 11 million against Republicans. These are verifiable facts and not subject to opinion. Your belief is not required for them to be true and valid.

So, because you claimed it, name the Progressives who were suppressed and how did the DCCC suppress them?
Click to expand...
some people can't be taught. no matter if you put the work/evidence directly under their nose. Guy can't even be a father but he wants to be an expert online. GTFO
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
some people can't be taught. no matter if you put the work/evidence directly under their nose. Guy can't even be a father but he wants to be an expert online. GTFO
Click to expand...
It's a lie and you've both ignored the clear evidence I posted a link to just above.

But keep up with the confirmation bias.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
@Fogdog

Keep trying to ignore this.
Click to expand...
Was that flyer effective at suppressing her?

Let's look at the facts.

The flyer published publicly available information and pointed out:

Prior to moving to Texas, she penned articles very contemptuous about Texans and living in Texas
In an interview the year before, she said she'd never live in Texas.
Moser moved from Washington DC to that precinct in Texas just under the deadline for residency requirements
Moser kept her home in Washington DC where her husband has an office
95% of all the money Moser spent went to her husband's business per FEC filings.

The DCCC quite rightly pointed all this out because they could see Republicans using all the same information to win the seat. The DCCC's mission is to get Democrats elected to the House and Moser was a trainwreck for them if she won.

I think this was is not a case of suppression. This was a case of the DCCC ineptly but quite openly and forthrightly publishing information that voters needed before the primary. But if you still want to try to make the case for suppression, then please explain why publishing information available to the public is suppression.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
It's a lie and you've both ignored the clear evidence I posted a link to just above.

But keep up with the confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
That wasn't evidence unless you can explain why publishing the same damning information that would have been available to Republicans in the General election is somehow suppression.

Moser lost by a landslide, by the way. She immediately backed the winner saying it was important to beat Republicans. You should look to her as a role model.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Was that flyer effective at suppressing her?

Let's look at the facts.

The flyer published publicly available information and pointed out:

Prior to moving to Texas, she penned articles very contemptuous about Texans and living in Texas
In an interview the year before, she said she'd never live in Texas.
Moser moved from Washington DC to that precinct in Texas just under the deadline for residency requirements
Moser kept her home in Washington DC where her husband has an office
95% of all the money Moser spent went to her husband's business per FEC filings.

The DCCC quite rightly pointed all this out because they could see Republicans using all the same information to win the seat. The DCCC's mission is to get Democrats elected to the House and Moser was a trainwreck for them if she won.

I think this was is not a case of suppression. This was a case of the DCCC ineptly but quite openly and forthrightly publishing information that voters needed before the primary. But if you still want to try to make the case for suppression, then please explain why publishing information available to the public is suppression.
Click to expand...
Yet somehow it wasn't included in your spreadsheet. Therefore it lied.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Yet somehow it wasn't included in your spreadsheet. Therefore it lied.
Click to expand...
Just putting forth the facts as they are laid out. How much does a flyer cost? 50 bucks? Is putting out a flyer to head off a disaster in November suppression?

Please explain how stating publicly available information that would have been used against her in November by Republicans suppressed Moser.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Just putting forth the facts as they are laid out. How much does a flyer cost? 50 bucks? Is putting out a flyer to head off a disaster in November suppression?

Please explain how stating publicly available information that would have been used against her in November by Republicans suppressed Moser.
Click to expand...
The Republicans didn't suppress Moser, the DCCC did. And the spreadsheet you posted lied about it.

Seems clear to me.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
"Against Democrats: $0"

That's a lie
Click to expand...
Was that a lie?

I'm not up on all the intricacies of accounting for FEC reporting. That fifty bucks or whatever they spent might have gone into the bin called "for Democratic candidates" for all I know. You don't know either so just give it up.

Progressives(TM) are the ones who wanted suppression. They wanted information to be suppressed for Moser. These were all facts that would have come up in the fall election and used against her in the event that she was the Democratic candidate. The DCCC is chartered with helping Democrats win the fall elections.

Explain again how Moser was suppressed and why you Progressives want to suppress the publicly available information about her that voters benefited from.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
BBC Article

Republicans don't need any Democrats to confirm Kavanaugh, but my guess is 4 Democrats will side with Republicans; Joe Manchin, Heidi Heidkamp, Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill, all Democratic incumbents in states Trump won

On something so important as a Supreme Court nomination that will have resounding consequences for generations to come, will it really matter much having moderate, conservative Democrats holding those seats and siding with the other party to confirm a judge when they don't have to? The moderates on the board consistently tell me it will, but they have yet to show it. Personally, I don't want Democrats to be elected to congress if they side with Trump and the Republicans more than half the time. But I guess it's somehow better if the conservative congressman has a (D) next to his name.. The only safe name up for reelection in each of those states is Manchin, and Nelson is trailing Scott in Florida. Democrats could likely come out at a loss after 2018 in the Senate while likely taking the House, and if that happens, it's because Democratic voters don't want Republican light.

We'll see soon enough what happens
Click to expand...
If it is clear that a few repubs can be picked off, I think dems will stay united and push this past the midterms, otherwise they will vote to protect their seats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top