Supplemental: Predicting the future can be hard!

MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2015

Cable star proves it again:
We could see that the analysts were swallowing every word.

We let them watch Rachel Maddow last Friday night. At one point, she did a full tease for an important upcoming report.

A major Republican candidate was about to drop out of the race! “I think it is about to happen,” Maddow dramatically said in this, the tease for her report:
MADDOW (8/22/15): So heads up! I think something dramatic might be about to happen in the presidential race.

It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

Everyone has been thinking that former Texas Governor Rick Perry is going to be the first candidate to drop out of the race after Fox News wouldn’t allow him to be in the first primetime debate and he did badly at the non-primetime, consolation prize, kiddie table debate.

After that, apparently, Rick Perry’s fund-raising dried up or something, because he has stopped paying his staffers. The Rick Perry for president campaign is now a voluntary operation, which is not good.

Also, Rick Perry is under indictment, which is also not good.

So everyone has been thinking—in the giant field of Republican candidates, everyone has been thinking if the big field is about to start to shrink, the first evidence of shrinkage will be when Rick Perry’s candidacy comes to an end. He’s the campaign who everyone thinks is on death watch.

I’m not so sure tonight. I mean, I think Rick Perry’s campaign is on death watch, but I think he might not be the first to quit the race. I think a much bigger name than his might quit before Rick Perry does. I think actually that one major Republican candidate for the presidency might quit, potentially this weekend.

It’s a dramatic story. It’s not getting a lot of national press, but I think it is about to happen and that’s next.


Stay with us.
“It’s a dramatic story,” Maddow said. She said she thought a major candidate was about to quit the Republican race. And no, it wasn’t Rick Perry!

We could see our young analysts were swallowing every word.

Maddow followed with two complete segments on this dramatic story, totaling roughly sixteen minutes of air time. As it turned out, it was Rand Paul who was about to quit the race, or so Maddow thought.

It was a dramatic story, and a rather long one. Needless to say, Maddow’s dramatic semi-prediction turned out to be wrong.

Yesterday morning, the caterwauling started soon after we reached the coffee joint. The analysts had reached page A2 of the Washington Post, where they’d encountered this headline:

“Ky. GOP clears way for Paul to pursue two offices”


The dramatic story had fallen apart. Candidate Paul had squeaked by in a dramatic party vote, by a dramatic 111-36 margin.

Whatever! If you want the background to this false alarm, you can read David Weigel’s short news report in the Post. Or you can watch the two segments from Maddow’s Friday show, which burned up almost sixteen minutes in addition to the original full-length tease.

(To watch the first segment, just click here. For the second full segment, click this.)

For the record, Maddow interviewed no one during her two full segments. At MaddowBlog, links were provided to only two relevant sources—an opinion column from December 2, 2014, and a statewide Kentucky poll from three months earlier.

As far as a viewer could tell, the prediction sprang full-blown from Maddow’s head. It burned a large hole in her program.

Predicting the future is hard; that’s why sensible people try to avoid the practice. On the other hand, blowhards and pundits love exciting, dramatic predictions. Predicting the future is easy and fun, especially if you don’t care if your predictions keep turning out wrong.

Maddow’s Friday night prediction helped illustrate two points about the way her program has been devolving:

First, the Maddow show is now pretty much all-candidates all-the-time. It has been this way at least since early May. Conceivably, the program could continue in this vein right through next November.

The emphasis is on personality—and the emphasis is on trivia. Last Thursday night, Maddow played Candidate Bush’s comical bird calls several times—but she deliberately kept you from knowing that he flatly supports birthright citizenship.

In these ways, we liberals get dumbed down, treated like fools. And as Maddow wastes our time in these ratings-fueled ways, she is not discussing a wide range of important matters which need explanation and clarification.

The second point is even worse. Somewhere along the way, Maddow seems to have gotten it into her head that she is some sort of political expert.

Rather plainly, she isn’t. Her predictions have been persistently bad, but she just keeps making them. On Sunday morning, her latest failed attempt left the analysts in tears.

