home

Monday Open Thread

If any of you remember my disastrous move last September when the movers set the place on fire as I was moving in, I'm glad to report that today, after five months, the flooring company arrived to begin tearing out the hardwood floors and replacing them.

I've been living there with only about 20% of my possessions since October. I thought they'd be done about 3 weeks after I moved back in, so I just brought essentials, thinking it would be a slight inconvenience compared to the hassle of moving everything out again when they started on the floors.

The floors will take a week to ten days to finish, so I have checked into an almost brand-new hotel nearby. (I'm waiting in the lobby for my room to be ready.)

I suspect my blogging will be light this week, but you never know. This is an open thread, all topics welcome. So are donations, if anyone hasn't contributed in a while!

< Halftime Superbowl Show
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Three out of the ordinary (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 03:54:46 PM EST
    state primary polls pop us today.

    Arkansas
    Cruz +4
    Clinton +32

    Michigan
    Trump +14
    Clinton +32

    North Carolina
    Trump +4
    Clinton +26

    I expect a bump in Michigan (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:44:49 PM EST
    Since she seems to be the only candidate of either party who is truly interested in what is going on in Flint and wanting to help.

    Parent
    I've seen Cruz is doing well here (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:57:08 PM EST
    If Donald has some wins before I'm pretty sure that will change

    For one thing I think the people who would talk to pollsters here are made for Cruz.

    Parent

    For one thing (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    I think land line suck here even more than most places.   I have never had a land line here.  The only people I know who have land lines are 70+.   And not many of them.   Mostly only ones who live wayyyyyyy back in the sticks where there is still no cell signal.   I have some knowledge of this from my time with meals on wheels.   Like I said made for Cruz.  I believe Donald will win this state.

    Parent
    Doing (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:12:22 PM EST
    better in Michigan than NC is kind of strange in some ways.

    So those polls have not flipped after Iowa like the pundits predicted they would? I guess they now think NH is going to be big change or something?

    Parent

    How to explain NC? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    We were told she has little organization in the state and there are lots of calls coming in for Sanders....

    Parent
    We can all sleep better tonight (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:26:42 PM EST
    knowing things are just fine in NC.

    Parent
    Another succint analysis concluding that Cruz (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:25:34 PM EST
    is not constitutionally eligible for the Presidency. This one, by a conservative law prof (Eric Posner) at Univ of Chicago. The debate last week between two equally brilliant but liberal profs, arguing the views that he is eligible (Balkin, Yale) and that he probably but not certainly isn't (Tribe, Harvard) is edited down to about a half hour of video clips here.

    So what happens (none / 0) (#4)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:30:41 PM EST
    Say Cruz wins the nomination.  At that point who has standing to challenge his eligibility?  Every losing Republican candydate?  The Democratic nominee?  The parties?

    And when?  Would a party have to wait until after a theoretical win in November by Cruz?

    Parent

    Prof Tribe addresses those questions also (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:58:15 PM EST
    (standing to challenge, and ripeness) in his part of the Harvard debate. The clearest scenario (but not necessarily the most likely) is that a state Commissioner of Elections (or whoever is in charge of the primary process in a given state) refuses to place Cruz's name on the state's primary ballot on the ground that he is ineligible to serve, and then Cruz sues that official in federal court for a declaratory judgment.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#36)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    was wondering if he could get sued by a donor. Could someone who donated big time to Cruz decide they want their money back because he misrepresented his eligibility?

    Parent
    And then what if he's then ruled ineligible? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:36:37 PM EST
    jbindc: "Say Cruz wins the nomination.  At that point who has standing to challenge his eligibility?  Every losing Republican candydate?  The Democratic nominee?  The parties? And when?  Would a party have to wait until after a theoretical win in November by Cruz?"

    Does Vice President-elect Peter King take the oath of office as president in Mr. Cruz's stead?

    =|:-O>+<

    P.S.: I like your typo and think that we should henceforth refer to every Republican running for the White House as a "candydate."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I'm pretty confident that the chances (none / 0) (#6)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    of Cruz winning the nomination rank at about the same level as Sanders winning the nomination, but a decision in favor or against should be decided so it doesn't pop up again in future presidential elections.

