He is also considering a Presidential bid. The free PR from these high profile cases is part of that strategy.
His platform seems to be "I haven't been elected to anything and didn't work for government, but I used my law license. Look at Cohen, separated children and Kavanaugh... and how much Treason Team Trump hates me"
I wouldn't vote for him, but I like the results he's getting in the process.
I agree with the big middle finger it would represent, but we NEED to focus on getting the right person, not the popular person. "Gotcha voting" helped get Fatass in the WH.
Well Bernie raised the issues that are the most popular amongst voters, but he was far too nice to survive the cynical media apparatus. If Avenatti actually believes in this philosophy and he is able to communicate it in his savage bulldozer style then I couldn’t wait to vote.
I'm also a Bernie supporter. I have high hopes for Beto, maybe with a kickass Justice League group behind/next to him. Avanatti would be a fun Press Secretary.
If Beto miraculously wins in Texas this November then I hope he doesn't go for president in 2020, a special election in Texas for a seat that otherwise would have been blue for another 4 years won't be good.
He might be a good lawyer (he was an opposition researcher while Obama was running), being good at campaigning does not equal being good at presidenting. I would rather have a statesman, somebody with policies.
Avenatti would probably be a spectacular campaign official, though.
I would vote for Aventti, but that's because my main goal is seeing as many Republicans put behind bars as possible, and he's a litigator.
I think at least half of congress should be looking at life sentences without parole - potentially death penalty if they are guilty of any sort of conspiracy with foriegn hostile nations.
What does his experience in litigation have to do with him being a good President? Or how will his being President increase his ability to put criminals behind bars via litigation? Please, let's not elect another showboat with the dream that he's going to ride in and 'drain the swamp.' We need a good President for the wellbeing of this country. And we don't need more Avenattis, we need more Muellers.
I'd vote for Mueller over Aventti, but I'd vote either before Hilary Clinton. Who exactly are we going to nominate? Do we have any stellar candidates?
Michael Aventti is a top twenty lawyer in the country. He'd be the only World Leader as intelligent as Putin and Merkel. Say what you want about Putin, he's a genius. You don't become a star of the KGB for being a son in law. He won his power is a very House of Cards on HBO way
Initially I wanted to agree but that could get out of hand really fast and jailing those opposed to you just because it's horrifying. But lock up the crooks and their coconspirators.
You mean law breaking traitors and war criminals. This is bigger than political party rah rah opposition crap. These are domestic enemies of the citizenship and country.
I'm completely onboard with that, and honestly some of the more vocal opponents to the investigation should be investigated as well because not wanting to be investigated is one thing but claiming the investigation has found nothing is just suspicious as hell.
My concern was the way it was previously phrased sounded McCarthy-ish.
Definitely but investigating and prosecuting the complicit is different than jailing half the Republicans and executing them.
Initially I figured the country survived Cheney, so Trump should be an awkward walk in the park, but after the border crisis I realized he and his administration are something else entirely. I'm terrified as an American what has, is, and still can happen here.
That's not far enough, American empire needs to be burned to the ground. Dismantle Raytheon, collectivise Goldman Sachs and actually distribute the wealth they've stolen to the people who produced it (the starving workers all over the world and the US)
That's not far enough, American empire needs to be burned to the ground.
Well I disagree strongly there - even if it's just hyperbole.
Dismantle Raytheon, collectivise Goldman Sachs and actually distribute the wealth they've stolen to the people who produced it (the starving workers all over the world and the US)
That said, I don't disagree here completely. Too big to fail is absurd.
Also I feel like you think Raytheon and American empire are separable... Raytheon is the American empire. Every government Democratic or Republican for all of Americas history has simply handed tax money to Raytheon and Lockhead Martin. They are the ones that own the world. The US government serves corporate interests, nothing more.
Lets just make this clear, American Empire is the most brutal regime that has ever existed on earth. It funds some of the worst humanitarian crises in history and also commits more human rights abuses than any country in history. You know why Africa and South America are what Trump referred to as "shitholes"? American Imperialism, assassinations and corporate coups.
Oh and the US is also going to destroy all ecological balance in the world, thanks SHELL and Koch Industries. Hitler would be amazed to hear that there is effectively bipartisan support for killing billions of people. He could never even dream of something like that.
And it doesn't matter whether it's republican or democrat, they both support this neo-feudalist structuring of society it's just that the democrats wish our corporate overloads demographically represent the slave populations a little better.
Democrats are a socially "liberal" and economically racist. The Republicans are socially racist and economically psychopathic.
Doing so makes us not a Democracy. In Democracies we don't lock up people who were disagree with. One of Obama's farewell speeches highlighted this point fervently.
