Monday Afternoon Open Thread


I am gonna let ya'll in on a little secret - Donald Trump is not running for dog catcher, much less President. The Trump-ism explaining why he is not running will be pretty entertaining though, I predict. Give me your guesses as to what excuse Trump will use to explain why he is not running.

Open Thread.

< Presidential Signing Statements: What They Say And What They Do | Line In The Sand: Will WH Lean On House Dems To Accept Spending Cuts For Debt Ceiling Increase? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He needs (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:30:11 PM EST
    to stay home and take care of his kids.

    OOps I mean wife.

    He can't compete with (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:50:26 PM EST
    Romney's hair.

    Because President The Donald doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    sound right.

    I like that one (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    and no one would agree to (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:50:12 AM EST
    The Donald The Great

    POTUS is too small a job (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:59:40 PM EST
    for his formidable talents.

    LOL. I can think of a candidate from (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by observed on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:10:21 PM EST
    last cycle whose wife said that about him, more or less... something like "you guys are lucky that a guy of his incredible abilities is running".

    I knew it rang a bell (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    He's overqualified for the job? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:26:01 PM EST
    He didn't have time to find out whether it would be constitutional to give 12 finalists the job of President-For-A-Month in a new reality show?

    America's just not ready for his awesomeness?


    The EPA won't approve of the large amounts (none / 0) (#35)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    of hair spray he uses.

    I could crank these out all day long :)

    I'll spare everyone and let this be my last.


    Ding Ding Ding (none / 0) (#38)
    by Buckeye on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:41:48 PM EST
    That ego?  That will definately be the answer.

    "I am too big for the Presidency."


    Silly campaign rules (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    won't let him use The Apprentice to pick a running mate.

    LOL That is the one (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    Wife? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    Which one?  Wives.......

    Excuse (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by star on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    He lost his birth certificate??

    I can't think of what his real excuse will be (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:56:33 PM EST
    Will he just come out and say he doesn't want the job and never has, the pay is crap, the hours stink, you have to actually be responsible all the time and girls just want to have fun and he wants to be with them instead?  The fact that he even polls as a possibility says many frightening things about the Republican party and that base in general.

    The financial disclosures... (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    required of the president will shatter the myth.

    Trump didn't use his own bootstraps, no sir, he used bankruptcy court and assorted government assistance to stay paid.

    How many records do you have to produce? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    Do you have to produce your tax statements for you whole lifetime?

    There is no legal requirement to do so (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:19:16 PM EST

    but then Trump is infamous for bragging about his wealth without giving a specific figure, so having to be specific for people who can tell sh*t from Shinola might be the factor that leads him to call off his run for the WH.

    Bumpersticker for the 2012 campaign:

      "You're fired!/I quit!"


    Interesting Supreme Court develpment (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    The Supreme Court declined to fast-track a challenge to the health care reform law, and will allow the circuit courts of appeal to take up the question of the constitutionality of the individual mandate. This likely means that they won't get around to a ruling of their own, assuming that whatever the appeals courts decide will get appealed up to them, until 2012 at the earliest. In fact, a decision could come right in the middle of the Presidential election. link

    That was (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    not a surprise.

    In fact, it was a foregone conclusion imo.

    In fact, the SCOTUS may not even hear the case ever.


    I will defer to your superior knowledge (none / 0) (#47)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:54:05 PM EST
    (not snark) that this was not a surprise and a foregone conclusion, but am interested in the reason behind your conclusion that the SCOTUS "may not even hear the case ever."

    Other than the possibility that Obama's health insurance legislation may never be implemented or that the individual mandate will be eliminated prior to implementation, why would the SCOTUS refuse to hear the case if there are conflicting rulings in the lower courts?  


    I do not think any appeals court (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:10:57 PM EST
    will rule it unconstitutional.

    More interesting (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    is this concurrence on Guantanamo.

    It didn't matter this time, but Kagan's recusal could easily create a 4-4 split in the future.


    That's not a bad conccurrence (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:10:19 PM EST
    What legal right do the detainees have to be in the United States?

    Probably none (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    Though the doctrine committing exclusive control over immigration to the political branches is cruddy ConLaw IMO.

    A real citizen's movement (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:41:57 PM EST
    such as both the tea party and, I might add, the Obama movement, professed to be, would be up in arms about this, the unprosecuted fraud at the heart of the recession.

