Friday Open Thread

College football just around the corner.

Open Thread.

< Indictments will be long: State sent unsecured "classified" e-mails during Bush Administration
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So again (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 07:51:16 PM EST
    Hillary sez

    "I know that there are some on the other side who are seriously advocating to deport 11-12 million people who are working here."

    She continued, saying it was "the height of irony that a party which espouses small government would want to unleash a massive law enforcement effort--including perhaps National Guard and others--to go and literally pull people out of their homes and their workplaces, round them up, put them, I don't know, in buses, boxcars, in order to take them across our border."

    "I just find that not only absurd, but appalling," Clinton said.

    And the GOP starts screaming once again. I guess we can expect to spend 14 months of listening to them have a meltdown every time she points out how nuts they are.

    So Hillary is tired of calling Repubs (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 11:18:23 PM EST

    Now they are Nazis.

    Trump better man up and get ready.


    But you just did. Way to go.

    lol; he's finally right about something. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    "boxcars" is a very poor choice of words (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:24:04 PM EST
    To many people, it would imply -- or subconsciously invoke -- a comparison to the Third Reich. But tied to "in order to take them across our border," I guess that cannot have been intended. "Across our border" does not mean or suggest "to relocation camps" (to invoke a U.S. historical analogy) or "to concentration or extermination camps" (the first thing that struck me). So I conclude, a poor choice of words to make what otherwise could have been a trenchant point.

    You are kinder than I, Peter. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    I'd suspect she was trying to frame Trump's position.  She succeeded.  His position looks uglier for her having said that.

    The question is, how many picked up on the cue?  We're seventy years removed from the Nazi horror.  Does this even register with younger voters?

    IMO, tropes don't have to be homomorphisms.  Their job is to evoke.


    Also honestly (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:56:01 PM EST
    if your actual plan is to remove 11+ million people from a country - it is - boxcars actually does seem quite plausible.

    I understand and appreciate (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:42:12 PM EST
    the "poor choice of words,"  in "boxcars," but view its usage not as hyperbole or trivialization, but rather, as historical relevance. And, as a cautionary, and not unfounded,  interpretation of the Trump immigration plan to "move 'em out." ---all 11 million  undocumented (commonly called illegals).

    The Trump policy requires the flooding of  the country with police to round 'em up (tripling the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Officers), requires all immigrants caught at the border to be detained until they are removed from the country.

     It is conservatively  estimated that over $200 billion will be required to arrest, detain and legally process and transport the population over five years.   The Trump plan also calls for national E-verification of all potential employees (including US citizens applying for jobs) and, of course, a massive wall (just on the south, not north, thereby targeting particular ethnic immigrants), with deportation of all undocumented immigrants, letting the "good ones" to "re-enter."

    The Third Reich did not initially announce the ways and means for their horrors.  But, Trump's announced objectives need to be sorted through an historical perspective.  The Boston Beaters are but a natural course for "Making America White Again."   Mrs. Clinton's words were choice. Mr. Trump's words are the harbinger of evil.  


    I noticed that too (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:47:05 PM EST
    it seemed uncharacteristic.  I honestly minded it less than you but I noticed.   Almost felt like she was warming up for Trump.  One of the reasons I would love to see Trump/Hillary is because she would be unleashed.  She has a great and wicked sense of humor and I think Trump could bring it out.  She would feel unbound from any sense of protocol.  It would be epic.

    Has anybody noticed (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 11:32:35 PM EST
    ...that since the GOP is the party for people who hate other people, somebody like The Donald can come to the fore because that's all he talks about, hating some other people for something.

    It's not like there's a policy or anything, it's just look at these moochers, furriners, anchor babies, mooslims, messican reporters.  Whatcha got?  

    It's not like only one candidate does it.  They all do.  Show me a Democrat whose campaign revolves around who they don't like.

    I think to understand it (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 07:54:16 AM EST
    it really helps to know the people he appeals to.   I get the feeling you probably don't know that many.   That's a good thing.  You should be happy and proud.  Sadly I know lots.

    They are a frightened bunch.  Deeply deeply frightened.  Everything they used to know is wrong.  We have a black president, let's start with that.  But he has given them a new and terrifying world in which they can no longer confidently make f@g jokes or get out of bed confident that a world run by and for white people will greet them.

    I think one of the most precious things about the Trump campaign is his "silent majority" thing.  Let's be clear.  They are neither silent OR a majority.  