    Parent
    I think so too (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:42:25 PM EST
    I'm just interested in how it would go down.

    Parent
    Illinois Board of Elections (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas got a favorable decision from the Illinois Board of Elections, which ruled that he met the citizenship criteria to appear on the state's primary ballot.

    Two objectors, Lawrence Joyce and William Graham, had challenged Cruz's presidential bid with the board, contending that his name should not appear on the March 15 ballot because his candidacy did not comply with Article II of the Constitution.

    Adopting the recommendations of a hearing officer who considered the matter last week, the board of elections on Monday rejected both objections, ruled Cruz eligible and ordered that his name be certified for the election.

    "The Candidate is a natural born citizen by virtue of being born in Canada to his mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth," the board said, reasoning that Cruz met the criteria because he "did not have to take any steps or go through a naturalization process at some point after birth."

    Parent

    Somehow, I'm less impressed with the reasoning (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    of the Illinois Board's "hearing officer" than I am with the explorations of the issue by top constitutional law scholars. (And actually, I think Prof. Tribe pointed out that there was a "condition subsequent" that Cruz had to comply with to perfect his citizenship -- he had to be and remain within the borders of the U.S. continuously for five years while he was between the ages of 14 and 24, or something like that. Not a condition that could lawfully be placed on someone who was a "Fourteenth Amendment citizen," that is, born within the U.S.) The hearing officer's reasoning is simplistic; it confuses "born a citizen," which is a fact determined by reference to statutory law at the time of birth, with "natural born citizen," which is an Eighteenth Century constitutional "term of art." Whatever the latter was intended to mean (which it turns out is debatable, and thus uncertain), it cannot logically mean just "a citizen by birth," since that assigns no meaning to the qualifying or limiting term "natural."

    Parent
    OH well (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    Who needs the Supreme Court

    Parent
    Just heard a pundit (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:06:38 PM EST
    Talking about how "events happening on the ground in NH could help Hillary tomorrow but alienate Sanders supporters"

    Wait, I thought they were already alienated.  How do you alienate the alienated.  Or unalienate the alienated for that matter.

    Double negative (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    Just like math, it cancels out.

    If you alienate the alienated, then they become establishment hacks and will bow down to the corporate / Third Way overlords.

    Parent

    Gotta admit (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    I like being part of the establishment.  Been accused of many things in my life.  Never that.

    Cool.

    Parent

    If anyone needed more proof... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:27:36 PM EST
    the culture war is over, and the bums lost, here you have it. Establishment Howdy.

    Parent
    Oh, that's easy. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:27:44 PM EST
    CaptHowdy: "How do you alienate the alienated[?]"

    You simply hold their heads underwater until they stop thrashing and go limp.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Or shove your (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:31:55 PM EST
    Ovipositor down their throat and lay your eggs in their chest.

    Parent
    ALIEN jioke (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:56:15 PM EST
    wrong audience

    Parent
    The alienated fringe... (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:04:17 PM EST
    caught it the first time...just sayin'.


    Us us us us


    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:11:31 PM EST
    I used to talk about the alien larvae incubating in Cheney's chest cavity and nobody ever picked up on it.

    Parent
    True Fact: you can watch (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:13:49 PM EST
    the fluorescent silicone rubber versions demoed on youtube.  They're ridiculously cringeworthy.

    Parent
    What did the Clintons (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:10:36 PM EST
    Ever do to David Axelrod???

    (CNN)David Axelrod, the former top political adviser to President Barack Obama, said Monday that Hillary Clinton's inner circle should accept more responsibility for the candidate's struggles.

    "When the exact same problems crop up in separate campaigns, with different staff, at what point do the principals say, 'Hey, maybe it's US?'" Axelrod tweeted, referencing the internal turmoil that gripped Clinton's losing 2008 bid.


    Parent

    Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:40:19 PM EST
    is ticked that no one hired him and so he's begging for attention. And not hiring him is probably a good decision.

    Parent
    Jeralyn's rules (none / 0) (#89)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:45:13 PM EST
    Prevent me from saying what I think of David Axelrod as a human being.

    But I hold him at the same level of contempt as I do Dick Cheney.

    Parent

    You're not (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    the only one.