On Friday evening’s show, Maddow spent almost twenty minutes (tease included) telling a dramatic story. “It’s not getting a lot of national press,” she said, “but I think it is about to happen.”

She could have been reporting, explaining and clarifying something that actually matters—the deeply dangerous email brouhaha; various parts of immigration policy; the nature of mass incarceration; the problems of modern policing; the proposals of Candidate Sanders.

Increasingly, she seems to have decided that this simply isn’t her way.

Candidate Paul is still in the race. The New York Times devoted 200 words to the tedious topic in this brief blog post, with no hard-copy report at all. On Friday, Maddow devoted almost twenty minutes to the topic, giving us the benefit of her latest dramatic insight.

Predicting the future is hard. That said, we’ll guess that this silly personality-piddle may define this program’s agenda right through next November’s election.

In the process, we liberals are being made dumber each night. Presumably, though, the bird calls, snark and disinformation work well for the bottom line.

64 comments:

  1. "We liberals". Attacking Rachel Maddow proves you're not a liberal. Stop insulting our intelligence by pretending to be one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it proves Maddow is not a liberal. She should stop insulting our intelligence by pretending to be anything other than a corporate tool. Somerby has stronger credentials on the front lines fighting for liberal causes than Maddow has. She should be ashamed of what she has been doing.

      Delete
    2. "Somerby has stronger credentials on the front lines fighting for liberal causes than Maddow has."

      Care to enumerate those credentials? As well as those liberal causes he has been fighting for?

      Other than writing whatever random thought crosses his head on a vanity blog for 17 years and slowly evolving it until it is indistinguishable from thousands of other right-wing vanity blogs while still claiming to be "progressive."

      Equal pay for women? Sexual assault on campus? "Anchor babies"? Police violence? What a champion!

      Delete
    3. Spending many years teaching at an inner city school.

      Delete
    4. It was his "Get Out of Vietnam" card, David. He did it for no other reason.

      Delete
    5. The Howler libs confusion can be clarified with a Jeff Foxworthy approach to the problem: You are still a liberal if

      You believe HRC is querulous
      You believe R.M. insults your intelligence
      You believe Mika Brzezinski is being used by Valerie Jarrett to sink HRC's candidacy

      Delete
    6. Well, you'd still be a "Somerby Liberal," but I really doubt if there are too many of that rare and strange breed running around.

      Delete
    7. Somerby continued teaching in inner city schools and acting as an advocate for school improvement long after the Vietnam war was over. He has been a community organizer and local activist his whole life. In his career, he has been a political humorist, from the left. What has Rachel Maddow done besides line her own pocket?

      Delete
    8. Doesn't change the fact that the only reason he started teaching was to dodge the draft. And yes, he was so dedicated to the profession that he taught all the way until 1978, when he sifted through all the job offers for a undergrad degree in philosophy and took a part-time day job at the Baltimore Sun while launching his fabulous stand-up comedy career that made him a household name.

      Delete
    9. You sound jealous.

      Delete
    10. You're right. I should start my own vanity blog where I howl daily to 100 people or so about how much money other people make.

      Then I wouldn't sound so jealous.

      Delete
    11. You're doing that in comments -- why not put your name on it?

      Delete
    12. "indistinguishable from thousands of other right-wing vanity blogs"

      It writes that.
      And people still bother to reply to such a troll?

      Delete
  2. If Biden enters the race at this point, without making a statement of support for Clinton against the email vendetta (as Bill Richardson just did), he will appear to be a vulture just waiting for the Republicans to take down his opposition for him. Whatever happens to Clinton, I would not ever vote for him under those circumstances.

    Democrats expect some loyalty. It is at the heart of the union movement and of solidarity with those oppressed. The disloyalty of a purported Democrat opportunistically allowing the right to take down our frontrunner without any complaint from fellow Democrats goes against strongly held liberal values. Even in the heat of the 2008 primary fight, Clinton made a strong statement that Obama was certainly born in the USA and a citizen, opposing the nonsense about birth certificate coming at Obama from the right. This is a similar situation and Democrats who let the right get away with this attack on Clinton are not going to be rewarded for their silence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @10:07,

      Very well said, I agree 100%.