    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 08:18:37 AM EST
    honestly I wish I didn't know as many people as I do that think like that. I think it must be especially prevalent in the south or perhaps people in the south are more willing to say it out loud.

    I understand completely the appeal of Trump to GOP voters. The GOP has been playing lowest common denominator politics for so long that it's virtually blowing up in their face. It was easy as long as there was a Soviet Union but since the collapse they seem to have to take it out on another group of people. In 2004 it was big time gay bashing. For years it was black people. Now the hated group du jour is Hispanics.


    At Long Last (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 06:56:52 AM EST
    Wife: you were talking in your sleep last night.
    Husband: What'd I say?
    Wife: You were saying things like "Oh I've missed you so much" and "At long last we are finally back together".
    Wife: You were dreaming about football again, weren't you?
    Husband: Hey I can't wait for the season to begin.

    Watching Wendell Pierce (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 08:27:07 AM EST
    (Bunk from The Wire) talk about NOLA.

    Which reminds me.  Thanks to everyone who suggested that series to me.  I recommend if there is still anyone besides me who has not seen it.  See it.

    Where else are you going to see insert shots of gangbangers cruising around in black SUVs raptly listening to Garrison Keeilor and the Prairie Home Companion?

    Also in Treme (none / 0) (#50)
    by jmacWA on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:50:22 AM EST
    And born in New Orleans, so it makes sense.

    A very interesting article about (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    Shooter, the reason the Holy Water is (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 05:20:47 PM EST
    shining is that I am in Nashville for Grandson's ballgame.....

    And if you have to put up with the traffic I've seen this PM then you have my condolences.

    Cryptic (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 05:47:23 PM EST
    Incomprehensible does not equal cryptic. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 05:58:28 PM EST
    Lordy, that was funny! (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:10:11 PM EST
    worth the visit here.

    Well in that case, (none / 0) (#5)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:10:46 PM EST
    Let me be the first to say Go Ducks.

    Michigan, despite hiring Harbaugh, (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    is unrated.  

    Illinois, despite firing Beckman today, (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:23:09 PM EST
    is unrated.

    Wow, one week before the season opener. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 07:19:36 PM EST
    I knew that Tim Beckham was under scrutiny for having allegedly mistreated injured players, but that mistreatment must have been very serious for the administration to take action one week out from the opening game:

    "During a preliminary briefing from the external reviewers, [UI athletic director Mike Thomas] said he learned of efforts to deter injury reporting and influence medical decisions that pressured players to avoid or postpone medical treatment and continue playing despite injuries. He also said in some instances student-athletes were treated inappropriately with respect to whether they could remain on scholarship during the spring semester of their senior year if they weren't on the team."

    It was also announced that offensive coordinator Bill Cubit will take over as the Illini's interim head coach.


    Give Jim Harbaugh a few years. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:22:44 PM EST
    Either he'll have the Wolverines back on track and in Rose Bowl contention, or he will have worn out his welcome in Ann Arbor -- or quite possibly, both.

    Saw VA is suppose to start (none / 0) (#59)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    Kinda shocked that the Ducks would start a QB who had only played with the team a couple of weeks.  Either VA is very good or Lockie is a lot worse than I thought.

    Not to mention starting him against his old team may put a bullseye on his back.

    I am still a little upset by what happened to the FSU DL last year after the Citadel took so many cheap shots.

    Still I am happy football is almost back.


    Obviously you philistines (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:15:59 PM EST
    have never read the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

    No search function, unfortunately. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    Please clarify



    The translation reads like bible stuffings (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    thees, thou shalts, blah blah blah.

    I wonder what it really sounds like - to a reader of Egyptian.  

    That's not a trivial question.  A week or so ago Jeralyn posted a google translation of a Cartel prisoner's letter asking to die at home in Columbia.

    The translation was weird, not the way I read the original letter.  Context was lost.  I'm not a translator.  I don't know the technical terms for the loss or error.  

    It made me wonder how translation is handled in legal cases.  I could see defendants getting misunderstood and their actions misrepresented as a function of translator biases.


    I see that none of you are Stephen King (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 11:09:47 PM EST
    fans...and you never watched the ending of "Salem's Lott."

