Wednesday Open Thread

Who is behind the attack at the airport in Turkey? Many signs point to ISIS, but they haven't taken credit. Here's why they may not claim credit.

Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman has filed two temporary writs of amparo against extradition -- both were granted on a temporary basis. There are varying reports of the grounds for the amparo on the San Diego case. I've read the "sinthesis" on the Mexico court website and can't figure out what it says, even with Google translate.

Not much has changed in the Presidential campaign. Here's ABC's list of potential veep choices for Hillary and Donald Thump. (I'm calling him Thump instead of Trump this week because I think he's going to land with a dull thud in November. I also don't like sending more web traffic his way than I have to.) Nate Silver today says Hillary has a 79% chance of winning in November.

I've never even heard of some of ABC's picks. Right now I'm thinking Hillary will pick Elizabeth Warren, who I think would be a great choice. I also like Julian Castro. If Thump picks Chris Christie, at least we don't have to worry about Christie being Attorney General. I didn't care for Jeff Sessions when he was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama -- I'd like him even less as VP, but Thump isn't going to win so I don't think it matters much.

Hillary spoke in Denver yesterday, right in my neighborhood. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see her.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Institutionalists v. "Insurrectionists"
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bar complaint against Marilyn Mosby (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    About time.
    According to the complaint, filed by Prof. John F. Banzhaf, Mosby violated multiple provisions of the Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC) including withholding exculpatory evidence, making improper public statements and continuing to prosecute a case after there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction.

    Banzhaf was involved with the disbarment of Mike Nifong.

    No one wants to talk about that here (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by NycNate on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 09:52:47 PM EST
    Take it elsewhere.

    This is a blog that discusses legal issues (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by McBain on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:08:22 PM EST
    Politics and Game of Thrones are interesting but we can talk about other stuff as well. Jeralyn's commentary of the Duke Lacrosse Case is what turned me on to TalkLeft.  This is an open thread and what's going on in Baltimore is a big deal.  I see some comparisons between Mosby and Nifong. No one is above the law.      

    Perhaps bad attitudes should be taken elsewhere.  


    It's an Open Thread, Nate. (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:26:34 PM EST
    And who appointed you hall monitor, anyway?

    I was being facetious (none / 0) (#94)
    by NycNate on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    These charges should have never been filed.  But any critique as to why gets a slap down as racism.  

    Mosby is incompetent.  She is an embarrassment.  The mayor is an abomination.  The former police chief was incompetent.  Deray Mckesson is in charge of HR at the public schools.  

    That city is toast.  What police officer would do his job under these conditions?  What parent would entrust a school system that has Deray hiring the teachers?  I am so disappointed with the whole situation there.  

    But that is just one man's opinion.  


    IMO (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 12:02:07 PM EST
    You were right the first time.  

    See I was right... (none / 0) (#122)
    by NycNate on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:46:57 PM EST
    Toast (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    If only these politicians had more power over our lives, then things would be much better.

    Just watched Tom Brokaw's appearance on (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 07:11:05 PM EST
    Colbert last night in which he lectured world leaders about not informing the public enough about economic issues.  Seems to me the press used to do more of that before all of the so called journalists were 1% jet-setters.

    I need another gin.

    I am disappointed in Colbert, not for the first time. I think the old satiric Colbert would have made some kind of a remark about press stenography, even to a friend of the show.

    ruffian: "I need another gin."

    Generally, it's not a good idea to imbibe merely to keep pace. And speaking of people who can drive others to drink, here's Camille Paglia. (Camille's optional soundtrack is found in the previous hyperlink.)



    Oh no, I can't take Camille on the same day as TB (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 07:59:49 PM EST
    Maybe tomorrow!

    LOL! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:16:43 PM EST
    Nuf ced!

    I like Stephen, but his current (none / 0) (#17)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    time slot on The Late Show is a bad fit for him. He is not at his best trying to make nice with guests promoting a movie or a book or a tv show.

    Maybe he should flip time slots with James Corden. That later slot would give Stephen the freedom to let Colbert be Colbert.

    Unfortunately, changing time slots would most certainly be viewed as a demotion for Stephen.


    Yeah, he can't switch slots (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:18:45 PM EST
    And he really does seem to enjoy what he is doing.  I like a lot of the show.  Maybe he'll get better with the celebrity stuff. Needs to dial it back to just south of obsequious.

    If you haven't (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:39:21 AM EST
    you should see this

    It's a beautiful, if occaisionally silly, thing.


    Btw (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:53:04 AM EST
    If you see it try to see it in HD (1080).  Many cable "HD" channels are 720.  Having seen it both ways it's worth it.  It's one that really  pops with the extra pixels.  

    Will have to watch it at home...limited access (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:06:49 AM EST
    to video at the office.

    and...note to Stephen... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:43:05 AM EST
    there are few things more annoying than a 50-something white guy saying the high pitched 'Whaaat?'. JUST STOP.

    I have become a (none / 0) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:42:58 AM EST
    former great admirer of Stephen Colbert.  I think he and the show are struggling for an identity.  Stephen's high points are his openings, the initial stand-up and, then, the initial sit-down.

      His band leader, Jon Batiste is a real talent, Julliard and all, but underutilized as a musician and overtaxed as a straight-man.   Stephen Colbert is more of a Comedy Central type guy than a CBS talk show host.

     When able to watch late night, I start with Larry Wilmore, since the first five minutes do not overlap, then change to Colbert for his first five minutes.  This enables the best five minutes of Larry, who is quite good but his show mostly goes down hill with the usually unfunny comedians that join him in mostly lame skits or discussions.

     Larry, is a Sanders' supporter who can't seem to let go. Noted that Mrs. Clinton marched in the NYC Pride Parade behind the rainbow flag, each color symbolizing the changes in her positions on gay rights.  Not funny, according to his audience reaction, and not accurate, according to the record.

     Mrs. Clinton is the first presidential candidate to participate, but she marched in the NYC parade in 2000, while running for the senate. And, of course, many politicians "evolved" on the marriage issue.


    I am too - I critique him out of love (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 12:17:11 PM EST
    and wanting him to be fantastic in this job.

    I am happy with Jon Batiste - love the band and the emphasis on jazz, such a refreshing change from Paul Shafer's band mangling classic rock. I like him as a straight man or in the video clips they do of him explaining jazz, or touring NO. I don't think he is over-used that way.

    I think Stephen will figure it all out.

    I used to record Wilmore's show, but stopped since like you I only watched the first five minutes and then got bored. Gave up on the Daily Show after a few months of Trevor Noah.

    I saw a blurb about Jessica Williams getting her own show. I'll check that out - she was the best thing left on the Daily Show.


    I have come to (none / 0) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 12:53:01 PM EST
    appreciate and enjoy Trevor Noah.  He has improved considerably since his start, providing an affable but poignant view of the current events.  Still needs more help on interviews, but, then, I never felt that Jon Stewart was a good interviewer--his genius being his incisive and funny take on the news, especially its media coverage.

    Trevor Noah (none / 0) (#109)
    by KD on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:34:18 PM EST
    He gets consistently better while Wilmore's show gets worse, but neither is as good as Samantha Bee.

