ADVERTISEMENT

Montana GOP Candidate physically attacks reporter

This election is tomorrow and Trump, among others, have been making robo calls for him.
 
Gianforte's in deep trouble

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html

Alicia Acuna of Fox News said:
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 him 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 man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of "I'm sick and tired of this!"

Jacobs scrambled to his knees and said something about his glasses being broken. He asked Faith, Keith and myself for our names. In shock, we did not answer. He then said he wanted the police called and went to leave. Gianforte looked at the three of us and repeatedly apologized. At that point, I told him and Scanlon, who was now present, that we needed a moment. The men then left.

To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff's deputies.
Click to expand...
 
zeke4ahs said:
Sadly, this will probably earn him even more votes in this toxic environment. Trump has been treating journalists like criminals and inciting this type of thing since his campaign began.
Click to expand...

I actually wonder if this was timed and intentional. He was in a relatively tight race, and beating up a reporter may boost republican e-day turnout.
 
Hijack: Constitutional conservatives want to devolve authority to the lowest level of government possible. As a matter of practice, this will inevitably devolve authority to the narrowest interests. Worse, it devolves authority to the shallow end of the pool. Here, for example, the level of competence and capability of state level candidates is such that one of them is brawling with a reporter on the eve of an election.

Epilogue: Anyone who thinks that the smallest unit of government works best has no experience with homeowners' associations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HoosierPeach, Classof96', anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa and 1 other person
I'm sure there's some people that don't care or like Gianforte losing his marbles and assaulting someone, but that's a clear minority. It's only going to take a few % flipping their votes/not voting/not GOTV hard to swing this race.

That being said, I wouldn't be shocked if Gianforte still wins due to how much early vote is out there (and the fact that Montana doesn't let early voters go in on election day and change their minds).

INRanger27 said:
I hope Jacobs presses charges.
Click to expand...

He is. Gianforte has been officially charged with misdemeanor assault.
 
Last edited:
Marvin the Martian said:
Isn't that ever a true statement.
Click to expand...
I like ours. They do a good job at keeping the common areas looking good and the neighborhood standards are reasonable and the cost is low. This is the first house I've owned and my experience is good. You two must have had a different experience. Next time I look for house I'm going to ask about the homeowners association before I buy because maybe I lucked out this time.
 
MrBing said:
I like ours. They do a good job at keeping the common areas looking good and the neighborhood standards are reasonable and the cost is low. This is the first house I've owned and my experience is good. You two must have had a different experience. Next time I look for house I'm going to ask about the homeowners association before I buy because maybe I lucked out this time.
Click to expand...
Wait til somebody tries to make a change to their home. Then the flurry of nincompoopery will go full throttle.
 
Rockfish1 said:
Hijack: Constitutional conservatives want to devolve authority to the lowest level of government possible. As a matter of practice, this will inevitably devolve authority to the narrowest interests. Worse, it devolves authority to the shallow end of the pool. Here, for example, the level of competence and capability of state level candidates is such that one of them is brawling with a reporter on the eve of an election.

Epilogue: Anyone who thinks that the smallest unit of government works best has no experience with homeowners' associations.
Click to expand...

Hogwash.

Government at all levels works as good as the people running it. On the whole, local government can be more responsive and provide quicker responses than a large federal bureaucracy. The feds are needed for the big jobs, they serve their place. They are not needed for others.

But everything from your homeowners association up to and including whoever is sitting at the top of the executive branch is only as effective as the person or people running it.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
Hogwash.

Government at all levels works as good as the people running it. On the whole, local government can be more responsive and provide quicker responses than a large federal bureaucracy. The feds are needed for the big jobs, they serve their place. They are not needed for others.

But everything from your homeowners association up to and including whoever is sitting at the top of the executive branch is only as effective as the person or people running it.
Click to expand...
The underlying premise behind @Rockfish1 statement is that the cream rises to the top. Talented politicians are unlikely to remain at lower levels of government and will naturally ascend to higher levels.

The counter-argument to this, which I believe is incorrect, is that these talented pols have to start low and thus there is talent in the pipeline. While I agree there is talent in the pipeline at any given point, there's also a lot of non-talent. It's an upside down funnel. There are a lot of people (both talented and not) entering into the bottom of the funnel, and only the good ones will pass through the gates on the way up.
 