    Bill Black, H/T Yves Smith:

    Here is how I responded to Kai Ryssdal, Marketplace's business journalist, who asked about Geithner's rationale:

    Ryssdal: What about the argument, though, that the financial system is so fragile still, and these cases so complicated, that we can't really tear things apart with substantive investigations and prosecutions because it will all fall apart again?
    Black: Yeah, that's an excellent point. We should leave felons in charge of our largest financial institutions as a means of achieving financial stability.
    Ryssdal: See, that's funny because I was expecting you to come back with -- I don't know, JPMorgan earned $5 billion last quarter. How shaky can they be?

    In retrospect, that interchange should have been a warning to me - Ryssdal actually thought Geithner's position favoring immunity for elite felons was acceptable when financial conditions are "shaky."

    The New Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:44:09 PM EST
    I've heard of not looking in the rear view mirror and not playing the blame game. But actively recruiting the people responsible for Abu Ghraib to be Democratic senators is taking this to a new level:

    It's being reported this morning that Retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez may run for the open Senate seat in Texas, with the blessing of DSCC chair Patty Murray. A DSCC spokesman says Sanchez would make a "strong candidate," in part because of his "proven commitment to our nation's security."

    But making them Senators sends an excellent signal. When Lyndie England getting out of jail. Maybe we can make her the first female Ambassador to Iraq? digby

    Doesn't that just (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:44:52 PM EST
    take your breath away?  Frankly, I'd rather cede the seat to a GOPer than have Sanchez elected as a Democrat.

    Trump will reluctantly announce (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Gisleson on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:46:53 PM EST
    that he's been forced to drop out due to anonymous emails threatening to attack his hair.

    For those (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    that haven't checked in on the Decorah baby eagles lately, they look to be approaching the size of small chickens

    When looking at them I'm reminded, at the sports bar down the road it's 25 cent wing night.

    Very fuzzy (none / 0) (#66)
    by Zorba on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 05:40:29 PM EST
    small chickens.  Too cute!  And I'm sure those babies would like some of those chicken wings, too.  ;-)

    Infant raptors (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:51:53 PM EST
    are a riot.  For one thing, those monstrous feet improbably have skin as soft as a human baby's.  When they're really little and covered with super-soft down, they're just as cute as they can be.  And then at some point as they grow and begin to have some real feathers poking out, they seem to wake up one morning and realize they're raptors, dammmit, and they become (in their own minds only) very, very fierce.

    They're ridiculous little characters-- messy down, bits of feather coming out here and there, chests covered with dried gobbets of dinner, looking totally disreputable, but they hiss at you and clack their bills threateningly and shoot those soft little feet out to grab your hand.

    I've never handled young eagles, but have had the babies of few other raptor species in hand and they're just irrestible.


    For a minute there I was confused (none / 0) (#98)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    and thought you were describing some of the conservative commentators here.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    I would definitely have to order extra if those eagles were at the table. And they would pick the bones clean.

    Been following them everyday (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 11:31:58 PM EST
    fun to watch them grow, and interesting too. Finally got used to the fact they look more than dead while sleeping :P

    can hear them (none / 0) (#100)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    but the snow there today has either buried them or messed with the camera. I'm guessing and hoping the latter.

    Judging by the sounds (none / 0) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:12:00 AM EST
    and the weather report, it appears to be an ice and snow covered lense which will cut back on viewing considerably today.

    Holy guacamole! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 07:26:42 PM EST
    And I say that because I'm making shrimp tacos for dinner tonight and I just ate a big spoonful and no other reason....I have just discovered that Retired General Ricardo Sanchez is running for the Senate as a Democrat out of Texas.  I know it is hard to take a pass on this one because he could have the hoopla to race Kay Bailey Hutchinson but I think party needs to.  This is sort of like handing Afghanistan to Stanley and then wondering how he could screw up that badly...how could his ego and his depth of deception be that deep and wide?

    Ricardo Sanchez was a kitten scratch breadth away from Donald Rumsfeld in those first Iraq days.  He was having skyped conferences with Rumsfeld and coming out of them really grumpy and pi$$ed off because he wasn't coming up with intel linking Al Qaeda to Afghanistan.  He was in General Pappas' face and thumping him in the chest with a finger about how Pappas was going to get him that intel and he didn't care how he came up with it.  Ricardo Sanchez is how Abu Ghraib happened and he hung out some chick because she was National Guard and she had a vagina and he thought she would take it like a woman and she didn't.  He is a POS, and if Lindy England was low hanging fruit, the Democratic Party needs to understand that Sanchez is too and just walk away.  I don't care if he may possibly be able to beat Hutchinson because he has a flag pin.  The man is a personal embarrassment to me as a woman, a soldier's wife, and an American and ....well...I can't stand the sight of him anymore.  Abu Ghraib happened because of Ricardo Sanchez and his response to his leadership (Rumsfeld) and his threatening of those below him, I don't go bipartisan for war crimes.