    Woke up to some breathless reporting (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:48:09 AM EST
    on NPR...was it another 911? Maybe the UK had a flash mob vote to un- Brexit? Nooooooo....omg omg Bill Clinton saw Loretta Lynch on a tarmac in Arizona waiting for a plane and walked over to say hello! This raises questions of course!!!! really bad timing for Hillary. This changes everything!

    Remember when NPR was good? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:57:05 AM EST
    I feel old

    Bob Edwards...where are you? (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:40:18 AM EST
    Bill Lacks Judgment (none / 0) (#137)
    by Michael Masinter on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:47:24 PM EST
    Although none of this bears on whether Secretary Clinton should be the next President (she should by any measure), the incident is the 874th example of Bill Clinton's failure to grasp the consequences of his actions.  He should have had the good sense to save his social visit with AG Lynch until later.  But then, if he had that kind of judgment, he wouldn't be Bill Clinton.  

    If they would go back to one hour of nightly news (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:52:13 AM EST
    instead of this 24 hour a day pompous jibber-jabber, we'd have a chance at a return to real news.

    The dog caught the car. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:00:30 AM EST
    Boris Johnson, the guy who looks like he put Trump's hair on backwards, will not be a Conservative Party candidate for Prime Minister.

    New volunteers to trigger Article 50 are: Michael Cove and Theresa May, with May given the odds. And take the steps, whatever they may be.

    So much for having one's cake ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 11:14:30 AM EST
    ...and eating it.

    It's apt to talk about Brexit fallout.


    As they say, those who wield the dagger ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:49:10 PM EST
    ... will never wear the crown.

    Market has rebounded (none / 0) (#131)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    Very well.

    It will  take time to see the results of Brexit, but the immediate panic sellers lost their shirt


    Time for a Special Prosecutor (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    Lorreto and Bubba have a secret meeting.

    Wow. And the main stream media try to hush it up.

    Try to hush it up (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:20:29 AM EST

    They are doing a sh!tty job of that because it's everywhere.

    And it's hilarious.  Just sat through Morning Joe and the Meat Puppet taking turns on the fainting couch.   HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE????  WHO IS IN CHARGE HERE????  WITH THE WORLD WAITING FOR AN INDICTMENT OF HILLARY????

    Joe, ppj, (et al - Pffft) no one expects Hillary is going to be indicted.  


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:28:49 AM EST
    I read some speculation of Lynch possibly being vetted for VP or maybe even the Supreme Court.

    All fun speculation of course, but much more likely than the two of them discussing the email case IN PUBLIC where there are CAMERAS EVERYWHERE!!!!


    I know (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:07:32 AM EST
    that's the most bizarre thing. The secret meeting on the tarmac. I'm not sure you could get more public than a tarmac.

    Well of course she won't be indicted (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:39:09 AM EST
    NOW!!!  Since Bill locked his baby blues on Loretta on a tarmac!!! Obstruction of justice!

    Where is Ken Starr (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    When we need him

    He just lost that Baylor gig (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    maybe he is still available. If Loretta was wearing blue we are in for a long year.

    I was wondering if (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    Cigars were on either plane

    When the NPR people were hyperventilating (none / 0) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:15:40 AM EST
    I should have thought to turn on the Meat Puppet. I can only imagine the level of hysteria.

    But, but ... the pre-rebuttal (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:27:28 AM EST
    With Benghaziii down the drain--together with all the other conjured Repub diatribes-posing-as-scandal over a quarter century--what else do the Repubs have to turn to, after all??? Ta-da ... good guess that the remaining crock about to join the drain is whatever-this-thing called "the email thing" means.  Since the Repub conspiracy theorists have to have a chance courtesy between a former President and present AG mean something other than an obvious courtesy and since they will soon have to face a deflation in their over-hype about email usage, they are on their way to devising a new conspiracy to appease their followers.  

    Maybe the Repubs will try to enlist Ken Starr. But then, he may be otherwise engaged.

    On a related matter, Captain Howdy, I also foresee a boring usage of time...inside. Tho that is the likelihood given the number of potential no-shows, I think that Trump is capable a delivering a good speech--a presentation that a pro TV personage can let rip when the back is to the wall.  People buy into all kinds of images created by TV; and, the Trump bunch sure has had lots of lead time to craft a huuuge fantasy for a percentage of viewers.  Even with the challenge of substance, I'm sure that Trump can deliver the Big Lie(s) on the big stage of a national convention with the sincerest of imagery.


    ROTFL (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:13:16 AM EST
    on the tarmac at the airport. Only in bizarro conservaworld is that a "secret" meeting.

    Jim you are a perfect example of how the GOP has been able to fleece the rubes for so long. Y'all are the most gullible people ever. Of course feeding BS to the gullible rubes has made a lot of money for the wingnut welfare crowd.


    Gullible, jim or (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:31:17 AM EST
    shill? I'm guessing that even jimbo is not that gullible.  What the quick synthesized claim suggests to me is that he is a pro.  Jim is a Repub shill.

    Your accountant just called, Jim. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:36:48 AM EST
    She's trying to reconcile your monthly receipts for household expenditures, and wants to know why you spent $173.87 on aluminum foil.

    hahahahaha...really bad coverup (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    when it is the first thing I hear on NPR when I wake up in the morning.

    Thanks everyone for rising to the bait (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:55:13 AM EST
    Point out anything re Hillary and you folks are like wasps protecting the nest.

    Fact is that as AG she should have never went near Bubba.... much less have a half hour private meeting talking about the "kids."

    Sure. Now, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale....

    We're not (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    "protecting" anyone. We're laughing out butts off at how gullible you are. But I guess you're not even aware of that fact.

    The stupid burns. If Bill had walked by her and not spoken to her you would be screaming that Bill was mad at her because she's going to indict Hillary. You guys don't even realize that you have to have done something against the law to get an indictment. Your bitterness and envy has just gone over the top.


    Uh, they met in Bill's private jet (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:06:30 AM EST
    ...not in the produce section Walmart..

    Right (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:29:06 AM EST
    Because Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are too stupid to think that the press (and everyone near the plane with a camera phone) wouldn't see this.

    Also, because Lynch's husband was in attendance....


    Seriously. Okay, so Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met inside his private jet at an airport. So fckn what! Honestly, why are you Republicans so obsessed with Bill and Hillary Clinton, to the point that you always end up playing Wile E. Coyote to the Clintons' Roadrunner? You've become your own best parody here in this subthread. Please just stop, already.

    Protocol (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:50:54 PM EST
    stated that meeting should not have taken place.
    Democrat Senators, Axelrod, all have commented on the abysmal optics of this, a professional prosecutor would have avoided this.
    The FBI is investigating Madame Sec's e mail and the Clinton Foundation.
    Yea, I believe Bill, they didn't discuss any investigation, Bill was just offering Lynch another term if Hillary wins.
    Other than this blog, I haven't seen anyone laughing at this.
    I guess it was more pile on Jim than addressing the real content

    Protocol demands no such thing. (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:37:28 PM EST
    Neither Bill Clinton nor the Clinton Foundation is under FBI investigation, and Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch did nothing wrong in meeting with him briefly at Phoenix Sky Harbor Int'l Airport.