    Parent
    Just help him (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:35:14 PM EST
    raise significant funds for epilepsy on behalf of a foundation co-founded by Axelrod's wife and mother, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy (CURE) (his daughter suffers from it).

    What a guy he is.

    Parent

    so (none / 0) (#94)
    by pitachips on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:04:51 PM EST
    The "internal turmoil" thing in 2008 was made up?

    At what point is it permissible to offer up any criticism of the candidate and the campaign without it being about how everyone is being so mean to the Clintons, or suffering from "CDS?"

    Parent

    You see (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:35:19 PM EST
    the problem is they can't get out of 2008 and just because it happened in 2008 doesn't mean it's going to happen in 2016. In 2008 Hillary came in 3rd in Iowa. In 2016 she won Iowa but despite that the media is desperate to recreate 2008.

    Parent
    How about SDS? Shall we try that? (none / 0) (#98)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:18:38 PM EST
    it also works, btw, as a great sixties reference..

    And speaking of 2008, I see Axlerod still carries the Mark of the Beast. Him, and that traitor to her class and gender Rachel Maddow..

    Parent

    Who cares, Trevor"???" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:21:15 PM EST
    Of late, David Axelrod hasn't really been all that much in demand as a political consultant, given that Britain's Labour Party is at least $500,000 poorer, and its presence in the House of Commons one helluva lot smaller, thanks at least in some part to his most excellent 2014 adventure in London.

    The networks should just give the man his very own Sunday morning talk show already, let him pontificate ad nauseum about D.C. conventional wisdom with Donna Brazille and Michael Steele as his permanent round table guests, and then we can simply ignore him, just as we do George Stephanopoulos.

    P.S.: You may want to re-acquaint yourself with your host's rules on trolling. And in case you're not familiar with the term, per Wikipedia:

    "In Internet slang, a troll (ˈtroʊl, ˈtrɒl) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement."

    Have a nice evening.

    Parent

    Newsweek Irony Olympics (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by smott on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:31:08 PM EST
    http://www.newsweek.com/sanders-complaints-iowa-nevada-420806

    The last Graf is perfect:

    "If the data breach didn't gin up any backlash, it's hard to see Sanders losing votes over skirmishes about logos and union politicking. But is there any doubt that if the roles were reversed and Clinton operatives were behaving this way, it would be a much bigger story? "

    PLEASE.

    Seriously, f** Newsweek, if they cannot acknowledge their own complicity in the very double standard they now wring their hands over. Oh yes, there's NO doubt it would be a bigger story because you ***holes would be all over it.


    The competition is fierce (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:08:00 PM EST
    Poem for a friend of mine (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:43:28 PM EST
    Sweet (none / 0) (#84)
    by smott on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:20:12 PM EST
    Sweet, Dadler

    Parent
    Please post your creative writings. (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    I can't believe (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:52:29 PM EST
    I just watched an interview with each of the 9 voters in Dixville Notch, "the first town in the nation to vote".  And always in front of dozens of bored media dutifully reporting what they do like anyone gives a sh!t.

    It's really the perfect microcosm of this early state nonsense.

    Damn (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:58:02 PM EST
    somehow I forgot all about the meaningless small Notch on the map

    Parent
    Set you alarm (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:05:01 PM EST
    3 towns are voting at midnight tonight!

    Parent
    Too important questions for the Notch (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:22:31 PM EST
    that will surely keep me awake all night.

    1. Why no polling done so we could see how the undecideds broke among the 9.

    2. Is the polling place in the Notch required by law to re-open in the morning until 7pm ET tomorrow evening?


    Parent
    Too? really? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:22:46 PM EST
    They have a whiteboard (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:28:14 PM EST
    With the candidates on it.  9 candidates, 9 voters.   The guy suggested they might each vote for one of them just f@ck with people.

    Parent
    That would be awesome (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:39:24 PM EST
    With only (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    9 people residing there it seems there may come a time when they no longer will be first because nobody will live there.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:59:20 PM EST
    They will steal children.  Like that planet on Star Trek TNG.

    Parent
    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:14:33 PM EST
    I actually googled them and in the 2010 census they had 10 people. So I guess we're down to 9 now.

    Oh, the excitement of them voting is too much for me to stand!