    Yes!!! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    Weird (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    i just heard on MSNBC that Palin was interviewing Trump on "her new show" tonight.  This is on MotherJones-

    Fed up with media bullies attacking Donald Trump's purported Bible fanaticism, Sarah Palin announced she will be interviewing the GOP front-runner and nonactive church member for what's sure to be a circus of a conversation. In a Facebook post today, the former vice presidential candidate and fired Fox News host explained her plans:

    WTH? Lamestream media asks GOP personal, spiritual "gotchas" that they'd NEVER ask Hillary, or they'd feed the question to her and/or liberal cohorts before they asked it on-air (we know how these things work, lapdog media... the public's on to you), so good on Trump for screwing with the reporter. By the way, even with my reading scripture everyday I wouldn't want to answer the guy's question either... it's none of his business; it IS personal; what the heck does it have to do with serving as commander-in-chief; and these reporters trying to trip up conservatives can go pound sand until they ask the same things of their favored liberal pals. I'll cover this in my interview with Donald Trump and other candidates tonight on the One America News Network show "On Point." The more the media does this, the more they empower America to reject them and their bias as voters run to the anti-status quo candidates daring to Go Rogue.

    the link at the bottom does not work

    So I googled "one American news" and found a website but it doesn't work either.  Have they somehow blocked lefties?
    I would totally watch Palin interview Trump.  

    Oh, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:28:54 PM EST
    One America is the new Fox. Since conservatives believe either Fox has been lying to them (of course you and I know they have) or been scamming them, this One America is the "new thing" I have never watched the network.

    My computer says their page won't load. I guess too many people are trying to get on to see the Donald interviewed by Palin.


    Damn (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:29:35 PM EST
    ..... One America News Network Connie, we're not on DISH yet, but please reach out to them and ask for  ...

    Where to stream it live: (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:50:13 PM EST
    It's the same (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 06:53:55 PM EST
    those links appear to be overloaded.   But thanks.  If you are in NY or your provider carries it.  Mine does not.

    I'm watching him on MSNBC.  He's talking about Karear.

    North Karear and South Karear.


    That made me laugh out loud (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 03:07:20 AM EST
    which is pretty sad actually.

    Gird yer loins (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 08:35:02 AM EST
    I have to admit (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 08:52:34 AM EST
    the dog thing at the end made me laugh.

    Does that make me a bad person?


    Howdy, the dog thing at the end (none / 0) (#41)
    by fishcamp on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    of the Trump/Palin interview was the best part.  Why didn't Sara have her wedding rings on?  If she's separated from her snowmobiler husband, and I missed that, I'm glad I did.  Thanks for posting the interview.

    The dogs (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    sans everything else

    Jimmie pointed out what I did not notice.   Only the white dogs sat down


    wait a minute... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:19:17 AM EST
    ... the dalmatian still had his spots.

    The number of debates (none / 0) (#17)
    by Politalkix on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 09:07:19 PM EST
    Only 6 debates have been scheduled for Democratic candidates contesting the party nomination for 2016.
    Debates build enthusiasm and make the eventual nominee stronger. Just look at the number of debates Democratic party candidates had in 2016.

    Democratic Party Presidential Primary Debates

    1. April 26, 2007 - Orangeburg, South Carolina, South Carolina State University

    2.  June 3, 2007 - CNN 7:00pm EDT - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College

    3.  June 28, 2007 - PBS - Washington, D.C., Howard University

    4.  July 12, 2007-Detroit, Michigan

    5.  July 23, 2007 - CNN - Charleston, South Carolina, The Citadel military college

    6.  August 4, 2007 - Chicago, Illinois

    7.  August 7, 2007 - Chicago, Illinois

    8.  August 9, 2007 - Los Angeles, California

    9.  August 19, 2007 - Des Moines, Iowa

    10.  September 9, 2007 - Coral Gables, Florida, University of Miami

    11.  September 12, 2007

    12.  September 20, 2007 - Davenport, Iowa

    13.  September 26, 2007 - Hanover, New Hampshire, Dartmouth College

    14.  October 30, 2007 - NBC 9:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Drexel University

    15.  November 15, 2007 - CNN - Las Vegas, Nevada

    16.  December 4, 2007 - NPR (radio only) - Des Moines, Iowa

    17.  December 13, 2007 - Johnston, Iowa

    18.  January 5, 2008 - ABC 8:45pm EST - Goffstown, New Hampshire, Saint Anselm College

    19.  January 15, 2008 - MSNBC 6:00pm PST - Las Vegas, Nevada, College of Southern Nevada

    20.  January 21, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EST - Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