    And I, for one, decline to simply assume that wrongdoing occurred in the absence of any evidence presented to that effect. Further, I refuse to dumb everything down to the GOP's lowest common denominator, and dance to the tune of people who are such fools for manufactured scandal that they can no longer distinguish their own a$$es from their elbows.

    Free-form innuendo is not the equivalent of fact and truth, save perhaps to those whose own trafficking in such baseless allegations is motivated solely by the political expediency of the moment.

    Funny how these same paragons of virtue who want to rake Bill Clinton over the coals never expressed similar concerns, when two Supreme Court justices were the special guests at an exclusive conservative conclave hosted by Charles and David Koch. It was nothing but the sound of chirping crickets back then.

    Sorry, but a bunch of wingbats and crackpots ranting in unison on townhall.com, brietbart.com, Fox News, and various AM squalk radio stations, etc., doth not a scandal make, and I don't give a friggin' rip how loud they get. You want scandal and wrongdoing, then take a good long look to your party's own presumptive presidential nominee, who's been busy soliciting campaign contributions from members of the British and Australian parliaments.



    Axelrod ?! (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:59:58 PM EST
    Oh my god AXELROD!!

    Holy sh!t.


    Actually pp (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    They met on HER plane.  At least get you tinfoil batsh!t straight

    Thanks for admitting you were trolling (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:01:20 AM EST
    Don't look now but every single comment is laughing at you.  Not with you.  

    And no one provided an even half way defense (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:08:04 AM EST
    of her actions.

    Laughter (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    is a go to defense when it comes to idiocy.

    Whaaat? She cannot say hi (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Towanda on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    to a former president?

    Please provide a link to your etiquette guide.  


    Well, it was (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:43:49 PM EST
    either tarmac-azi or the ninth Benghazi investigation.  Need to get to the bottom of this, Trey Gowdy is underemployed at the moment and Ken Starr is between jobs.

    Chuck Terd (and Trevor) (none / 0) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:02:14 PM EST
    Have decided a special prosecutor is now needed.

    I guess (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    one time pilfering through Hillary's and Chelsea's lingerie wasn't enough.

    These people are permanently stuck on stupid. How many investigations did we have into Benghazi? 8 that said the same thing. The GOP apparently is incapable of doing anything else and they can't even do investigations professionally. Gowdy sure seemed hot to order those engraved crystal wine glasses for himself and the rest of the Republicans.


    No (none / 0) (#149)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:54:23 PM EST
    The Madame Hillary community , or at least some of them, will just about tolerate anything.
    The head of the Justice department, in the midst of 2 investigations, one of his wife and her handling of classified material, and one of the Clinton Foundation, meet for a social visit
    As his wife is also running for President.
    You have got to be kidding me. There is no freaking reason Lynch should have agreed to that. The only people defending it as another "nothingburger" are blinded Hillary acolytes.
    At a bare minimum, it just looks awful, and actually lends credence to those clamoring for a special prosecutor. Just what was she thinking?
    I know Bill Clintons judgement is skewed, and I wasn't kidding when I stated he probably offered Lynch a job in Hillarys administration.
    All she did was ,make it easier  to keep this whole thing in the news, and harder to actually reach a resolution that can be accepted .

    What is she thinking? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:09:01 PM EST
    I'll take a crack at that.  She's thnking no serious person believes Hillary is going to be indicted.  That it's just more slimy bullsh!t from the fever swamp you guys live in.  And she doesn't give a sh!t what you thnk.  And I thnk that's awsum.  To much power has been given to loonies like you and ppj to hover and cluck your thick tongues and clutch your pearls and make everyone walk on eggshells for fear of, God forbid, as Joe said give the howling monkeys a reason to start flinging their  feces.

    The former president met with the AG.  Get over it.


    Well (none / 0) (#155)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:23:11 PM EST
    You and some TL pals are quite alone in that belief.
    In such a high profile case, extreme discretion is required,
    And to jeopardize the appearance of impartiality, for a meeting to discuss grandchildren, lol

    Oh, and it was a secret meeting, a local reporter was tipped off to it, otherwise it would have went unnoticed.


    I am no HRC acolyte (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:25:35 PM EST
    But this doesn't even merit a "meh."

    Honest to god (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:38:35 PM EST
    These people seem to believe the entire left is constantly involved in some ongoing Machiavellian conspiracy but at the same time they are unable to arrange a "secret" meeting without a plucky local reporter being "tipped off" and saving the day by spilling the beans.

    Honest to god


    So (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    we're supposed to defend Bill because he didn't adhere to the rules set for him by the conservative welfare brigade? In order to think meeting Lynch was actually wrong you have to buy into all the wingnut welfare conspiracy theories. Obviously you eat up whatever the wingnut welfare brigade serves. The rest of us just laugh at how ridiculous the wingnut welfare brigade is in the first place. If we all lived by wingnut welfare rules we'd all be hiding under our beds wearing adult diapers 24/7.

    cnn (none / 0) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    just had a fainting couch session over this led by Jake Tapper, even the Clinton surrogated agreed the "optics" were bad. I agree, because one must never give the howling monkeys anything to grab on to. They will be using this to cry foul on any investigation that does not frog march Hillary.

    Bill Clinton "secretly" meeting Lynch on the tarmac, to make a last minute plea/bribe/threat to stave off this imminent indictment? Please, that doesn't pass the sniff test for a grade B movie plot. Yet the questions linger, of course.



    It's unbelievable (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:35:04 PM EST
    It really is.    A former president active on many fronts has a brief meeting with the AG under the full glare of the press lights and everyone loses their mind.  You almost thnk there might be another reason.  Like the fact that there is now pretty much open war between Trump and his alleged party.

    We have Mitch McConnel today saying, in the same breath, that his "hope" is that Trump will pivot and become a serious and credible candidate AND that Hillary is an intelligent capable person.  "No question about it"
    THAT is a remarkable statement from the majority leader 12 days before the convention.

    And you have stuff like this-

    Asked by host Steve Malzberg why he hasn't yet endorsed the presumptive GOP nominee, Lee, best friend to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), said he found Trump both personally and politically objectionable.

    "We can get into that if you want," Lee said, in comments first flagged by Buzzfeed News. "We can get into the fact that he accused my best friend's father of conspiring to kill JFK. We can go through the fact that he's made statements that some have identified correctly as religiously intolerant. We can get into the fact that he's wildly unpopular in my state, in part because my state consists of people who are members of a religious minority church. A people who were ordered exterminated by the governor of Missouri in 1838. And, statements like that make them nervous."

    Lee, who has previously said that the verbose real estate mogul "scares me to death," allowed that he was open to changing his position as long as Trump tried to assuage his concerns.

    "I can go on if you like," the Utah senator said of his issues with Trump. "But don't sit here and tell me, Steve, that I have no reason to be concerned over Donald Trump."