      "She could have been reporting, explaining and clarifying something that actually matters—the deeply dangerous email brouhaha;" (Somerby)

      Ha! Don't hold your breath.

      Remember, it's always "the dog that didn't bark".

      Delete
    2. We can play this "if" game forever, but how about we back off Joe Biden until he shows at least some interest in running, takes even some preliminary steps in forming a campaign.

      All you got is media speculation about a possible Biden run "if" Hillary looks like toast somewhere along the line.

      But why wait? Let's gin up some good old-fashioned anger right now based solely on what others are speculating, without any basis, what he "might" do, and not only that, let's mind-read and pinpoint his motives right now "if" he does it.

      You know, for years, Somerby has been preaching about taking everything you read, see and hear from the media especially during campaign season, with a mountain of salt.

      And here are two of his most loyal fans who still haven't learned. I'm sure Bob will join his analysts in the crying room.

      Delete
    3. Anon 10:07 mentions an "e-mail vendetta" and observes that "Democrats expect some loyalty." Thus Anon 10:07 demonstrates how a scandal can be overcome while ignoring the specifics of the scandal.

      Others have pointed out that some of Hillary's explanations seem to contradict each other or contradict the facts or contradict expert opinion or contradict common sense. Which of Hillary's explanations does Anon 10:07 believe is correct? That question doesn't get asked. Once the scandal is defined as a vendetta, Democratic loyalty demands supporting Hillary. The facts of the case no longer matter.

      Delete
    4. So you've already made up your mind that this is a "scandal" Dave?

      How not surprising that is!

      Delete
    5. When Obama got in the race in 2008 and sunk HRC's candidacy, HRC supporters didn't vote for him twice for POTUS?

      Delete
    6. It isn't anyone's imagination that Biden is investigating a run. He is meeting with Obama today and has already met with donors. He has a staff. Calling this concern "premature" is silly when he is clearly doing all the things a prospective candidate does.

      Delete
    7. And you know this how, 1:55?

      Oh, that's right. You read it on the Internet somewhere. So it's gotta all be true.

      Delete
    8. Well, I listened to the WH Press Briefing.

      Delete
    9. You mean where Biden announced his candidacy?

      Delete
    10. Where reporters asked Obama's press secretary whether Obama would endorse Clinton or Biden, and asked what they were discussing at lunch today.

      Delete
    11. You mean the lunch they have every Monday?

      And yeah, Obama apparently praised his VP. Imagine that.

      Why lets put on our Kreskin caps and see how much we can read into those stunning new developments.

      Delete
    12. Let's make a wager about whether he announces or not. If you lose, come back to the comments and apologize for being snotty while wrong. If you win, I'll crown you king of the anonymi.

      Delete
  3. "Attacking Rachel Maddow proves you're not a liberal."

    Just. wow.

    "If Biden enters the race, I'll stand aside and let the Republicans win"
    "Very well said!"

    Christ what a load of idiots!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will not EVER vote for Biden under any circumstances if he enters the race without making a strong statement of support for Clinton re: the email issue. EVER. I will sit out the election. Being governed by someone who would do that is just as bad as being governed by a Republican. There are scum in both parties. A pawn of the "anyone but Hillary" people is going to be a sexist jerk and will not hold values that are important to me. I'll vote Green or Peace and Freedom, as I have done in the past. Watching a person who has earned the nomination and would be an excellent female president be pushed aside in favor of someone like Biden would rot my soul. I won't be a party to it. If that means a Republican is elected, you all deserve that for proving that a woman cannot get a fair shake in our electoral process. Biden needs to walk very carefully if he is actually planning to run (as is his right).

      Delete
    2. Welcome PUMA. I thought that you left the scene in July of 2008!