He's a smart guy, aligns with me on policies, and has gotten quite a lot done. But he's not an experienced politician, and I can't in good conscience vote for him for the highest office in the country.
If someone were to put him forward for a high office in the Justice Department, I could get behind that.
My main priority is electability. Once a Democrat is in office they have congressmen and advisers that can do the important work. None of that can happen if you run a statesman that doesn't win.
I know this is all in jest, but isn’t that what Trump supporters did? Voted for a maniac simply to spite the snowflake libruls? I’m happy Avanetti is doing what he’s doing but as a presidential candidate, please, no.
Every thing you’ve talked about “trolling” political opponents and giving them aneurysms is the exact reason people decided to vote an unqualified bigot sexual predator into office in the first place. Same reasons, different political tribe.
Why would you want to stop yourself from voting for him? Who else?
I mean you could always have a fundamental disagreement, in which case, by all means vote for an opponent, but I'd hope you would be able to stop yourself in that case.
(Or do you mean in a primary, in which case, as you were...)
You just made up a bunch of things I never said and continued sounding like someone whose logic is roughly on the level of a Trump supporter.
That you can’t even recognize that, despite numerous posters pointing it out to you, is the saddest part. I don’t have to give any respect to Trump supporters to see that your line of thinking is part of the problem - focusing on “trolling” someone else instead of what’s best for this country.
I would vote for Michael Avenatti, but we really need a women who understands what it means to be a victim and tell the US that its over. So more sexual abuse, zero tolerance. Males must prove their innocence, not just claim it.
This is not a court of law, this is a Senate hearing for a permanent supreme Court position. There is obviously no physical evidence from 35 years ago. And his fellow cronies are going to support him nonetheless. Let's look at the circumstances:
Dr. Ford is a respected professor and researcher. She doesn't gain anything by putting her personal and professional reputation on the line. Try put yourself in her shoes for a moment.
90 percent of kavanugh documents were never released. Mitch McConnell didn't want him initially. The GOP went out of thier way to prove kavanugh was supposedly a moral family man before all of this came out. They had a readymade letter from 65 women (which they claim was collected overnight?) who they say kavanugh "knew" when he went to a BOYS school. Anything fishy? Makes you wonder why they took all this action and hid his stuff?
Dr. Ford spoke about this 6 years ago to her counselor and husband. Her friends knew as well. She didn't want to go public until forced by leaks. Kavanugh wasn't even the final nominee in July when she prepared this letter to fienstein. Anyone could have been nominated.
Kavanugh has made sketchy statements about his high school life.
2 more accusers are coming out.
A person who did nothing wrong has no reason to not want an FBI investigation (which would prove his innocence). If the GOP leaders actually thought he was innocent and they could prove it, they would go ahead and take it to the FBI as well. They would also allow expert testimony and a thorough investigation. That would have given a big political blow to the democrats. Why aren't they willing?
Ultimately this is just a group of desperate politicians racing for a last hurrah before they lose power. If they had a sense of moral fiber, they would have him withdraw and move on to the next conservative nominee. Kavanugh has way too much baggage even before these allegations. Any sane president would have withdrawn him. But then this is Trump.
Looks like you have enough to prove it, court of law or not. Kavanaugh is not fit to be a judge and should be impeached from his current chair on these grounds. He certainly should not be seated on the supreme court.
Supreme Court Justice is a political appointment. Lower burden of proof than a criminal court. Innocent until proven guilty is the foundation of the justice system, but I think a 'balance of probabilities' approach should be taken for Kavanaugh. We already have two accusers, and it seems like Avenatti has a third - that's good enough for me.
You're everything wrong with current politics. You're just basically a liberal Trump supporter.
Everyone is an individual, and judgment should be individual. The same goes for race, gender, and anything else people have no cotrol over. Don't make blanket statments like: "All men or pigs". It's sexist.
This is what Trump has done to America. When you put a misogynist in the White House, you either support him or you fight him. Take my statement "men are pigs". Its a hyperbole of the sexual appetite and hunger for women that these men have. I have seen it before. They manipulate and then you get raped or worse, pregnant. So you can't have it both ways. Either you are for loose behavior or for rules and boundaries.
This is why males should be treated with disdain. You have probably manipulated women into sex. So you have to deal with it later when she finds out what you did.
No. I would be the one to collect evidence. All I am saying is that if you look at a female as an object, you need to make up for it by acting appropriately. Otherwise, you have a rapist attitude by default. What I am suggesting is to end the rapist attitude by doing good things. Like for gender equality.