    Malzberg countered that his concerns about Hillary Clinton should "dwarf" those about Trump, and that he hoped Lee wasn't against him for "personal" reasons like his friendship with Cruz.

    Lee insisted that there was "no possibility" of him voting for Clinton, but that he wanted assurances that Trump would defend the Constitution.

    "I'm sorry, sir, but that is not an unreasonable demand," Lee said.

    The right is very good with smoke and mirrors.  The question is, is ther enough smoke in the world.


    Well, Jim, that really all depends upon ... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:09:05 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "And no one provided an even half way defense of her actions."

    ... what Attorney Gen. Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton did in this instance that was so wrong.

    And since you quite obviously can't explain that point to anyone's satisfaction, never mind as to why this should require an investigation by a special counsel, then there's really nothing here for us to defend.

    Rather, you're merely blog-clogging, and further wasting Open Thread bandwidth, with these patently nonsensical and totally baseless insinuations.

    Have a nice evening.


    Well, I'm not posting about Game of Thrones (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:07:02 PM EST
    or writing such...

    It's an Open Thread, Nate. (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 09:26:34 PM CST
    And who appointed you hall monitor, anyway?

    You know, in the old days we could actually have a debate about such things as ethics, the  Clinton's like of, appearances, etc., etc.

    And when I posted I had a very slight hope that we might do so again. But alas. You folks met my expectations.


    Let's hold Clinton and Lynch to the (none / 0) (#177)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri Jul 01, 2016 at 02:11:49 AM EST
    Scalia standard. Whatever level of appearance of impropriety was ok for Scalia should be the (high, very high---couldn't be higher) bar for Clinton and Lynch.

    A positive article today (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by CST on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:46:10 AM EST
    About refugees in Canada.

    I'm sure someone here will be happy to tell me why this is a bad thing.  But honestly, it was just really nice to read something in the news that isn't all doom and gloom.  And frankly, I think that this is the best way we have to fight future terrorism.  With human kindness.

    Watch people attack HRC fir her dishonesty (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:30:46 AM EST
    In many respects, Jimmy Kimmel's stunt ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:47:36 PM EST
    ... demonstrates just how successful were the GOP's efforts to smear Hillary Clinton with the endless Benghazi investigations and hearings. As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) bragged to Fox News' Sean Hannity in September 2015 (to his subsequent regret), none of this was ever about fact-finding and truth. Rather, it was a politically inspired effort on the GOP's part to damage her personally.

    Thus, "Benghazi" -- just like every other ginned-up "scandal" they've peddled about Bill and Hillary Clinton, including their latest snipe hunt per State Dept. emails -- evolved into a free range Republican incantation that's otherwise remained completely unencumbered by any actual details.

    And sad to say, as we see in Kimmel's video, some entirely credulous members of the public are now so heavily invested in this phony premise regarding about Hillary's untrustworthiness, they're actually willing to risk their own personal credibility in order to maintain that fiction -- if only to keep convincing themselves that they couldn't possibly be both gullible and wrong.

    And then, these same people will likely wonder why their own teenaged children roll their eyes at them.



    Off the subject, but, (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    here's an interesting pair of films taken from the trolley going down Market Street in San Francisco.  Side by side, one taken 4 days before the 1906 quake and fire, and one taken some time after.

    Veepstakes (4.67 / 3) (#1)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 04:34:36 PM EST
    I've seen Tom Perez on a couple of the shows and think he is very smart, funny, good listener and arguer. I bet he is good on the stump. Reservations are whether he has a good enough resume to qualify for taking over as POTUS, which Hillary says is her main criteria. But I think he may be the July surprise, while all the speculation is about Warren and Kaine.

    I'll have to check him out (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    I don't care for Kaine, never have. If Liz wants the job great. I'd rather take the Senate back though and have her run it.

    Tim Kaine is the cautious choice. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 07:17:36 PM EST
    You're playing the percentages if you choose him as the vice presidential nominee. It's a safe call, but otherwise uninspiring.

    In baseball parlance, Kaine is the veteran pinch hitter you send to the plate with the score tied in the 8th inning, who'll gladly do as he's told, and will sacrifice bunt in order to move the potential winning run into scoring position.

    But when you're up big, you turn to the promising rookie who's obviously chomping at the bit to get into the game while riding the bench, and you tell him to swing for the fences.

    Right now, this game's not close, and Hillary Clinton doesn't need a batter who can bunt the baserunner to third. She needs to send someone new to home plate who can knock it into the bleachers and quickly put this game out of reach.



    You should probably take (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 07:33:26 PM EST
    Another look at the state by state polls.  The game is close.  Considering what a horrible campaign Trump has run its IMO rather incredibly close.  In any sane world she would be 20 points ahead.

    I also think Trumps support is almost certainly being under polled.  Because people will not want to admit they are voting for him.

    I don't think Kaine is safe at all.  I don't thnk it will be Kaine.  It might not be Warren.  But she needs more than a yawn for a VP.


    IMO (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:13:09 PM EST
    it's going to be someone that nobody thinks is going to be VP. Maybe even someone that no one has mentioned. IMO those names have been floated out there as distractions especially Kaine's.

    That always seems to be the way, (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:15:51 PM EST
    Lots of trial balloons.

    As far as the polls go, I think Hillary Clinton's lead in both key demographics and key states is such that it's really not as close as some might otherwise think. Trump is generally holding together his white-wing primary base but is very clearly having trouble expanding it, so I tend to believe that he's either at or close to his ceiling.

    Of course, that's certainly no reason to get complacent and take this election for granted. The Democrats need to campaign hard, because there's a rare but very genuine opportunity to blow not just Trump out of the water, but also the entire GOP slate as well.

    If Mrs. Clinton can manage to widen her lead prior to the party conventions, and / or narrow Trump's lead amongst white males, the entire Congress could very well be in play in the fall, as well as state legislatures in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even Arizona.

    So if we're Mrs. Clinton and the DNC, we're campaigning our a$$es off, applying a full-court press and taking no prisoners in an effort to hold Trump's vote to under 40% in November. The potential ripple effects from such an accomplishment could be seismic.



    What emerges from the GOP convention (none / 0) (#41)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 11:30:32 PM EST
    could have an effect, perhaps, on HRC's final decision about VP.  While the question of who-for-VP is central, the related query of when-for-VP-decision shouldn't be lost.  Even tho it is difficult to figure how Trump can pull of a good convention with the fiasco that it might be shaping up to be, he might act the magician for that week.  

    If that transformation to successful convention occurs with his speech and VP pick, it could be that the chance of a safe Democratic VP candidate would rise.  I wouldn't rule out Tim Kaine just yet ... there are a lot of old connections amongst T. McCauliffe & T. Kaine & the Clintons.  (Speaking of longtime friendly relations, husband occasionally mentions the possibility of one that I had not even thought seriously about:  A man deep Colorado roots who was state AG, US Senator, &  Interior Secretary ... Ken Salazar, who has campaigned heavily throughout the west on HRC's behalf, etc.)


    Not much speculation (none / 0) (#91)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    or interest in who Trump will pick as a running mate.  Of course, it probably does not matter to any Trump supporter--don't even need "stand-by" equipment what with Trump just a baby Christian , according to Dobson, and still living bigly.