    21.  January 31, 2008 - CNN 5:00pm PDT - Hollywood, California

    22.  February 2, 2008 - MTV 6:00pm EST - MTV Myspace Debate

    23.  February 21, 2008 - CNN 7:00pm CST - Austin, Texas, University of Texas at Austin

    24.  February 26, 2008 - MSNBC 9:00pm EST - Cleveland, Ohio, Cleveland State University

    25.  April 13, 2008 - CNN 8:00pm EDT - Grantham, Pennsylvania, Messiah College

    26.  April 16, 2008 - ABC 8:00pm EDT - Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    I think more than 3 is overkill (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 09:49:51 PM EST
    Debates (none / 0) (#28)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 07:12:59 AM EST
    are a excellent way for under financed grass roots candidates to help get out their message.

    Establishment candidates , and their backers look to minimize the number of debates.

    OMalley called out the debate process yesterday, per CNN

    And on Friday, he made the point directly to the very party officials who made the decision, using most of his speech at the committee's summer meeting here to not only question the number of debates, but to question his party as a whole.

    And Debbie was not thrilled

    O'Malley's remarks clearly riled DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who spent most of the speech looking down at a table just feet from the governor. She rarely engaged with the speech or clapped for O'Malley.

    When O'Malley was finished, he turned away from the podium and seemed to lean in to give a kiss on her cheek to Wasserman Schultz, who was assuming the lectern. Wasserman Schultz just looked at him, shook his hand and continued walking to the podium.


    Martin O'Malley (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 07:38:40 AM EST
    is polling at like 1%. He's desperate for attention. And there is no guarantee the debates are going to move anyone in his direction.

    As a voter, I don't want the (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 08:25:11 AM EST
    national party poo-bahs rigging the process, and as far as I'm concerned, this pitiful debate schedule was set up for the express purpose of exposing as few people as possible to candidates-not-named-Clinton.

    You wait - if the first debate gives Sanders or O'Malley more traction, I think there's a real possibility that some of the remaining debates will get the axe.

    And I guess what really ticks me off is that this isn't just about the face-off between the Democratic candidates, this is about highlighting the contrast between the Democrats and the crazy Republicans, a way to answer the insanity they are pushing.

    O'Malley's right: you don't meet that kind of thing with silence.  And if you do, you do so at your own peril.


    There's (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:11:28 AM EST
    no way they are going to axe any other debates. Well, Hillary for one has not met any of their stupidity with silence. Their heads seem to be exploding over her comments about how the GOP wants to treat women and immigrants but she should not be the one to have to tote the load so to speak.

    Madam (none / 0) (#49)
    by Algernon Sidney on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:48:13 AM EST
     Pray tell why should the DNC do the bidding of people not named Clinton?

    Isn't its function to get her elected? The DNC obviously cannot stop the GOP from working to prevent her election, but why  should it conspire with her intra-party enemies to deny her as easy a road as possible? Exposing her to scrutiny and challenge will not help her. Suggesting  that directing a spotlight on those who would challenge her without having earned the right to challenge her by raising large sums of money from the truly powerful and arranging support from office holders and power brokers is fair is to pervert the meaning of the word fair. She's earned the nomination; her enemies have earned nothing but the cynical praise of those who seek to deny Clinton her due. The suggestion that allowing a balanced  intra-party contest is fair is to suggest that someone who has accomplished all that she has should be treated the same as people far below her in worth. How is that fair?

    The other argument for artificially  strengthening  her intra-party enemies by using Party resources to promote them is simply risible. Ms. Clinton has been an eminent presence on the national scene for nearly a quarter century. She's  well beyond the stage where she needs to sharpen any skills even if one actually believed that skills can be sharpened by interacting with the far inferior. Does Lebron James need to practice against the St. Ignatius High School  junior varsity to sharpen his basketball skills? Of course not, but even in such a mismatch he could suffer an injury. That potential for injury to Clinton is the real reason why some want to see her forced to enagage in unneeded contests.


    Why should the DNC do the (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:55:47 PM EST
    bidding of people not named Clinton?  They should not do the "bidding" for any particular candidate.  However, the candidates are running to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party. .  Hence, the candidates should earn their way through the party processes.  If the candidate is not able to exert influence within the party, he/she is not only at a disadvantage within the party, but also, potentially, outside of the party.  The party, after all, wants to both win the presidency and offer a strong ticket for the other races.