INRanger27 said:
Wait til somebody tries to make a change to their home. Then the flurry of nincompoopery will go full throttle.
Click to expand...
Neighbor added a sun room and a nice rock tile deck with a built in fire pit in the back. He said there were standards he had to comply with but there was no problem. If I wasn't doing a PCS within a year and was going to stay here I'd think about doing something like that too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
MrBing said:
I like ours. They do a good job at keeping the common areas looking good and the neighborhood standards are reasonable and the cost is low. This is the first house I've owned and my experience is good. You two must have had a different experience. Next time I look for house I'm going to ask about the homeowners association before I buy because maybe I lucked out this time.
Click to expand...

The problem I've seen with homeowners associations is that the people who want to lead them want to do so for a reason. Since most associations really don't have people actively involved, the person with an ax to grind wins election and begins their holy crusade to rid the world of lawn gnomes, bad door color choices, unmowed lawns, trash cans set out the day before trash pickup, or whatever else. That crusade lasts until the next person gets ticked off about something and decides to take over the next election.

I imagine in some neighborhoods there are active associations with lots of people, but that isn't what I've seen. Heck, the last thing I want to do on a Saturday morning is attend my association's discussion on such pressing matters.

Edit - added "for a reason".
 
Marvin the Martian said:
The problem I've seen with homeowners associations is that the people who want to lead them want to do so for a reason. Since most associations really don't have people actively involved, the person with an ax to grind wins election and begins their holy crusade to rid the world of lawn gnomes, bad door color choices, unmowed lawns, trash cans set out the day before trash pickup, or whatever else. That crusade lasts until the next person gets ticked off about something and decides to take over the next election.

I imagine in some neighborhoods there are active associations with lots of people, but that isn't what I've seen. Heck, the last thing I want to do on a Saturday morning is attend my association's discussion on such pressing matters.

Edit - added "for a reason".
Click to expand...
I couldn't tell you who is on ours but I don't know anyone that has a problem with what they're doing. It's a nice neighborhood with a lot of professionals, active military and retired military. My guess is that the people running the association know how to lead or the people in the neighborhood know how to respond to anything they don't like. Whatever the reason they are doing a good job and I'm happy with them.
 
INRanger27 said:
The underlying premise behind @Rockfish1 statement is that the cream rises to the top. Talented politicians are unlikely to remain at lower levels of government and will naturally ascend to higher levels.

The counter-argument to this, which I believe is incorrect, is that these talented pols have to start low and thus there is talent in the pipeline. While I agree there is talent in the pipeline at any given point, there's also a lot of non-talent. It's an upside down funnel. There are a lot of people (both talented and not) entering into the bottom of the funnel, and only the good ones will pass through the gates on the way up.
Click to expand...

So to take that line of thought to its natural conclusion, Donald Trump is the best and brightest politician currently in the U.S.

Is anyone in their right mind going to argue that?

I would argue that a bunch of the politicians we have in Washington are among the shadiest and shallowest people in government. You have to be an extra special crazy to want to go through a national election. I think our very process discourages some of the best and brightest from trying for President and other upper elected offices because of the fact that you know your personal life is going to get destroyed by the other side.
 
Marvin the Martian said:
The problem I've seen with homeowners associations is that the people who want to lead them want to do so for a reason. Since most associations really don't have people actively involved, the person with an ax to grind wins election and begins their holy crusade to rid the world of lawn gnomes, bad door color choices, unmowed lawns, trash cans set out the day before trash pickup, or whatever else. That crusade lasts until the next person gets ticked off about something and decides to take over the next election.

I imagine in some neighborhoods there are active associations with lots of people, but that isn't what I've seen. Heck, the last thing I want to do on a Saturday morning is attend my association's discussion on such pressing matters.

Edit - added "for a reason".
Click to expand...
These same selfish motives I've seen translate into school boards also. I've attended a few school board meetings in a few districts and they were run by the most incompetent ignoramuses that I've ever witnessed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
INRanger27 said:
Talented politicians are unlikely to remain at lower levels of government and will naturally ascend to higher levels.
Click to expand...

by talented pols, you mean elected officials or non-elected officials?

Luck probably plays as big a role in the sport of politics compared to anything else. I can't think of any "career" that requires more "who you know".
 
IUCrazy2 said:
So to take that line of thought to its natural conclusion, Donald Trump is the best and brightest politician currently in the U.S.

Is anyone in their right mind going to argue that?

I would argue that a bunch of the politicians we have in Washington are among the shadiest and shallowest people in government. You have to be an extra special crazy to want ro go through a national election, particularly at the national level. I think our very process discourages some of the best and brightest from trying for President and other upper elected offices because of the fact that you know your personal life is going to get destroyed by the other side.
Click to expand...
No. Just like all walks of life, people fall through the cracks. I think Rockfish is talking about averages, and I agree with him.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
So to take that line of thought to its natural conclusion, Donald Trump is the best and brightest politician currently in the U.S.