    Never-the-less, if the Constitution still counts, Trump will have to find someone.  My guess, with the possibility of a Clinton/Warren Democratic ticket, Trump will go for an all white, male ticket.

     Perhaps, to countenance his favorites, a white poorly educated man or, a facsimile in ignorance. Any graduate of Trump U. gets a leg up. Lots of Republicans to choose from: my favorites: Louie Gohmert, Pat McCrory, Mike Huckabee, Steve King, James Inhofe, and Scott Brown.

     And, then there is his celebrity department department: Ted Nugent, James Dobson,and Clint Eastwood's chair.


    Christie (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 11:28:57 AM EST
    Apparently being vetted.

    Well, Christie (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 11:39:38 AM EST
    is already trained, so that gives an edge. Gets Trump's McDonald's and follows orders not to eat Oreo's.  Wonder if a Trump vetting requires anything else.  Surely, not income tax returns..so passe.

    The old double-down (none / 0) (#108)
    by christinep on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    Two bravado, blowhard bullies ...the Trump-Christie twins.  For them, it works ... for the Cruz-type conservatives, I'm thinking that could be yet another thing to swallow ... and, for others like me, the response could be varying levels of laughs.  One curiosity: Prior to bridges and other publicity, Christie used to attract some Independent voters. Does that still hold.

    The double-down strategy is interesting. A choice to do so in either Trump's case with the NY-NJ braggadocio personality duo and/or in the situation Clinton might have with a northeast all woman two-some is ....  A gamble that might be worth taking or might not be if the top person represents a big happening in itself.  

    On the Repub side, I really don't care that much about the VP selection ... unless, for some reason hard to comprehend now, Trump announces that universally respected figure has agreed to run on the ticket with him.  BTW, I'm more than doubtful such a human being exists on earth today.

     On the Democratic side, my inclination is to defer to HRC's upcoming selection in view of her experience & judgment.  She has to determine the factors most significant in terms of selection -- contrast, similarity, geography, age, ethnicity, personality & compatibility. Remembering President Obama's selection of Biden, e.g., I felt a bit disappointed at the time; but, in all honesty after almost eight years, I would be one of the first to admit that the VP selection was good.  They work very well together.  In the end, isn't that what counts ... in today's words "having someone's back." The mutual trust is pronounced; they enhance each other; they really are a successful team.  


    This is funny (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 05:06:39 PM EST
    Ha ha (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 05:35:21 PM EST
    I noticed that, but my mind registered that it was a scabbard without a sword in it, in the video though you can see the wolf head on the sword's grip.

    Ha! that's hysterical. (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 05:45:23 PM EST
    No, I did not notice it at all.

    More GoT thoughts... (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 06:02:57 PM EST
    Olenna seems to forget that she poisoned Cercei's son on his wedding day...if Cersei knew that she would have made sure Olenna was in the sept too.

    Tommen really did betray Cersei in a lot of ways. The more I think about it the more surprised I am she did not let hime go to the sept. She already had her coronation outfit picked out. Maybe she was going to take the throne even if Tommen had lived.


    She did not seem very (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    Upset or surprised did she.   And she had the Mountain keep him in the room so he had a perfect ring side seat.  That sequence, Tommens suicide was so well done.  I watched it several times.  You see him looking out the window then you see him step away from the window and remove his crown.   The camera does not move.   It stays locked on the window.  You know what's going to happen.    Is he backing up to take a run at it?  Then he steps back into frame and does his rather graceful dive.

    So well done.


    Yes - I did too! I noticed that he was framed (none / 0) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    off-center in the window so you could still see the burning sept. Really well done.

    All season I was noticing the framing of conversations in front of windows, especially in that room in the sept when the Sparrow was talking with the various people he was working. Mainly a way to let in natural looking light I suppose, but it also added a real beauty to what otherwise would have been rather dull looking scenes.

    Did you watch the ending sequence a few times too? Those dragons flying over the water and ships were amazing - and when the dragon dipped his tail in the water - wow. That is some high end computing power there.


    Yes (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 07:23:32 PM EST
    That closing was perfect.  The dragons have been my favorite characters for a while.  I am not looking forward to them becoming weapons.  You know most or all won't survive.  I have wondered if, since we have three dragons, we might get more eggs at some point.

    The cinematography in that episode was excellent.  Especially the opening which I watched several times.  The arial views of the sept mixed with extreme close ups.   The music.  The editing.  

    I suspect  I will not be alone in wondering with a wan smile from time to time over the next few months what Gregor is doing to Unella.  Shame.  Shame......


    Whoa this chart is the best! Beautiful work. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:08:23 PM EST
    Click here for all the character connections officially from HBO, Confirms what was whispered about Jon's parentage, to dispel my lingering doubt.

    Is it premature to stage (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 01:58:22 PM EST
    an intervention?

    analysis of the chart (none / 0) (#116)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:57:05 PM EST
    here.  Not a big shock but it confirms who Jon Snow's mom and dad were.

    Both of (none / 0) (#82)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:50:58 AM EST
    Cercei's sons seemed to go off the reservation before their demise.  While the Queen of Thorns was implicated in Joffery death she certainly was not alone.  Not to mention Joffery certainly showed his cruel streak even with Cercei for a while before the Red Wedding.

    While kneeling over Joffery as white bubbles escaped from his mouth at the Red Wedding Cercei seemed more interested in blaming the Imp than expressing sorrow over Joffery's death.

    While I agree Cercei may have had mixed feelings towards Tommen at the end I am not sure the same can't be said of her having mixed feelings towards Joffery.

    Little Finger was also implicated in Joffery's death and Cercei seems to have no problem with him as an ally, maybe the same could be said for the Queen of Thorns.


    But she has no idea (none / 0) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    They killed him, right?

    As far as the plot she still thinks it was Tyrion, no?


    Jamie argued with (none / 0) (#103)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    Cersei about Tyrion not being the one who killed Joffery and one would think if anyone had an in with Cersei it would be Jamie.  As I posted earlier Joffery basically told Cersei to go sit on it before the Red Wedding and I suspect Cersei was well aware that had Joffery lived she would not be having an easy time of it.  Not to mention her Dad wanted her to marry Loras who she had to know was gay and she would also have to leave the Red Keep.  Joffery's death allowed Cersei to stay in the Red Keep and Tyrion killing their Dad allowed her to not marry Loras.

    All in all Joffery's death seems to have benefited Cersei in that it prolonged her ability to stay close to the Iron Throne.


    Yes, maybe all that is true (none / 0) (#105)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    and she did benefit in some ways, but I believe she was genuinely grieved and angered over Joffrey's death, and still blames no one but Tyrion.

    His electoral history (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:20:03 PM EST
    is close to a blank.

    "Montgomery County (Maryland) Council" is the one office he has attained at the voting booth.

    When is the last time we had a VP that wasn't a current or former Rep, Senator, or Governor?


    Warren (none / 0) (#110)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:34:39 PM EST
    Is the best choice by far.