    Senator Sanders, although caucusing with the Democrats, is new to the party and, accordingly, does not have the intra-party structural relationships developed and nurtured over time.  It is not uncommon for those candidates less well-known to call for additional party exposure, especially debates. Or, for the expression of concerns for the role of "super delegates" of the party, as was the case for Mrs. Clinton in 2008.  Candidates need to enter the intra-party fray while the cake is being made, or at least, before it is baked.


    That (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    Is the definition of a coronation.

    Who cares what the grassroots think...because we know better.

    If the candidate is good, they will flourish in the debates.
    If they are mediocre, they will up their game.
    If they stink, best you find out early.


    Please (none / 0) (#52)
    by Algernon Sidney on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:03:45 AM EST
    Exactly what can we learn about Ms. Clinton from subjecting her to the annoyance of competing for the nomination that we don't already know? Were this a process to pick people for a debate team then debates would assist in making a good decision. It's not. This is a process designed to het her elected President. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Is not the fact that she has already shown the power to control the process from its inception and thus earned her great advantage  all the evidence we need to know she is the best choice? Who cares if Sanders, O'Malley, Webb, Chaffee or perhaps Biden could score points against her in a debate? What would that prove that is worth even potentially damaging her standing for the general election.



    Wow (none / 0) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    This is a process designed to het her elected President. Nothing more and nothing less.

    Nothing more need be said.....

    Well "The Bern" did have something to say

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) believes the Democratic Party is using its limited primary debate schedule to rig the nomination process.

    "I do," Sanders reportedly responded when asked Friday whether he agrees with former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's assertion that the debate system is "rigged." ...

    "At a time when many Americans are demoralized about politics and have given up on the political process, I think it's imperative that we have as many debates as possible," Sanders said in a statement earlier this month. "I look forward to working with the DNC to see if we can significantly expand the proposed debate schedule."

    "Further, I also think it is important for us to debate not only in the early states but also in many states which currently do not have much Democratic presidential campaign activity," Sanders wrote in a letter to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) in June.


      The neutral and  appropriate word is designed. What is objectionable about designing the process to favor the best  candidate? Do we not want to win?  That she alone had the ability to have the process designed to her advantage is the result of her being the best and strongest candidate. Do you really believe she has some moral obligation not to take full advantage of her power?

    Oh no (none / 0) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:23:13 AM EST
    Do you really believe she has some moral obligation not to take full advantage of her power?

    Oh no. Not Hillary.  The Democratic party however, risks  a lot in pursuing that "design"

    For the supporters of Sanders , may beg to differ, and call it rigged. You will not have enthusiastic   supporters if they feel their guy lost a rigged primary. Young voters will be turned off by the whole process, why bother, it is rigged.

    Let the elite, the 1%, determine who best to represent the party.

    Both political parties are playing with fire if it appears that the primary process has been rigged to benefit the Establishment candidate.

    Trust your candidate and the Primary process, there is no need to rig it.


    Oh, geez (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:30:14 AM EST
    this entire thing is completely stupid. There are going to be debates. We have five candidates and six debates scheduled. The GOP has 17 candidates and 9 debates scheduled and so far their debates have not changed the trajectory of the process and it's unlikely anything is going to happen in those debates to change the trajectory on the D side either.

    That's political calculation (none / 0) (#58)
    by Algernon Sidney on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:38:44 AM EST
      The people on the left extreme  and the others in the rank and file who don't like Clinton were never going to be enthusiastic supporters. The only important question is whether they are less likely to vote for her against the Republican because they  are angry about the nomination process.

    As  far as people without money and influence matter, it's  only  whether they vote in the general election not whether they do so enthusiastically. I don't challenge the claim she will need many unenthusiastic votes, as do all candidates.

      I find it difficult to find any fault with her belief that she runs far more risk from engaging more  in exercises  which require attributes that  are not her strengths, such  as performing in uncontrolled and unscripted forums and   appealing to people on a personal level, than she does by shielding herself to the greatest extent possible from those hazards and relying on her control over the apparatus and huge advantage in money.  


    Rubbish (none / 0) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    Sprouting such nonsense is guaranteed to turn undecided voters against HRC. But then again, maybe that is the real reason for your posts.

    I think (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:33:45 PM EST
    that is the point.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#32)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 07:53:41 AM EST
    Sanders also wants more debates.

    And there is no guarantee that the debates will help them.

    But without the additional debates, the under financed grass roots candidates have an even greater mountain to climb against the establishment candidate.