    Your comments about Sanchez help (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 07:35:26 PM EST
    I was almost ready--when reading about it today--to semi-excuse him as removed, etc. My husband looked at me when I started salivating over winning Texas with a military man...he looked at me and lowly said "I think he is trouble."  
    'Appreciate your comment here.

    It's hard (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 08:12:59 PM EST
    He's very viable in Texas, and he is how Abu Ghraib happened.

    Patty Murray, chair of the DSCC, and (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:19:41 PM EST
    supposedly in the "liberal" wing of the Party, has signed on for an Odierno run for the Senate. The Democratic Party is so frickin' pitiful. KBH is hardly a favorite of mine, but at least she isn't a torturer.

    Seems to me that not being a torturer ought to be the very lowest bottom line the Dems set when recruiting candidates.


    Sorry, meant Sanchez and (none / 0) (#77)
    by caseyOR on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:21:29 PM EST
    typed Odierno. I don't have any faith in any of our current crop of generals, and am suspect of anyone who commanded in Iraq. Still, I typed in error.

    We've (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 08:07:33 PM EST
    become as bad at the GOP on that account. Winning just for the sake of winning isn't really winning in my book.

    The irony is that this guy could actually beat KBH.


    I can't sell my soul for that price (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 08:15:36 PM EST
    I have in the past...well, not torture but I sold myself out on women's rights in the past and paid for it later.  I'm just not willing to sell my soul to the devil for this one.

    I'm with you. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 08:17:43 PM EST
    After Obama, I realized that winning just doesn't mean that much if you're not going to have effective policy. Yeah, there's a kind of very short lived thrill about beating the wing nuts but that's about it.

    Abu Ghraib is in a depravity category (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 09:10:46 PM EST
    all by itself. (This is not the normal political differences situation. When one talks soul-selling....)

    I was feeling sad for a general (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 05:15:25 AM EST
    awhile back that was in between a rock and a hard place and someone I love says, "Oh please, just stop, it is hard being a General and that is why they make the big bucks.  They have great retirement and they get great jobs when they retire and I don't feel sorry for any of them."

    Sanchez chose to embrace torture to get Rumsfeld what he wanted.  My husband refused to shoot looters when he was first ordered to in Iraq and spent a whole deployment with a commander who hated him after that because after he questioned doing such a thing all the soldiers around him realized that they were being told to violate the Geneva Conventions.  We are all always at choice.  Sanchez is not a leader to be trusted.  He thinks there are different rules for him than everyone else and he will stab anyone beneath him in the back in a heartbeat to hide his lawlessness and complicity.


    Not (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 07:02:23 AM EST
    saying it is but the overall policy of winning just for the sake of winning is exhibiting itself here.

    Don't conflate torture & "winning" (none / 0) (#105)
    by christinep on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:54:04 AM EST
    To do that--no matter the perceived reason--is to diminish the great moral wrong of torture.

    Well (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 12:24:03 PM EST
    we've lost that argument since most Americans seem to think it's okay to torture people unfortunately.

    KBH is retiring (none / 0) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:55:51 PM EST
    He doesn't have to beat her.

    Then surely we can do better than Sanchez (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 05:15:49 AM EST
    A link from the Guardian about Sanchez (none / 0) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 06:42:37 AM EST
    taking control of Abu Ghraib from Karpinski and handing it over to military intelligence and giving them permissions to interrogate in an enhanced way.  Here

    I'm watching a Charlie Rose interview with Sanchez in 2008 and it is embarrassing.  Sanchez lies like a rug, he is a master at lying by ommission and he deflects like a pro :)


    Here is an important clip from the (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 08:04:47 AM EST
    documentary 'Standard Operating Procedure' about Abu Ghraib, it discussses how high the Abu Ghraib cover up goes. Clip.  In watching the documentary there is a series of photos and some were judged that nothing illegal is occurring and that SOP was being followed, followed by photos where it is judged that something illegal is happening.  Nude men tied up in stress positions with underwear on their heads was not illegal, that was Standard Operating Procedure under General Sanchez.

    In Texas? (none / 0) (#107)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 12:24:08 PM EST
    Have you been to Texas (other than Austin)? The Republicans in Texas make Blue Dog Dems and moderate Republicans look like radical left wing commie pinko hippie freaks.