Is anyone in their right mind going to argue that?

I would argue that a bunch of the politicians we have in Washington are among the shadiest and shallowest people in government. You have to be an extra special crazy to want ro go through a national election, particularly at the national level. I think our very process discourages some of the best and brightest from trying for President and other upper elected offices because of the fact that you know your personal life is going to get destroyed by the other side.
Click to expand...

i dont think he is arguing our pols are the best andbrightest... Simply that the best pols of pols rise to the top. Winning at politics is not the same thing as being competent imo.
 
toastedbread said:
i dont think he is arguing our pols are the best andbrightest... Simply that the best pols of pols rise to the top. Winning at politics is not the same thing as being competent imo.
Click to expand...

I could get behind that line of thought more, but Rock appeared to be arguing that there was more competence at the national level, not just that they were better at winning elections.
 
INRanger27 said:
No. Just like all walks of life, people fall through the cracks. I think Rockfish is talking about averages, and I agree with him.
Click to expand...

I do not. Not at all really.

Pick any of the top people running government right now, would you want any of them to run your city? Your state? I cannot think of anyone in any sort of elected government position that I would want running things if I was not forced to make a decision between one or the other.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
I could get behind that line of thought more, but Rock appeared to be arguing that there was more competence at the national level, not just that they were better at winning elections.
Click to expand...

they probably are more competent on average, but i would guess the difference is smaller comapred to other industries. Politics is first about elections, and elections are about winning and losing. Many electoral losers are highly competent.
 
MrBing said:
I couldn't tell you who is on ours but I don't know anyone that has a problem with what they're doing. It's a nice neighborhood with a lot of professionals, active military and retired military. My guess is that the people running the association know how to lead or the people in the neighborhood know how to respond to anything they don't like. Whatever the reason they are doing a good job and I'm happy with them.
Click to expand...

It may be the military part of the equation for you. I had a boss who had been one of Rickover's picked engineers to join the nuclear navy in the 60s. He was the best boss I've had. He would give us a project, the desired timeline, and tell us his door was open if we had any questions or problems. None of the micro managing, no coming in every day demanding updates. If we needed answers or resources he jumped right on it. He trusted we would get the job done or inform him if something came up that meant we couldn't deliver on time. I am now trapped in the continual committee meetings to discuss every possible component of a project and really miss that former world.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
I do not. Not at all really.

Pick any of the top people running government right now, would you want any of them to run your city? Your state? I cannot think of anyone in any sort of elected government position that I would want running things if I was not forced to make a decision between one or the other.
Click to expand...
Didn't they all used to lead cities and states (looking at Mike Pence for example)?
 
Marvin the Martian said:
Didn't they all used to lead cities and states (looking at Mike Pence for example)?
Click to expand...

Not that I am aware of. Trump did not. Pence did for a term. Before that he was a Congressman. I think Paul Ryan has mainly just been a Congressman. I would have to do some looking but Pelosi, McConnell, and Schumer have been in their positions for a long while...if they were local it was not for long.

I think there is more accountability potential at the local level than at the Federal level. That is why I like to see more things handled at that level. Additionally, without the ability to print money, I think local expenditures should be more fiscally responsible (Not always the case).

There is no perfect system of government because they are run by imperfect individuals. I just prefer more low impact decisions to be handled at a lower level than federal while leaving some of the bigger and more complicated or logistically the more feasible decisions to the Federal government.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
Not that I am aware of. Trump did not. Pence did for a term. Before that he was a Congressman. I think Paul Ryan has mainly just been a Congressman. I would have to do some looking but Pelosi, McConnell, and Schumer have been in their positions for a long while...if they were local it was not for long.

I think there is more accountability potential at the local level than at the Federal level. That is why I like to see more things handled at that level. Additionally, without the ability to print money, I think local expenditures should be more fiscally responsible (Not always the case).

There is no perfect system of government because they are run by imperfect individuals. I just prefer more low impact decisions to be handled at a lower level than federal while leaving some of the bigger and more complicated or logistically the more feasible decisions to the Federal government.
Click to expand...

It is interesting about the local level. I hear that argument often from conservatives. But how often do we see conservative states write laws to change local laws (North Carolina and Texas bathroom bills being two examples, Bloomington's annex being another, and I am sure there are dozens more). Not necessarily you, but for many conservatives they want the decision made at whatever level they control. If it is state, and the state can squash an Austin, Raleigh, or Bloomington, so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Digressions
Rockfish1 said:
Hijack: Constitutional conservatives want to devolve authority to the lowest level of government possible. As a matter of practice, this will inevitably devolve authority to the narrowest interests. Worse, it devolves authority to the shallow end of the pool. Here, for example, the level of competence and capability of state level candidates is such that one of them is brawling with a reporter on the eve of an election.