    Parent

    I went to a convention there one (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:00:45 PM EST
    time in June...

    Nice place and the local industry was a prophylactic factory.

    Some seems right they vote first.

    Parent

    Explains (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    The low population I guess.

    Parent
    Well, thank heavens it's not 1996! (none / 0) (#101)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:33:01 PM EST
    Otherwise, you would've had to sit through 32 interviews, rather than just nine.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Marco goes robotic broken record (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:48:11 PM EST
    And it looks like he realized he (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:53:10 PM EST
    was on rewind, too.

    Seriously, he's not human.

    Parent

    I wish it would go away but it's not (3.50 / 2) (#5)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    Now that I understand Clintons transcripts are her intellectual property and she should be allowed to hold onto them so they can be published properly when she so chooses, this just feels more and more like sexism.

    I was just lectured that the country is very upset and it's disgusting she made 300k for 30 mins worth of work and yet the entire nation sat and watched men make 10 times more for 3 hours of work yesterday.  Nobody's blaming them for that.

    And no i was lectured making millions in one day is disgusting no matter what you do.   Ok fine.

    The solution is a more progressive tax structure.  Let people get their paydays but tax them hard.  It's a no brainer.

    Anyway I never got an answer to my question.  Do Barack Obama and Michelle Obama have to reject speaking fees if they want to remain in politics?  Someone on twitter finally confirmed yes, if they want to remain in politics they can't receive speaking fees, that is now the litmus test.

    (1)

    Are you seriously comparing... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    playing pro football to a Goldman Sachs speech?

    How much revenue does a NFL game generate vs. a GS speech? Can you get permanent brain damage sitting next to Lloyd and speaking to his mercenaries about the income disparity problem?

    I could see maybe by listening to Lloyd & Co. a permanent disability could result, but not merely speaking to.

    Besides, like Chris Rock said..."Shaq is rich, the guy who signs Shaq's paycheck is wealthy." We're not buggin' on the rich, least of all those who earn it honest...We're buggin' on the wealthy who get it fraudulently.

    Parent

    Here's what I get from that (3.50 / 2) (#18)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    Shaq gets a paycheck from the wealthy ... that's "taking on" the wealthy...

    A woman gets a paycheck from the wealthy and she's in bed with them.

    Is that what you just said?

    (3)

    Parent

    Ya got me... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:11:50 PM EST
    the jig is up folks, I am a covert operative in the war on women. My cover is blown!

    Parent
    A lot of people don't know (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    When they are being sexist that's why it's called "everyday sexism."

    Here's an article on this topic ...

    Link

    Parent

    True.... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:32:35 PM EST
    And some people don't know when they're being ridiculous.

    Parent
    the scroll wheel is your friend, kdog (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:00:05 PM EST
    Too true... (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:19:16 PM EST
    but sometimes, very rare, this little hobby of ours can lead to oneself checkin' themselves.

    It's happened to me...it's a beautiful thing.

    Parent

    Speak for yourself, kdog. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:32:35 PM EST
    My own cover remains perfectly in place and intac-D'OH!! Now look what you made me do!

    ;-D

    Parent

    If in all my years in NY... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:38:24 PM EST
    I ever voted for Chuckie Schumer, kmk might have been onto something.

    And I've already had the privilege of voting for a woman for president...where were y'all god damnit?

    Parent

    And what woman was that? (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:23:33 PM EST
    Angela Davis?

    ;-D

    Parent

    I can't decide if you are working at (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    being deliberately obtuse or if it just comes naturally.

    Here's the thing: if Clinton had no plans, no intention, no aspiration to run for the highest office in the land, whatever ridiculous sums of money a firm wanted to pay Clinton to hear her special insights and experiences would be of no particular matter.

    If, knowing she had these aspirations, she had donated her fees to charity (hey, there's one way to make those dollars do some real good!), it would be hard to argue that paying her was going to make her beholden to the firms writing the checks.

    Your comparisons to highly-paid athletes don't work.  Apples and footballs.

    Sexism at work here?  Um, no.  I see how hard you keep trying to make it about sexism, but it just has nothing to do with her gender.  I'd be happy to hold Sanders' feet to the transcript fire, assuming you could find where he made the same kind of money from an industry for which there aren't enough zeros and commas to write out its wealth.