      Delete
    3. @2:01

      Whom has more right to the nomination Biden or HRC? Any two term VP is usually the next one up unless they have declared their exemption from seeking the White House.

      That the historically problematic HRC was considered to be the only female POTUS candidate is why DWS is a failure as DNC chair.

      Delete
    4. Biden is not a strong enough candidate to win without the support of women. He will not have that support if he appears to be benefiting from unfair attacks on Clinton.

      Pumas knew what Obama would be like as president. Perhaps they should be given some credit for their political judgment.

      I doubt this email scandal will have legs, but Biden can embarrass himself if he rides too energetically to the party's rescue. If those who support him use conservative attacks as an excuse to start calling for Clinton to step aside, there will be a backlash, angrier because of what happened in 2008.

      I will vote for Sanders before Biden, but neither has a chance in hell, in my opinion.

      Delete
    5. @4:48

      How did POTUS Obama win the women vote? As long as Biden is for abortion on demand he will get the women vote.

      The email scandal is in it's six month with no end in sight. It already has Betty Grable gams.

      BTW: Liz Warren has not endorsed HRC. Suppose she endorses Biden?

      Delete
    6. Yes, and the whole PUMA invention back in 2008 gave us Sarah Palin and cleared the way for the easy election of President McCain.

      Take a chill pill, fellas. Biden ain't gonna run. There's really nothing to speculate about on the Democratic side other than him right now, so that's why they are speculating.

      But you would think that people have the grace and class to at least give him space to mourn the death of his son rather than work up all the anger and hate against him that they can muster, based on media speculation.

      Delete
    7. He is mourning the death of his son by visiting Elizabeth Warren?

      Delete
    8. Oh, I get it. He's not supposed to talk to Elizabeth Warren while he is mourning.

      I'm sure as Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate, Biden talks to lots of senators.

      But hey, let's not let that get in the way of good ol' self-righteous rage about what somebody on the Internet said that Biden "might" do.

      Delete
    9. Add to that the rather bizarre and unseemly leaking to MoDowd of the dying son's last wishes, that he save the country from the claws of Hillary Clinton.

      Yeah, sure, no offense meant, I'm sure.

      Delete
    10. Biden's campaign slogan: It's mourning again in America.

      Delete
    11. Yes, mm. If MoDo wrote it, it had to be true.

      Delete
    12. He didn't deny it or refute the story in any way, which he could have very easily done.

      In my opinion, a very classless move.

      Delete
    13. @mm

      Why would Joe do any such thing when these two perennial also-rans are long time frenemies.

      "In June, Clinton flew to Delaware for the funeral Mass for Biden's son Beau, along with former President Bill Clinton, who sat with her near the front of the church. But as mourners streamed out, Clinton left in a hurry.

      She hopped a flight to Connecticut, barely making it in time for the wedding of former Biden national security adviser Jake Sullivan, whose decision to forgo a job on a potential Biden campaign in favor of the top policy job on Clinton's campaign served as another reminder that their rivalry is never far from the surface."

      http://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-and-hillary-clinton-have-long-complicated-friendship/

      Delete
    14. butt-out Cicero

      Delete
    15. CNN wall to wall Biden excitement and hysteria:
      Obama "gives Biden his blessing to run"
      Biden now huddled at VP Mansion with 2 of Obama's top aids.

      Delete
    16. @mm

      It's a Howler lib's nightmare come true.

      Delete
  4. David in Cal, cicero

    As I currently understand the subject, I have no issue with Clinton concerning her emails. What specifically are you saying that she did wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. From what I've read, she did many things wrong, Anon 7:50. By "wrong", I don't necessarily mean illegal. Violating procedures is wrong, especially when done by a senior person, because it sets an example for others. I include bad judgment as wrong. Given those definitions, here's a partial list that comes to mind:

      1. Using her private e-mail server for State Dept affairs. At best this was bad judgment. No other Obama Cabinet member did this.