    I love Texas (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:11:21 PM EST
    I plan on retiring in Texas or New Mexico.  I will spend my whole summer in Texas :)  You watch, this next generation of Texas is going to surprise you!  If you give a Texan an enema you can bury him in a shoebox.  Imagine what could happen with that much ego and a few facts :)  Save the Whales...and Save Texas Too :)

    And my Great Aunt was a Democrat (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    and she lived in El Paso....San Antonio isn't completely nuts.  What about Molly Ivins?  How can Texas be that hopeless?

    Texas made Molly (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    Her sarcastic wit was a byproduct of having to absorb so much Texas political manure. She once labeled herself as the sewer editor at the Houston Chronicle.

    Had she never returned home after attending college in Northampton, Massachusetts, we may have never heard of her.

    The State of Texas needed Molly to balance the scales. She spoke for the half a dozen liberals in The Lone Star State.


    I'm absolutely stunned by this (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 10:54:47 PM EST
    and agree with you 100 percent I'd rather have a Republican keep that seat than have Sanchez.

    Why on earth do you suppose he's even contemplating running as a Democrat??


    Maybe because of his last name? (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 12:06:05 AM EST
    Good question (none / 0) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 05:17:38 AM EST
    Someone's party affiliation isn't something I go out of my way to investigate but I was under the impression that he was a Republican....a big Republican.

    Sen. Dick Durbin: (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 09:31:58 AM EST
    Social Security Cuts Should Not Be Ruled Out

    "You have the House Republican budget from Congressman Paul Ryan, who I know and like, which is going to be placed somewhere on the right side of the spectrum. You have the president's suggestion, which will be on the other side of the spectrum. And if and when we reach an agreement, it will be in the middle, a bipartisan effort, which I think has a chance to succeed," Durbin said in an interview for ABC News' "Subway Series."
    Durbin criticized a resolution put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent from Vermont, that says Social Security should not be cut under a deficit reduction plan. Durbin said he would not vote for such a resolution.

    Another bipartisan agreement to f@ck regular people over so that more tax cuts can be given to corporations and the top 2%.

    Senator Durbin indicated that (none / 0) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:29:10 AM EST
    he would have voted for the Catfood Commission report, if, of course, there had been a vote before they adjourned without registering one.  After all, an official vote would have been an embarrassment and the bipartisan report would have been harder to spin as our financial salvation  Dick Durbin was once a good, liberal senator  The election of President Obama and his senate leadership role  seems to have changed that.

    Both Axelrod and Brazile said we now (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:37:59 AM EST
    have a New Democratic Party. I was a life long member of the Old Democratic Party. Have no desire to belong to the New Democratic Party and have become a Independent who will not vote for candidates of either party who vote to cut or eliminate the safety net programs so that they can lower taxes on corporations and the rich.  

    It's spring break (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 10:38:23 AM EST
    Josh and I are slacking hard today.  He's watching the news and then he turns to me and says, "Honestly mom, I don't mind Communism, I just prefer Democracy".  Who is this kid?

    Where the money is (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    I have a feeling (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CST on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    most people here would be more than okay with raising taxes on those in the 100-200 k group. "Rich" or not.

    Personally, I am more than ok with the "upper middle class" paying higher taxes.

    In any event, there is plenty of money on the right side of that line as well.


    The graph is interesting (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:50:39 PM EST
    The x-axis bars are at 25K increments until they reach the 100-200K mark where it's all lumped together.  

    The purpose is to show that the rich have to pay far more than the poor!  But if you add up the 0-100K earners, the number is about $2.3 trillion, wherease the 100-200K lump is $1.4 trillion.


    haha didn't even notice that (none / 0) (#9)
    by CST on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    lies, d@mned lies, and statistics.

    Plus if you add up all of the values (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    to the right of that, for the 500k+ crowd, they come to about 1.25 trillion, nearly the same total for the 100-200k single total.

    So, tell me again where all the money should come from?

    But yes, I would be fine for progressively higher taxes starting at 100k.


    Don't be silly (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:54:54 PM EST

    A family of four with $100K in income is rich.  

    As to the right side of the curve if you tax 100% of the incomes of anyone that made more than $500K (not just the amount over %500K) it is not enough to even cover the deficit.



    Not in one year, no (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:15:41 PM EST
    and no one is suggesting 100%. Just let the  bush tax cuts expire and they pay, what, 4 more than they do now? Hardly crippling, and gets the deficit down to levels that comfort the squeamish in 10 years.