Epilogue: Anyone who thinks that the smallest unit of government works best has no experience with homeowners' associations.
Click to expand...

Conversely, dealing with the federal government, in the form of the FDA, EPA, OSHA, the DOL and the IRS, hasn't exactly been an orgasmic experience throughout my career.

I'll take the homeowners' association any day of the week. (Small factoid - John Boehner was happy smoking cigarettes and drinking Merlot all day long until he became involved in his HA in the Wetherington area here in the Tri-State and "got the itch".)
 
Rockfish1 said:
Hijack: Constitutional conservatives want to devolve authority to the lowest level of government possible. As a matter of practice, this will inevitably devolve authority to the narrowest interests. Worse, it devolves authority to the shallow end of the pool. Here, for example, the level of competence and capability of state level candidates is such that one of them is brawling with a reporter on the eve of an election.

Epilogue: Anyone who thinks that the smallest unit of government works best has no experience with homeowners' associations.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I missed it, maybe you spoke too broadly of government, but when did private homeowners associations become units of federal, state or local government? Unless they operate in federally owned housing locations, they're private entities eh?
 
Ladoga said:
Perhaps I missed it, maybe you spoke too broadly of government, but when did private homeowners associations become units of federal, state or local government? Unless they operate in federally owned housing locations, they're private entities eh?
Click to expand...

You don't have to be an official member of government to be a governing body of something.
 
Ladoga said:
Perhaps I missed it, maybe you spoke too broadly of government, but when did private homeowners associations become units of federal, state or local government? Unless they operate in federally owned housing locations, they're private entities eh?
Click to expand...
HOAs have been called "de facto government." They are private entities that nevertheless fill a government-like role.
 
Marvin the Martian said:
The problem I've seen with homeowners associations is that the people who want to lead them want to do so for a reason. Since most associations really don't have people actively involved, the person with an ax to grind wins election and begins their holy crusade to rid the world of lawn gnomes, bad door color choices, unmowed lawns, trash cans set out the day before trash pickup, or whatever else. That crusade lasts until the next person gets ticked off about something and decides to take over the next election.

I imagine in some neighborhoods there are active associations with lots of people, but that isn't what I've seen. Heck, the last thing I want to do on a Saturday morning is attend my association's discussion on such pressing matters.

Edit - added "for a reason".
Click to expand...

Our board wanted to build brick walls to replace the wooden ones at an estimated expense of $3 MM. Not surprisingly, many of them lived right off the road.

It didn't pass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoosboot
Montana voter to CNN crew, in response to question of whether this might change his vote: "You're lucky someone doesn't pop one of you."

I take that as an emphatic "No."
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Montana voter to CNN crew, in response to question of whether this might change his vote: "You're lucky someone doesn't pop one of you."

I take that as an emphatic "No."
Click to expand...
They raised $100,000 after the punch. As I predicted, this is probably going to help him rather than hurt him. Trump's America is a sad, sad world. This is what he meant by making America Great again? Violence and corruption at every turn.
 
tunk said:
Not only was this audio appalling, his campaign statement is straight-up frightening:
What happened to the calm rational GOP of Richard Lugar or even George W Bush? Get yourselves together.
Click to expand...
Richard Lugar was/is not a "normal" Republican. That, after serving 6 terms, he lost the Republican nomination must tell something. He was one of the few Republicans who put the nation ahead of the party.:(
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
Montana voter to CNN crew, in response to question of whether this might change his vote: "You're lucky someone doesn't pop one of you."

I take that as an emphatic "No."
Click to expand...

Just read where Laura Ingram basically called the reporter involved in the incident a wimp for not responding like a "man". That probably will increase her book sales for the next month or so.
 
TheOriginalHappyGoat said:
That's the kind of classy response we need from the future White House Press Secretary.
Click to expand...

Also interesting that that kind of a remark comes from the "law & order" side of the aisle. Ingram's tweets included "Politicians always need to keep their cool. But what would most Montana men do if "body slammed" for no reason by another man?" and "Did anyone get his lunch money stolen today and then run to tell the recess monitor?" What is disturbing about this kind of response is how market driven it is. Ingram probably doesn't really believe that the reporter should have retaliated by escalating the incident into a full blown fight. But she KNOWS her audience and they love the idea of shaming the "liberal press" for a perceived lack of masculinity. So, what the hell, let's poke the bear and drive up viewership even though it might not be the right thing to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back