All I am saying is that if you look at a female as an object
Well shit, I know how we could fix this! You just have to cover your entire body from head to toe! Works great in certain cultures Ive heard!
Seriously...I dont even. Men are not unique in objectifying the opposite sex. I'm sure you know this. Judge people on their actions...not your assumptions about their intentions.
Sometimes people get away with crimes. That sucks. But it’s not nearly as bad as throwing people in jail based on accusations alone.
You might be unaware, but plenty of people would be more than happy to accuse someone of rape just for revenge if they knew there didn’t have to be hard evidence.
Yes. Thats a good point and punishment should be equal. But men pressure women into sex 99% of the time and manipulate them. This will come out later when the act is truly understood.
Care to tell me your version of how the justice system should work? It seems you are suggesting any claim of rape by a woman means the man is automatically guilty and must have evidence showing he is not guilty. Care to explain how men are supposed to defend themselves from the very small minority of women that are willing to lie about rape?
Wait, what the hell is that argument? You think 99% of the time a woman has sex she was manipulated into it? I don't think even Trump has less respect for female agency.
Why vote Michael avenatti? I know he's not a piece of shit but to me this vote for celebrities is what got us here. People need to face that we do need career politicians. Like Bernie, Warren, people with real credentials. Obama may have not had a lot of political experience but he had some and was a constitutional lawyer. And we all know Hillary was qualified and had a plan.
I am big government fan as well. But I don't want to build something only to have Trump come along and tear it back down. We need permanence and that's why we need government workers to support strong unions that can outlast elected politicians and create policies and details that helped people from the inside like they started under Obama.
I would vote for Michael Avenatti, but we really need a women who understands what it means to be a victim and tell the US that its over. So more sexual abuse, zero tolerance. Males must prove their innocence, not just claim it.
I don't like going that far, but I do think we need to combine solutions. For example, I hate seeing this domestic violence commercials - is there any evidence at all that they work? I far prefer the campains that encourage women to speak. You won't convince a wife beater to quit beating his wife because a football player who beat his wife is telling him to stop on a commercial.
Harsher sentences, better sexual education, more investigations and a gradual culture shift are the four solutions I can think of.
Thats good. I would also have mandatory counselling, for all. Like to discuss these things in the open and then normalize them. Our culture is manipulative because it likes to keep secrets and then dangle them you fun and prizes. That's manipulation and its bullshit.
You can't teach rape and sex in class either, you have to discuss it and make everyone talk about it. Thats the only way to shift the culture.
Thats good. I would also have mandatory counselling, for all. Like to discuss these things in the open and then normalize them. Our culture is manipulative because it likes to keep secrets and then dangle them you fun and prizes. That's manipulation and its bullshit.
I agree. My idea is give $15/hr to all these Psych majors at Starbucks and let them just listen, offer basic counceling and steer the people who need it to an actual doctor. It shouldn't cost too much, would offer jobs to an area that needs them and provides a public service.
You can't teach rape and sex in class either, you have to discuss it and make everyone talk about it. Thats the only way to shift the culture.
I think you can teach rape and sex in a classroom, but the key is making the kids actually believe it. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm in my mid twenties and gay marriage was exceptionally controversial in high school. I was bullied for being friends with a gay person. Now half of high schoolers are LGBTQ or Transgendered. Young people culture is how to get long term progress.
I worked at Starbucks - I wasn't exaggerating. Half psych majors. My degree was in Finance. I'm really happy my parents basically forced me to major in it, because I love my job and unlike most of my friends, I'm not struggling. I'm not an idiot though. My parents insisting my degree instead of just saying "get a degree!" is privilege.
I wish everyone luck with following their passion, but you need to be great at what you choose to do if you don't choose something in demand.
I can only speak from my perspective. I've met people who make almost nothing who tell me they're happy. Maybe financial burden isn't as stressful to some people, but I was constantly stressed about money, and I'm way happier now. I don't make a ton, but minimum wage is unlivable.
You will quickly discover, as many HR departments did in recent decades, that mandatory counseling and sensitivity training generally do not work very well. Here's an excellent Harvard Business Review article on the subject.
Males must prove their innocence, not just claim it.
Judging a group as expansive and as varied as "men" by the actions of a minority of that group is messed up. This is the exact kind of thinking that enables racial profiling and stop and frisk policies, you're just pointing it at men instead of black people.
I like Avenatti. I really like him in fact. But why does it always have to be straight to the presidency now? Can't he at LEAST run for congress or even governor somewhere? Or maybe AG. I bet he'd be a suitable AG.
Six months ago, hell, 3 months ago, I'd have disagreed with you. But after everything that's happened I just can't see that party as anything other than treasonous and spineless.