    About 80% of the Bush cuts (none / 0) (#48)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:57:49 PM EST

    went to those below $200K.  The amount above $200K would have reduced the deficit by about 10%.  

    got a graph for that? (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    On second thought, never mind.

    "Below $200.000" (none / 0) (#67)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 06:24:43 PM EST
    Interesting cut-off point, considering the average income is @ $40,000.

    Thats Obama's cutoff (none / 0) (#93)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    The graph is meaningless (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by coast on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:46:41 PM EST
    for the simple fact that it shows adjusted gross income, which is a far cry from actual taxable income.

    Can the deficit be solved by just increasing taxes on the rich. No.  Will the middle class get hit with higher taxes, either directly or indirectly.  Yes.

    But who didn't know this already.  I don't need any graph to figure that out.


    Worst kept secret in politics, BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:39:51 PM EST

    Obama depicted as a chimp (none / 0) (#10)
    by Saul on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 02:55:30 PM EST
    A Californian Tea Party Activist sends email out on Obama shown as a chimp.  Same lady that had the pics of watermelons on the white house lawn after Obama got elected.  The Rep are demanding she resign but she say nope.

    With this kind of ammo, especially if Trump does not speak against it Obama could sail easily  in 2012

    yup (none / 0) (#17)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:02:01 PM EST
    These are not good people (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:09:25 PM EST
    Which is why I refuse to respect their judgement about anything.

    Government Funding (none / 0) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    People forget that the GOP wanted to fund the government through September and the earlier cut off was one of the things we got from the Deal:

    Republicans are demanding that Democrats extend Bush-era tax cuts at all income levels at least temporarily, not just those that primarily benefit the middle class. They are also pressing Democrats to approve a measure to keep the government funded through September, a move aimed at avoiding a fight with the White House over spending that could provoke a government shutdown.

    In return, Obama is seeking Republican support for as much as $150 billion in new spending on the economy, including an additional 13 months of emergency jobless benefits and another year of his signature "Making Work Pay" tax cut for working families.

    http://www.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-aides-republicans-talk-tax-cuts-quiet ly/1

    I knew (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    once Obama signed that tax package they were going to come back and ask for more. Here we go again.

    Hey ABG (none / 0) (#34)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:37:13 PM EST
    And, if the Repubs had gotten the cuts clean to end of FY without the compromise reached in late December--when said Repubs were arguably at their strongest coming off the 2010 election--the country might have not seen so fully displayed the (whats the word) obstruction, rigid, far-right agenda that the Republicans had to show. I suspect they had to display that ugly side, so often clothed in nice-sounding slogans, because they had no place to go. ToWit: Reports were increasingly indicating that the Repubs were losing the PR were prior to agreement about shut-down; Boehner got whipsawed in his own party and had to play the longstanding Paul Ryan card to appease the $$ purists on the right; that allowed the President to draw the clear picture of Dem & Repub positions that could leave Independents & even some Repubs with mouths agape.

    Now...it may all have been fortuitous that the Repubs had to pledge fealty to a part of the 3rd rail last week (tearing down & "taking government hands off my Medicare") Somehow, since I don't see any pigs flying by my window, it doesn't appear that the string of events & apparent boxing-in of Boehner & crew resulted from chance. In any event, my wish now is that the Ryan (now Republican-approved) plan for cutting Medicaid, abolishing Medicare as we know it, and, simultaneously, cutting further taxes on the rich...that that plan be emphasized multiple times daily until election-day 2012. (BTW, decent article by AP this weekend about the percentage taxes paid by the rich at their lowest level ever @17%.)


    I haven't (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:01:55 PM EST
    a guess what The Donald will say but at least he is making things interesting.

    NBA Playoffs this weekend were awesome (none / 0) (#19)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    I hate the refereeing, but there were some great games.

    Anyone but the Lakers please.

    1 for 11 2nd Half Carmelo? (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    He makes but one or two more of those and we're up 1-0, or better yet feed the rock to Amare when he's feeling it like that.  Golden opportunity squandered.

    Knickerbockers better at least stretch this series to 6 or 7, I do not want to watch baseball any sooner than I have to.

    oh man (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:20:26 PM EST
    I was hanging out with a jets fan this weekend who was all pumped about the impending knicks-celtics rivalry.  Let's just say I'm less enthusiastic about yet another NY team in yet another sport that we have to beat on the way through the playoffs.

    You guys can't just let us have this one?


    Let you have? (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    Jets and Knicks ain't won no titles in my lifetime, the Celtics and Pats otoh...let us wet our beak!