    If one privileged white blonde aging elite ivy league lawyer is diverse, two is doubly diverse.


    As opposed to, let's say, ... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:53:03 PM EST
    ... an aging trust fund baby who was born on third base, yet easily managed to convince the credulous likes of you that he hit a triple.

    Clinton and Warren walked rather different paths (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Peter G on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:22:29 PM EST
    to where they eventually ended up. Clinton comes from a middle to upper-middle class family and got admitted to top schools (Seven Sisters undergrad; Ivy law) totally on merit. Warren grew up working class (her father was a janitor), attended less-prestigious colleges on a merit-based scholarship, was a special-ed school teacher as a young wife, and then attended a second- (or maybe third-)tier law school. That she became a law professor at Harvard (and a nationally recognized expert in consumer law and bankruptcy) speaks volumes about her raw talent, drive and ability, and nothing else. Describing her as a "privileged ... Ivy League lawyer" is absurdly misleading.

    So an old (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:42:53 PM EST
    white married three times man is diverse? A guy who went to private academies and Wharton isn't privileged in your book?

    ha! (3.00 / 1) (#38)
    by linea on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:31:54 PM EST
    i said i wanted elizabeth warren for vp MONTHS ago and everybody here was "blah blah" about why it was a dump idea.  not a dumb idea and jeralyn says so. ha ha.

    Is this a 'no changing your mind' zone? (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:25:04 AM EST
    Good for you for being locked into your position months ago. If something had happened too make it not a g good idea would you have a admitted it, the way some of us have said here that we are changing our minds about it?

    2 things (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:40:59 AM EST
    KeysDan and I were pushing Warren months before that commenter appeared and we have never stopped.

    And FTR I thnk it was BTD who said it was a good idea.


    yes! (none / 0) (#138)
    by linea on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:06:38 PM EST
    yes, i would have. i'm not like the ideologues here. i can easily be convinced; easily change my mind. i'm the best person to have a discussion with.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:20:35 PM EST
    still prefer Warren staying in the Senate. While I think she would an excellent candidate, I think her talents would be wasted after the election.

    I still think it's a bad idea (none / 0) (#178)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Jul 01, 2016 at 02:28:28 AM EST
    Still a bad idea to sacrifice a senate seat.

    However, I admit I will enjoy seeing it. (I think it will happen.)


    This is sort of astonishing (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    You know what was even more astonishing? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:14:24 PM EST
    That MSNBC would actually cut away from President Obama's joint press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, in order to show Donald Trump's Bangor, ME campaign speech in its entirety.

    For the record, I watched it from start to finish, and Trump didn't offer anything other than his usual hyperbolic Schitt stew against liberals, minorities and foreigners which he's already served up to his rabid white-wing followers ad nauseum. And so once again, MSNBC chose to pre-empt actual news in order to gratuitously provide free air time to this megalomaniacal demagogue. I mean, WTF!



    I don't necessarily (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 08:20:39 PM EST
    Think giving Donald air time is doing him a favor.  He said some really crazy sh!t today.  I did not see the speech (thank you) but I did see a lot of discussion of what he said.  Especially the parts about how we should systematicly commit war crimes.  

    Yeah, he certainly did that. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 09:10:03 PM EST
    I actually think my favorite line came when he was ranting about trade, and he said that his desire was to secure a "great deal," and didn't care whether that deal was fair or even good. That's worthy of a campaign ad, in and of itself!

    But as far as the speech itself, well, I don't think the U.S. mainstream media is performing a public service when they grant that sort of demagogic hatemongerer repeated opportunities to maximize both his potential audience and his public appeal.

    The First Amendment protects Trump's right to say whatever the fck he wants in public without fear of government censorship, retaliation and / or retribution. It doesn't further guarantee him access to a microphone and live media coverage.



    I'm not defending MSNBC (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 09:19:14 PM EST
    They put him on because people watch.   But I do think some times the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons.

    I honestly don't think what Trump did today gets him a single vote.   Especially from the MSNBC audience.   I do think it scares a a lot of people.  I have said for a while I knew people who were flirting with the idea of supporting him.  Almost all of this people are no longer flirting.  And it's because of him saying stuff like that speech today was filled with.   I have seen fascination turn into incredulity into alarm.

    I say let him keep talking.  Let him keep appearing with the likes of the governor of Maine and that idiot who did the war hoop in the link above.   The more he talks the more every republican candidate in the country sweats.


    Then I think you'll like and appreciate ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:21:57 PM EST
    ... my just-posted comment about former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka. You can't make this Schitt up, even if you tried. They're literally writing their own punchlines.

    Now Something Surprising (none / 0) (#28)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 09:30:08 PM EST
    One of the world's leading mathematicians has has posted on his blog some sort of attempt to prove the following
    Proposition 1.  The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, is not even remotely qualified to carry out the duties of the presidency of the United States of America.
    It is sort of interesting to see how Prof. Tao and the 300 comments try to make one's choice of whom to vote for a matter of logic.  I doubt that it is.  It is more of a guess about the unknowable', unprovable  consequences of ones actions.

    There are lots of sites (none / 0) (#32)
    by ragebot on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:15:24 PM EST
    debating Trump v Clinton but I have to say the one you linked to is one of the most useless I have come across.

    Useless For What? (none / 0) (#56)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:23:11 AM EST
    That is a website devoted to discussing higher (well, very very higher) mathematics.  The fact that Tao himself decided to post something that off topic and the response of the other mathematics professors who commented there shows how widespread the consternation is about Trump's candidacy and the hugeness of the fear it has engendered.  

    Useless for ragebot (none / 0) (#61)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:14:18 AM EST
    who happens to be a Trumper

    Politics (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:31:12 AM EST
    ain't bean bag, neither is it rocket science.
    If there is any scientific analysis of Trump's campaign it probably lies in some unexplored realm of Chaos theory.

    Why does (none / 0) (#62)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:30:43 AM EST
    Toa's site discussing politics differ from any other site discussing politics, and more to the point what makes it more useful.

    The arguments posted there seemed weak compared to some I have seen at more politically oriented sites, this one included.

    Toa basically put together some links to Trump critics and made the claim that it proved Trump is not fit for president.  Toa is certainly not the first, or even the best example of someone doing this.  He goes on to say this should be common knowledge.

    What ever one thinks about Trump (and contrary to coralgables claim I am not a Trump fan) he clearly has significant support.  Certainly enough folks support Trump that is the mostly likely Republican candidate.  Since most recent elections have been close to 50/50 with Reagan, Nixon, and LBJ getting closer to 60/40 the conclusion a logician would draw from Toa's claim and recent elections is that at least 40% and usually closer to 50% of voters are unaware of what he calls common knowledge.  Not what I would call a good starting point to sustain his proposition.

    Maybe you could explain just what makes Toa's post so useful?


    My question (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:31:57 AM EST
    Was that really Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson in the comments.  If so that would be awsum.