    All the additional debates would do is help even the playing field, grant some additional much needed exposure to the lesser known candidates.


    O'malley (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 08:20:38 AM EST
    has no grass roots supporters. He has no supporters at all and that is his problem and as a matter of fact people complaining about the debates don't realize that they could actually hurt instead of help. If O'Malley goes into that debate and starts sounding like a Republican and attacking Hillary, he might as well fold up his tent and go home.

    You are being dangerously clueless. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 08:30:33 AM EST

    The last thing O'Malley's going to do is sound like a Republican, for heaven's sake.  He - and Sanders - are challenging Clinton from the left, but you seem to be oblivious to that, with your face pressed so close to the tree that you have no idea you're standing in a forest.

    The less challenge Clinton gets from the left, the more you are insuring that, should she be the nominee, the only one sounding like a Republican will be Clinton.

    Debates are a way to get the party's message out, and given the message the GOP is sending, I think that's going to be pretty important.


    Subject and first word of comment. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:48:35 PM EST
    Why do you insult the commenter b/4 proceeding w/your comment?  

    I am guessing (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    that Oculus's comment (#66) was directed to Anne @#38. Sometimes, it's necessary to identify precisely what or whom you are responding to, if you want to be understood.

    It was. Cyrpyic, as I rely on (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:01:58 PM EST

    Actually (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 10:05:36 AM EST
    he started off from the left trying to take people away from Bernie and when that didn't work he started from the right. The truth of the matter is he's just trying to get some attention it seems to me.

    Honestly though outside of you and me how many people even watch the debates? Last time there were 19 debates and I think I only watched about three of them. Did you watch all 19 debates? I mean there is a point where you aren't learning anything new.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Politalkix on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    I watched every debate. And because you watched only three debates you are so clueless!

    Interestingly, in 2008 when HRC trailed BHO, she thought that even 26 debates were not enough. She wanted more debates. Her supporters at that time (who may have not watched more than three)started to jump up and down for more debates parroting her line.

    Now they think that anything more than three debates is an overkill!


    Well, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:28:14 PM EST
    I wasn't one of them but how many people watched all 19 debates? I'm willing to bet you were one of the few. Mostly the only thing I remember is that Obama was a terrible debater and one of his comments probably cost him the primary in NH.

    The problem with limiting debates (none / 0) (#60)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:20:05 PM EST
    is that some folks think it is being done to prevent their candidate from getting a fair shot at the nomination.  Sanders always seems to draw much larger and more dedicated crowds than Hillary does, not withstanding Hillary's lead in the polls outside of NH.

    What happens to those Sanders voters (and all the rest of the voters not supporting Hillary) if they feel their candidate got the short end of the stick and it was Hillary's bidding that resulted in fewer debates.

    The analogy about LeBron was just plain silly.  Hillary not only has to win the nomination, she also has to get voters who supported other possible candidates to come out and vote for her in the general.  Limiting the debates will not help in this matter.


    Right (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    now it's not about Bernie getting the short end of the stick so much as the fact that apparently there is a belief that the debates will help Bernie. There's no evidence they are going to help him or hurt him.

    Their shots are not equal. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Algernon Sidney on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:50:35 PM EST
       Fair is not synonymous with equal. For many reasons, the number of debates being a relatively minor one, all candidates do not have the same shot. That is entirely by design. We wouldn't have superdelegates and a system intended  to eliminate those without very substantial funds and wide support among the ruling class if we wanted to give fringe candidates with a small number of enthusiastic supporters among the masses the same shot candidates selected by the powerful.

      That's only even arguably unfair if you believe the process begins when campaigns are formally announced and that all the years some candidates have spent building a record, cultivating relationships, engaging with the party machinery and building fundraising machines should not count for anything. Clinton has been working toward this for most of her adult life. It's not unfair that all that effort gives her advantages.

       She is entitled to do what she chooses. If  she believes that using her ability to dictate large portions of the process at the risk of upsetting a relative few is more beneficial to her than whatever supposed gain there would be in unselfishly giving a boost to her opponents, she has earned the right to make that call.

       The belief that the number of people in swing states who would decline to cast a vote on election day because they are angry she did not agree to as many debates as they would have liked and who would otherwise have voted for her is tiny and highly unlikely to cost an election is highly supportable. The belief that every appearance where she does not control the proceeding adds to the risk that she will make a misstep far more damaging to her than losing the votes of a few people so petulant they would cut off their own noses  is also supportable. that would be true even it were not a virtual certainty that Sanders and the others will after losing endorse her and work for her to beat the Republican.