      2. Failing to have her e-mails promptly archived by the State Dept. This is either a law or a procedural requirement.

      3. Potentially exposing information that should be secret to being hacked by our enemies.

      4. New today:
      Apparent failure of the State Dept. to submit legally required information regarding Hillary Clinton's secret computer server to the Department of Homeland Security during her term as secretary,

      5. Having her server professionally wiped. According to what I read, once she used that server for State Dept purposes, it was no longer hers. It belonged to the government. She had no authority to wipe it.

      6. Also, wiping her computer looks terribly suspicious.

      7. Many statements by Hillary and her spokespersons that turned out to be inaccurate or misleading. E.g., her focus on whether e-mails were specifically marked "secret" is spin. She was obligated to protect sensitive information whether it was marked secret or not. And, obviously a Secretary of State has many communications that shouldn't be shared with foreign powers.

      8. Possibly allowing some people without appropriate clearance to have access to her server containing secret information.

      Delete
    2. Various people here have taken pains to address each of these (except 4, which is not about Clinton at all) but you are entirely unaffected by their efforts. A normal person would budge in the face of evidence but you don't. So, I conclude you are a troll and a conservative partisan, not someone truly concerned about the issue.

      Do you see any contradictions between complaining that she wiped the server before turning it over to a 3rd party storage facility and 8 where you suggest uncleared people may have had access. And yet you consider the wiping suspicious.

      It is a huge waste of time to take you seriously, but you seem to have someone shilling for you.

      Delete
    3. Anon -- Re #4 -- When this failure allegedly occurred, Clinton was the leader of the State Dept. She was responsible for its proper functioning.

      BTW it's a fallacy to point out that some of my accusations have been questioned (not necessarily refuted), and conclude that all of them are therefore fallacious. In particular, #3, #6 and #7 are indubitably valid. And, if what I read is correct, #2 is valid. None of these have been refuted on this site.
      Re #1 -- I've seen no argument here that use of her personal e-mail server was good judgment.

      Re #8 -- She could have directly turned the server over to the appropriate government people.

      Delete
    4. You have just made my point that nothing anyone says makes a dent in your belief system.

      You keep pretending her emails and server were used to communicate sensitive or classified info. They were not, despite the argument State and IC are having about retroactively classifying items that were entirely unclassified during Clinton's tenure. Sensitive info was exchanged in other, more appropriate ways. Your concern that foreign enemies not read about her yoga appointments is commendable, but unnecessary. You are mixing up privacy and security and you know nothing whatsoever about how documents become classified. Nevertheless, you listen to nothing anyone says to you.

      Delete
    5. You keep pretending her emails and server were used to communicate sensitive or classified info.

      Well, yes. Here are three links reporting that this was the case. No doubt one could find many more.

      Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest


      Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data


      New Clinton email count: 305 documents with potentially classified information

      Delete
    6. Emails being retroactively classified are not classified or necessarily even sensitive. Someone has decided to go back and classify material unclassified when sent to Clinton.

      Charitably, conditions changed making the material more important. Less charitably, the material is still not sensitive but someone wants to make trouble for Clinton.

      US Rules (whatever you mean by that) don't classify material. People do. In the State Department, Clinton decided. State and IC do not agree about those documents. Whatever they decide, Clinton did nothing wrong. 1. The material was sent to her with no classification by other people. 2. The material was not classified at that time.

      That 305 documents are now being disputed has nothing to do with Clinton. She has turned over her servers so that no one can access any documents until the dispute is resolved.

      Trying to pin something on Clinton is a conservative pipe dream. She did nothing wrong.

      Delete
    7. @11:22,

      I wouldn't waste your time with that one.

      He will still argue that Whitewater was real, after 8 years and 2 special prosecutors found nothing, the RTC found nothing, armies of reporters from national news organizations found nothing, and books have been written. That's who you're arguing with.