    Summer time beach reading suggestion (none / 0) (#31)
    by ragebot on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:09:59 PM EST
    SA is one of my go to sites and they just posted this blurb about a new book I will be reading

    From our "Admiring the View" file: (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:16:05 PM EST
    Irascible former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka, who's on record as supporting Donald Trump, put the kibosh today to the Trump campaign's publicly floated rumors that he was to be part of the GOP presidential candidate's "all-star line-up of winners" who would address the upcoming Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

    Speaking to Chicago media today, Coach Ditka confirmed that while Trump had formally invited him this afternoon to speak in Cleveland, he declined because "I don't travel much anymore except between Chicago and Florida, and giving a speech at a convention isn't really my style."

    Then, employing his trademarked take-no-prisoners style of pep talk which he probably assumed would help his good friend Trump, the NFL Hall of Famer went for the jugular:

    "The Republican Party has its head up its a$$ -- if he's the candidate, you've got to get behind him. It does the party no good. They're a bunch of a$$holes."

    LOL! Thanks a lot, Coach.

    Birds of a feather and all that (none / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:23:49 PM EST
    The way (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 10:53:06 PM EST
    people are announcing that they are not going to the convention I'm left wondering exactly who is going to be speaking. It seems that Donald is the only one that is speaking but maybe that's the way he wants it. Instead of the GOP convention we could have a many day informerical for Trump Wine, Trump steaks, Trump University etc. etc. etc.

    Sports night at the GOP? (none / 0) (#40)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 11:05:25 PM EST
    Already publicized as representing "winners" who will have some role one night at the convention--gasp--Mike Tyson, Mike Ditka, Bobby Knight, and some forgettable NASCAR driver.  Oh, and when he is in Denver addressing some rightwing conference later this week, he reportedly will attend a cocktail party at the home of former Broncos coach, Mike Shanahan.

    What's next after that is anyone's guess.


    I think (none / 0) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 29, 2016 at 11:31:54 PM EST
    ...there will be some action in the streets around the arena.

    Ohio is an open carry state, and the police have announced they can't control that outside the arena.  No guns inside of course.

    I suggest liberal protesters stay a couple of states distant.  We won't need liberal provocateurs, they bring their own.

    As far as what is on the stage, well, that's going to be the problem.  It's like a premonition of Altamont, except that the crowd assembled and the Stones canceled.  With nothing, nada, zip inside the building worthy of attention, all the action will be on the periphery, among the various GOP soccer hooligan factions who are too rude to be allowed inside anyway.

    They will be coming to party and celebrate the hostile takeover of the asylum.  I will watch from the safety of my living room 2000 miles away, celebrating in my own way.


    A good (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:04:58 AM EST
    friend of mine lives in Columbus, Ohio. She told me that Columbus was vying to get the GOP convention also. She said it looks like Columbus lucked out in not getting it as she expects exactly the same thing as you.

    I would not be surprised to see guns make into the arena though unless they have some sort of check for them.


    I doubt there will be much of interest (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:22:13 AM EST
    On the stage.   Although it could make Eastwood vs Empty Chair look like high art.  But I think there could be some serious entertainment on the floor.   Which could spill out to the street.  There will almost certainly be some dump Trump style action or actions.  Or protests if that is prevented.  

    They have organized to much to go quietly.


    New FOX poll of republicans (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:54:42 AM EST
    Party unity is a trouble spot for Trump.  Just 74 percent of Republicans back him over Clinton, down from 82 percent in May.  For comparison, Mitt Romney lost despite garnering 93 percent support among Republicans in 2012. In addition, just over half of Republicans would prefer a different nominee (51 percent someone else vs. 48 percent Trump).  And while most GOP voters describe Trump as intelligent, more than 7-in-10 feel he's hot-headed and obnoxious.  More on that later.

    The part I bolded was flipped in the last poll.


    I saw a funny tweet... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:22:20 AM EST
    to the effect of this year's speakers are going to make Clint Eastwood's speech to the empty chair took like the Gettysburg Address.

    Probably a good thing (none / 0) (#49)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 06:49:37 AM EST
    The convention should only be one night anyway. Have the vote, give a speech, and everyone go home. A one night well planned 4 hour special and leave all the silly hats at the thrift shop.

    Now for something completely different (none / 0) (#65)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:34:04 AM EST
    i completely agree!! (none / 0) (#142)
    by linea on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    i dont want to sound like s goofy libertarian but i really hate that i can't buy safe-on-your eyes incandescent bulbs. the florescent bulbs are bad for your eyes and the leds are even worse. maybe we're going overboard banning lightbulbs and other inocuous consumer products?

    WORSE thing, obama banned my foaming scrub with microbeads. makes me mad. there are terrorists and homeless people and veterans not getting medical care and obama is all worked up over linea's deep clean invigorating foaming scrub with microbeads so he bans it.


    Here is what those microbes do to fish (none / 0) (#143)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:37:03 PM EST
    Sailors For the Sea

    I ike them in my scrub too and was sorry to stop using them. But they just are not worth the destruction.


    Pffft (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:49:07 PM EST
    Who cares about a few constipated fish as long as my skin is youthful and radiant.

    hey! (none / 0) (#151)
    by linea on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:05:26 PM EST
    be nice!

    Donald Trump (none / 0) (#104)
    by CST on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 02:25:23 PM EST
    Considering campaigning in MA.  Unless Scott Brown tells him it's "not worth it".

    On the one hand, I don't really want to be watching Trump ads in November.  On the other hand... please waste your money in MA.  The state where the most popular Republican governor in the country has said he won't vote for you.

    We have mostly bright positive (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    Hillary ads in Florida. It is very nice! I hope it does not get close enough for Trump to advertise at all, or for Hillary to go negative. The less Trump on my TV the happier I am.

    That may depend (none / 0) (#113)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    on where you are in the state and which channel you are watching.  I see lots of ads bashing Hillary in NW Florida.  In the I4 corridor it is more even.  Around Ft. Myers it is more Hillary bashing.

    My condo is in Tallahassee, my brother's ranch in the I4 corridor, and my boat is now (soon to be moved) in Ft. Myers.


    I think (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    Ruffian was talking about Hillary's own ads being positive. I expect the GOP and their PACs will probably run nothing but gloom and doom negative ads this year.

    She posted (none / 0) (#121)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:17 PM EST
    she hoped Florida would not be close enough that there would be Trump ads.  CNBC just posted that the ad wars are beginning.

    The point of my post is that parts of Florida are almost certain to vote Republican while other parts almost certain to vote Democratic.  I am not sure how many anti Trump TV ads would be aired in places like Broward and Miami-Dade and by the same token anti Clinton ads in Tampa, Jacksonville, or NW Florida.

    I travel the length of the state on a regular basis and notice a huge difference in attitudes in different places.

    My guess is both parties will run gloom and doom negative ads.  Not saying ruffian did not see a positive Hillary ad, but I have not seen one yet.


    Well, (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    most polling shows not much of a race in Florida. The demographics just are not there for Trump. He'll get the majority of the old white guy vote. I expect Ohio will be closer than Florida.

    As far as negative ads go I haven't seen any that you would traditionally call negative. The ones I have seen are ones that make you laugh at Trump. Mostly they make Trump out to be a buffoon which he readily helps along by opening his mouth.