    Let me fix that for you (none / 0) (#77)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    Hillary is afraid the more she is exposed the more likely she will screw the pooch.

    Hillary already has lots of image problems.  Sanders seems to be beating Hillary in NH according to the polls.  Not saying NH is representative of the US but Sanders will get lots of good press if he wins in NH.  It will not help Hillary's image problem if she is seen as limiting the debates.

    You can say the loss will only be a tiny one, but that does not make it true.

    The way for Hillary to stop the bleeding is more exposure, not less.


    She has no problem with getting exposure. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Algernon Sidney on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:36:18 PM EST
      She can get as much as she wants, on her own terms and without sharing  podia with her adversaries who otherwise that lack that ability. If you want to say that she has not a great job to date in exploiting to her favor that advantage I would tend to agree with you.

       If, however, you are suggesting it would be helpful for her to subject herself as many times as possible  to being the target of arrows from all directions, other candidates and the media,  at events that have far greater likelihood of reducing rather than enhancing her stature, I strongly disagree.  


    That (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    is wishful thinking. Actually the more exposure she gets the more Republicans start screaming like a stuck pig. She knows exactly how to slice and dice them.

    I think you are projecting the GOP's problems onto her. The fact of the matter is the more people see the GOP the worse they look.


    Which part of the following do you disagree with? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Hal09 on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 10:38:27 PM EST
    1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

    2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

    3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

    What Jim said... (none / 0) (#29)
    by kdog on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 07:36:21 AM EST
    1. A nation with open borders is still a nation, residents and citizens share many nations in the world. A nation with walls sounds more like an ugly prison.

    2. There are literally so many laws they can't all be counted, never mind enforced. If the harmful and tyrannical and inhumane ones can't be repealed outright, next best thing is to not enforce them.

    3. Our government hasn't served it's citizens properly for decades, it serves money. Any immigration plan must be humane and realistic. Immigration isn't even a Top 10 problem right now, though deportations and detentions might be. It's politicians stirring the nativist pot for hate and fear based votes. Don't fall for it...kicking the dog ain't gonna help you or the nation.

    Those three brilliantly (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 07:47:27 AM EST
    insightful and challenging bon mots come directly from the "Donald Trump Immigration 'Plan'"

    I guess we have our first official Trumper.  How fun.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#43)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 09:54:03 AM EST
    Countries without enforced borders eventually give birth to very strong nationalistic political parties.
    Please see Europe as a current example, in addition to the USA. A tolerant nation such as Sweden is just the latest example.
    Recent polling has the Swedish Democrats as the most popular political party in Sweden.
    According to a recently published YouGov poll, an anti-immigrant political party in Sweden has become the most popular single party among the country's voters. The Sweden Democrats, which has previously been accused of having links with neo-Nazi organisations, has the support of 25.2 per cent of the voting public.
    Improving the legal immigration process, with measures to encourage assimilation to the immigrants new country seems to me to be the best approach to this problem.

    Almost makes you rethink the whole (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 09:59:51 AM EST
    "parliamentary systems are better" thing.

    There's always going to be a few (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    Hitlerian types in every nation who will try to deflect citizen's attention away from their WTO-corporate-investment banker sugar daddies by appealing to the mob's primitive tribal-xenophobic instincts..

    The biggest movers and shakers (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    on Wall Street already live without any borders, anywhere.

    They talk frequently about not worrying about forcing people out of the middle class in the U.S because they're (singlehandedly, they like to think), lifting people into the middle class in China and India..

    Yet certain Americans want blame poor
    Mexicans for the struggles of American workers..

    The whole thing would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic..


    Halo9 (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 11:16:26 PM EST
    What you must understand that for some around here the the answer is:

    All of the above.

    just keep kicking down (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    and kissing up, Jim.

    It feels so good in the moment, doesn't it?


    If constitutional arguments are of interest,

    here is a complaint shortly to be filed in King County .  . . alleging that the anti-voyeurism law found in SMC 12a.10.120 is unconstitutionally overbroad.

    forgive my not giving more exact citations on the subject of overbreadth and void-for-vagueness . . . I am sure that the judge and defendant will be able to quote them and cite them properly.

    Just filled up (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    2.17 a gallon.  Damn.

    Nice (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Aug 29, 2015 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    Not here. Vary from 2.59 to 2.79