    Remember Yanks don't count with me, I hate them more than you do:)

    So thought we had that game...the late offensive foul call on 'Melo was kinda bush, but I've certainly seen worse.


    haha well (none / 0) (#45)
    by CST on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:50:54 PM EST
    the fbing of some ny friends of mine went like this (paraphrased of course):

    Nyer 1: blah blah refs suck blah blah
    Nyer 2: That's what happens when your team is that terrible for that long, back in the day we use to get all the calls
    Nyer 1: Touche

    I call this the David Ortiz rule.  If you think there's a possibility that he might have checked that swing, you give it to him, because everyone (the refs/umps included) wants to see him hit a walk off homerun.

    And this is the NBA where 'kinda bush' is pretty standard.  I'm sure they will make up for any perceived (real or not) grievances in the next game.  That's the NBA for ya.

    I doubt you hate the yankees more than me, but we'll save that p*ssing match for another day :)


    He needs to drive to the rim more. (none / 0) (#37)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:40:59 PM EST
    I concur... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    if nothing else it opens a shot for somebody else....he settled for too many contested jumpers.

    The D looked as good as it has all year though...it was like old school Eastern Conference with both teams under 90.  Ronny Turiaf the Big Man from Martinique had some game, kept Garnett in check and had like 5 blocks and a few nice finishes...we're so much better with Turiaf on the floor.


    In my head I have this thought about (none / 0) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:25:18 PM EST
    Trump on Trump: I have the courage and talent to run and be president, but these feelings are trumped by the possibility of having to shake a hand or two of some poor slob.  I leave all my Republican contenders behind in the dust since none, other than Mitt, was able to parlay Dad's head-start as I was.  And, even there Trump towers over Mitts assets.  So, I have concluded that I can contribute more to my country from critiquing as an outsider than being The Insider.  One fear I do not have, be sure to know, is that my race, if I did chose to run, would not be dicey--and you can take that to the casino.

    'Like that take on the Trump Ego (none / 0) (#42)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 03:45:44 PM EST
    As a reason for his withdrawal in June, I would also add that the other candidates have learned so much from himself, and that himself feels he has strengthened the field, etc. etc. (Unspoken: When some of the further-out-theres start withdrawing, the few who might have resisted the temptation to out-right them could appear "reasonable" by comparison. Daniels? Romney? Huckabee?)

    Illinois death penalty (none / 0) (#49)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:02:00 PM EST
    Yes, someone as obviously disturbed as this kid (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:13:02 PM EST
    would have held off otherwise. Well, I'm convinced.

    Handguns claim their first victim (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:13:55 PM EST
    "About two weeks ago, Smirnov decided to leave Canada, returning to the United States, Berlin said. He first stopped in Seattle to buy a .40-caliber handgun and ammunition."

    first? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CST on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:18:59 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:19:54 PM EST
    more like millions and millions served . . .

    BTD, he obviously checked the internet (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:17:05 PM EST
    before he left Canada. The series of tubes goes there too you know.

    Actually (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:18:08 PM EST
    The internet claimed its next victim.

    I have no idea (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    Just thought we were playing the let's rip a line out of some story game.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 18, 2011 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    You must be joking.

    Oh goody! O's coming back to the Bay Area (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 01:11:25 AM EST
    to raise more millions!!!! Gee, wonder if he'll notice our unemployment rate, care about the RAM we just had in Sacto and Oakland etc . . . .

    If we're lucky, we may get to see a photo of O with Beast . . . we can all say "Awwwwwww!"

    Wasn't he just here?

    No (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 07:03:26 AM EST
    he just wants the donors money.

    I don't (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 07:11:47 AM EST
    know how I missed this:

    when it first came out but I'm not surprised to see that Obama is putting forth more Reagan worship.

    I had to stop reading, (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by observed on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    He might as well idolize Hitler. I'm serious---Reagan was powerful and transformative, but in a horrible way.
    W. is just a pimple on Reagan's as$; Clinton was a case of crabs for Reaganism,  and I don't even want to contemplate making an analogy for what Obama is.

    I couldn't finish it either (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by sj on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    He makes it easier and easier for me to be able to abstain from voting top of the ticket.  I once had a great deal of angst about that.  It grows less as time goes on.

    paging kdog (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Tue Apr 19, 2011 at 11:22:03 AM EST
    you will like this one

    "The odor of burnt marijuana is no longer enough for police officers to order a person from their car, now that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized in Massachusetts, the state's highest court ruled today."