      Delete
    8. Anon -- You're clutching at straws. Yes, I supposed something could be classified even though it's not really sensitive. And, conceivably something could be classified in an effort to embarrass Hillary, although there's no evidence that anything was ever classified with such a motive. To me that sounds kinda paranoid. But, the straightforward reason why something is classified is that it contains sensitive information.

      ISTM you're starting with the conclusion that Hillary did nothing wrong. Then you're interpreting any and all facts to support that conclusion.

      mm -- Was Whitewater real? Bill and Hillary's two partners really did go to jail for their Whitewater-related crimes. IMHO that speaks badly for the Clintons' judgment and/or morals.

      Delete
    9. ".....you're starting with the conclusion that Hillary did nothing wrong....."

      @11:22,

      How dare you assume Clinton is innocent of any wrongdoing? That's not how the Clinton Rules work. With the Clintons you assume guilt, then go on an interminable fishing expedition looking for that ever elusive proof. Then you parlay that fishing expedition into another fishing expedition (BENGHAZI!!!! ------> EGHAZI!!!!!!!) and so on and so on and so on ad infinitum.

      Delete
  5. I support HRC and am not worried either way about Biden. If he runs, I think it would be good for Clinton's campaign, give it some focus and shape. If he does not, no difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In what way does Clinton's current campaign lack focus and shape?

      Delete
    2. Well, for example, the Iran deal. She gave a sort of half-hearted endorsement of it when the deal was struck, but since then -- crickets.

      Heck, she laid the groundwork for this deal -- with the stick and carrot approach of sanctions to bring Iran to the bargaining table.

      She should be very publicly supporting this deal given that the alternative to negotiations is war, and very publicly working the phones to help the administration gather the Democratic votes in Congress to make it veto-proof.

      But she is choosing to play it safe, on this and other policy issues save for the occasional one-liner at Trump, lest she jeopardize her huge lead in polls which really don't mean all that much at this point in time.

      So instead of a vigorous debate on policy issues, what do we get? E-mails, stories about the large crowds Sanders draws, and speculation about Joe Biden.

      Delete
    3. The Iran deal and Keystone and similar votes in congress are not policy issues. They are current events that will be long over by the time the election occurs in 2016. She has been focusing on what she plans to do during her term, not second-guessing what Obama has been doing during his.

      When Clinton has proposed policy issues -- that's when you get crickets. No one in the media discusses them.

      Delete
    4. "Well, for example, the Iran deal. She gave a sort of half-hearted endorsement of it when the deal was struck, but since then -- crickets."

      Washington (CNN)—Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton strengthened her support for President Barack Obama's proposed nuclear deal with Iran on Monday, saying that "all bets are off" if the deal is struck down.

      "I'm hoping that the agreement is finally approved and I'm telling you if it's not, all bets are off," Clinton told supporters during a campaign stop in New Hampshire.

      Clinton said that rejecting the deal would be a "very bad signal to send in a quickly moving and oftentimes dangerous world."

      "The Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese, they're gonna say we agreed with the Americans, I guess their president can't make foreign policy," Clinton said. "That's a very bad signal to send."

      After the deal was inked by the Obama administration, Clinton has consistently warned that the U.S. jeopardizes its standing among other world powers who worked on the deal -- including Europe, Russia and China -- if Congress spikes the deal. LINK

      Delete
  6. I love how on this blog it's always Maddow's fault for everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah -- When Maddow's full of shit that's not her fault!!

      Delete
  7. We liberals are the problem now, too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My heart is filled with love and happiness because my husband is back to me after a divorce with the help of a genuine spell caster .My name is Becky Miller , I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past seven 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My Husband divorce me for no reason for 9 months and i tried all I could to have him back because I really love him so much but all my effort did not work out,My name is Becky Miller, I live in California,USA. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband ,with three kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, i will advice you out there to kindly visit the same website { http://lovespelldrbrave.weebly.com/. } if you have any problem contact Dr Brave ,{ bravespellcaster@gmail.com }, thanks you Dr Brave, i will always be testifying about your good work, and for any questions call me on +1(575) 779-6197.

    ReplyDelete