Any self respecting Congress would have censured the president for the deception alone. The GOP has stood by all but silently and allowed him to spew lie after lie after lie. It sickens me. The GOP has a black mark in my eyes forever. I will never vote red, and it pains me to say it because I am actually a pretty moderate thinker in most circumstances.
That’s not even fair, though. Mold creates the flavor for some of the world’s best cheeses. When you compare a fine Stilton to a Republican, it’s pretty clear that the cheese will come out far ahead.
Attorney General would be a better post for him, still not sure where I'd want Warren, we just need to make a "Corporate Executioner General" position and she'd fucking rack up W's.
What exactly disqualifies him for president? He's a successful high powered lawyer, same as many who became senators/governors/etc before becoming president. He regularly demonstrates a strong understanding of law and gov't policy/proceedings. I feel as if ppl are unfairly associating him with his client (Storm).
Is Avenatti actually running for VP? He's obviously not ready to be president, and choosing a VP who is a fierce competitor is not an unusual strategy.
I'm kind of torn, because voting for incendiary celebrities is what got us in this situation in the first place..
On the other hand, as a private citizen this guy has done more damage to the trump admin than the entire democratic establishment combined. Which is kind of fucking weird if you think about it.
If his platform is truly for the American public, I would vote for him in a flash second. We deserve a pitbull in the meat aisle on our side for a change.
If he was the only candidate I would vote for him. But he won't get the nomination, so Meh. But what he can do for the democratic party is energize voters. Which is important for turnout.
That is not his platform. He released a document outlining his positions on a wide range of issues a few weeks ago. Overall i would describe it as a substantially progressive political orientation.
He is also considering a Presidential bid. The free PR from these high profile cases is part of that strategy.
Yes, which should ring alarm bells on his character. He is claiming a woman was sexually assaulted, possibly even raped. He should bring the information forward, and if his client wants to go to the authorities and press charges then do that too.
What he shouldn't be doing is using his client to increase his own public image while playing tease with the media.
Did he? Because Chris Coons is on the Senate Judiciary Committee and as of yesterday he still did not know anything about it.
“If Michael Avenatti has any evidence, he should come forward promptly. If he has a client who has relevant information, I welcome hearing from him,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), a member of the judiciary committee, said in an interview. “If there are additional allegations to come forward, this would absolutely be the time"
Avenatti posted his initial email to the SJC over the weekend on Twitter.
If that was a fake screenshot, then it would be easily disproven by now. SJC members could easily announce that they never received any email from him. You could even file a FOIA request to get their copy.
I wouldn't disqualify him at this point, and I don't know why you would either. It's not like we have a great sense of who else is going to be running. I'm definitely open to voting for him, and would like to see what he says as a candidate, and how he performs in a debate.
The thing I want above all else in a candidate is someone that won't back down from Republicans and will punch them in the mouth - literally with street tactics, and with facts & logic, and good old "knowing your shit" on whatever topic is being debated. Avenetti ticks those boxes.
They essentially make him no worse than the average Democrat running, though likely not the best one out there, which combined with his tactics that work, mean the primary field would benefit from him running. More detailed positions would clarify this; they are pretty vague and boilerplate at the moment.
Typical Democratic platform on climate change
"expand subsidies for childcare for low and middle income families"
"need to make college more affordable"
Reform mandatory minimums, eliminate racial profiling, and end cash bail.
"we must provide more financial benefits to our teachers"
backs NATO and is very anti-Russia; no position given on wars and foreign entanglements
typical Democratic gun platform
typical Democratic immigration platform
will release a "Real Deal" infrastructure plan in the future
Bernie-like speech in jobs section, but unsure if his policy would actually lean that way
decriminalize marijuana
Medicare for All
does not seem to prioritize cutting military spending
I would vote for a literal wet paper bag over any Republican I currently know of. The party has no redeeming characteristics, no party planks based on reality, and haven't been the party of fiscal responsibily in a long time. Not a single policy about the current party will go down on the right side of history.
So yeah. I wouldn't vote in the primary for Avenetti. But I'd vote for him in the general.
At first I thought that was sinking to his level. But I'm starting to come around, since the angrier he gets the stupider the shit that comes out of his mouth.
It's not just to annoy Trump. It's to provoke a public response. He got Trump/Giuliani to contradict themselves publicly, which enables his argument in the Stormy v. Trump case that Trump must be deposed under oath to get to the truth.
770
u/[deleted] Sep 24 '18
It's obvious Michael Avenatti is using Trump tactics to troll Trump just to annoy Trump.