    I'm in Orlando (none / 0) (#144)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:38:26 PM EST
    Admittedly I do not watch a lot of commercial TV but really I have seen several of the pistol pro-Hillary ads and none against her.

    pistol = positive. In this case anyway. (none / 0) (#145)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:38:50 PM EST
    there were a couple of the negative anti-Trump (none / 0) (#146)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:40:39 PM EST
    ads of the humorous variety about a month ago...but not recently. I guess they are saving their money for the fall.

    MSNBC update (none / 0) (#114)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    Mika is divorced.  I don't keep up with stuff like this as a rule but one of my face book friends linked to this.

    That picture is perfect (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 04:03:48 PM EST
    His eyes say I am in the 7th circle of hell.

    Her eyes say I am SO posing for a photo.


    That's wonderful. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:29:33 PM EST
    Now that they're both conveniently free, she and ol' Beady Eyes Joe Scarborough can dispense with the pretentions, swim upriver together past the dam and rapids to the site where they were first hatched, and then spawn.

    oh (none / 0) (#139)
    by linea on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    is this true that she was having an affair?

    I bet it was Barnicle (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    thank you! (none / 0) (#150)
    by linea on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:04:10 PM EST
    i love when you reply to my posts!  you're one of the smartest poeople. but i don't understand what you mean by barnicle. i'm sorry.

    Not the boils on Joe's but* (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:30:18 PM EST
    Mike Barnicle,reporter and sometime cohost.

    wow (none / 0) (#176)
    by linea on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 11:33:06 PM EST
    great gossip! thank you.

    Orlando shooting update (none / 0) (#128)
    by ragebot on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 05:41:23 PM EST
    FBI asks agencies who responded to Pulse to deny records requests.

    Florida has one of the strongest sunshine laws in the country and historically the media there has been aggressive using those laws.  In earlier threads it was noted the 911 calls relating to the "he who shall not be named" case were quickly released.

    The only justification I can think of for denying the records requests is if the FBI has an active criminal investigation regarding accomplices or co-conspirators, then the records are exempt from disclosure under 119.071(2)(c)1. If they don't, then there is no exemption.

    But I have not slept in a Holiday Inn in some time.  Any other lawyers have input here.

    Serial podcast subject Adnan Syed granted a new (none / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    trial. I would only be happier if he were my own brother. I also followed the Undisclosed podcast and came to believe he is innocent and at the very least did not receive a fair trial due to the prosecution withholding information about the cell tower evidence even from their own expert, who has since repudiated his testimony.

    So let them retry him if they think they have any real evidence and can decide which one of Jay's 4 stories they want him to tell...even if none of them make sense.

    Try for a moment (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:12:56 PM EST
    To imagine the howling sh!tstorm this would bring from the Benghazi, E-ghazi, Tarmacghazi trolls if this was Hillary.

    Just try-

    Two watchdog groups, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, said they will file Wednesday a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, arguing that the Donald Trump campaign has broken federal law by sending fundraising emails to foreign elected officials.

    "Donald Trump should have known better," Paul S. Ryan, the deputy executive director at the Campaign Legal Center, said in a statement. "It is a no-brainer that it violates the law to send fundraising emails to members of a foreign government on their official foreign government email accounts, and yet, that's exactly what Trump has done repeatedly."

    Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, said that Trump's fundraising pleas to foreign members of parliament are "a strange and unique development that we have not seen before in campaign fundraising."

    Campaign finance law prohibits campaigns from knowingly accepting or soliciting contributions from foreign nationals. It's not clear whether the Trump campaign purposefully sent the emails to foreign members of parliament.

    From TPM

    Lol (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:23:09 PM EST
    "Donald Trump should have known better,

    The man is an idiot, they assume way too much

    And Hillary has had foreign donors


    Do you have any evidence of that (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:43:04 PM EST
    Or did you just pull it out of your butt.  

    CGI (none / 0) (#162)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:50:56 PM EST
    Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clinton's State Department.

    Federal law designates the secretary of state as "responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales" of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals -- and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton's State Department did a whole lot of approving.

    While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton's three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term.

    The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

    American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation -- and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton -- also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.

    Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments' human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clinton's State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.


    How many did she approve form countries that did (none / 0) (#163)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:54:53 PM EST
    not give to the Foundation? Seems relevant as a point of comparison.

    Also, the F-35, a huge international program, (none / 0) (#165)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:56:52 PM EST
    has made many foreign military sales deals in the last 8 years. How many of these deals were F-35 related, which would have been approved by any SoS?

    Plus (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:59:53 PM EST
    We are talking apples and oranges.  As DfromH said.  The Trump thing is about specifically soliciting campaign contributions from foreign leaders and others.   Which is blatantly illegal.

    He's talking blah blah about the Clinton Foundation which has nothing to do with her presidential campaign.


    Filthy corrupt (none / 0) (#168)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:04:12 PM EST
    Only even more so, as it involves weapon sales and countries with human rights violations, but hey, thats all right

    Hey! (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:08:38 PM EST
    How about a yes or no.

    Do you have ANY evidence that the Clinton campaign took or solicited foreign money?  If you do produce a link. I you don't you should probably just shut up and stop digging.


    I think I dug enough (none / 0) (#170)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    Filthy corruption as Sec State, selling weapons to foreign governments with human rights violations, after they donate HUGE amounts of money to CGI and Bill directly.
    Madame Sec has no problem with foreign money.
    A couple of campaign requests by the Trump campaign, whicjh is a misnomer, there is no real campaign, pales in comparison.
    Or, I take it you approve of Madame Sec taking cash in return for approving weapons sales to foreign governments

    So, no (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 09:18:02 PM EST
    Got it.

    One more thing (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:46:17 PM EST
    Our government is actively marketing these weapons to foreign countries. They are not begging us to sell to them - we are TRYING to sell to them. The idea that we then need some kind of bribe to a foundation to get them approved is just laughable on its face.

    No (none / 0) (#166)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:59:17 PM EST
    It doesn't.
    They should be made to countries not plying CGI with cash, especially those with human rights violations.
    Pay to play

    I'll try again (none / 0) (#173)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:26:46 PM EST
    How do you know these are related things? You have donors to CGI. You have many many countries buying weapons from the US. Would an SoS that was not named Clinton have approved those deals? If so how can you say she only approved them because of the CGI donations?   I am pretty sure she also approved weapons sales to countries that did not donate to CGI. How do you explain that?

    If you are against US companies (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 10:31:49 PM EST
     selling weapons to countries with human rights violations, by all means, make that your issue.

    It has been approved by every SoS since we had a state department that approved weapons sales.  So I guess all SoSs are barred from elective office, in your book. That is totally tour right to vote that way.

    But don't pretend it has anything to do with the CGI.


    So then (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    You have no evidence the campaign took or even solicited foreign money.

    Out of your butt.  That's what I thought.

    But it's ok for Donald because he stupid.  And, you know, a republican.


    No, she hasn't. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 30, 2016 at 08:45:55 PM EST
    You can't and shouldn't conflate her political campaign's practices with those past practices of the Clinton Foundation.