    Please stop trying to troll people into a gender war, or a race war.

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:57:40 PM EST
    not sexism, it's a ridiculous purity test, are all these people on the take? Should they all be disqualified from running for office (or at least denied the votes of "true progressives)?

    It's obvious that GS was not looking for any quid pro quo from any of these people(well maybe they were hedging their bets with the cardinal and the archbishop), but of course when the Clintons are involved............

    Parent

    Russell Simons is, for sure... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:29:49 PM EST
    and the Cardinal and Arch Bishop. Those two are obvious, but more from the collection plate than GS.

    Parent
    I am on the take! (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:48:07 PM EST
    I am impure.  I have been paid for speeches.

    Sometimes, I get mileage reimbursement, too.

    And sometimes, I speak for free -- to nonprofit groups -- and I am given a coffee mug or, once, a potted plant.  

    (I bet that Clinton sometimes speaks for free, too.)

    Parent

    Turn your transcripts over! (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:55:58 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:39:30 PM EST
    let's alienate the largest swing vote in the country in a presidential election by accusing the leaders of the Catholic church being "on the take from Goldman Sachs".

    Parent
    That seems to answer the question (1.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:33:57 PM EST
    If the Obamas plan to remain in politics, no speaking fees for them.

    And that's 5.  Wish I could discuss this with you further but I can't.

    Men making millions throwing a ball around, cool.

    Woman making 600k for delivering speeches, not cool.

    Understood.

    You see the reason why I really think this is sexism is because no one has ever once complained about Rep John Lewis speaking at Goldman Sachs.  Time will tell on this issue, and my money is on people forgetting all about it after Clinton is defeated.

    Parent

    Consider this (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:56:26 PM EST
    The people paying the athletes all that money expect to make money off their efforts...

    Now you were saying what about people paying politicians $600K for a 20 minute speech??

    Parent

    Now somebody's getting 600K? (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:44:11 PM EST
    I wouldn't pay that for the Sermon On The Mount.

    Which, btw, is the GOP's least favorite speech.

    Parent

    Someone on Twitter? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    Please don't respond. Your interest one way or another went down the rabbit hole with your big finish.

    Parent
    How can I not respond (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kmkmiller on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    To such a friendly comment.  Also feel free to read some sarcasm into my "big finish.". Pretty sure the "release the transcripts" crowd will forget all about it after Clinton is defeated. Cause issues.

    And snide or not I think it's valid to point out people are outraged over speaking fees after watching the super bowl.  What's that really about?  We shouldn't talk about it?

    Maybe just say this:  I agree a lot of people are paid too much for what little they actually contribute to society.  It's out of control.  That is not sarcasm.  

    And leave it at that.

    (2)

    Parent

    Almost brand new hotel... (none / 0) (#2)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:02:34 PM EST
    Westin at the Denver Airport?

    Isn't Denver Int'l well to the east of town? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:26:46 PM EST
    If I'm not on vacation but have to stay at a hotel, I'd really like it to be in relatively close proximity to where I need to / want to be. That said, everything is relative and convenience sometimes isn't everything.

    The first time I had a business trip to Phoenix, I booked myself into what I thought was a nice hotel which was operated by a reputable chain. Certainly, the price was very reasonable for a midtown hotel located in the business district of a major city. I initially thought I had scored a great deal. I soon learned otherwise upon my arrival.

    The hotel itself was nice enough, but my antennae first went up at check-in, when I noticed that two rather seedy looking "gentlemen's lounges" were just across the street. By the time I returned from a late dinner with friends at about 10:00 p.m., you could hear the heavy bass of the dance music thumping away at those establishments, and there were a few pretty skanky characters hanging out in front of them.

    And along the sidewalk fronting the hotel parking lot itself were a number of young women who were practicing their trade, soliciting what appeared to be a steady stream of willing male clientele. While the two clubs across the street closed at 2:00 a.m., the parade of ladies on the sidewalk and vehicles / drivers on the street looking for a little company continued until about sunrise. I never noticed a single police car on patrol in the community the entire night.

    And I think a couple of those ladies had a room down the hall on my floor, because I could hear them pass by on a regular basis while talking to men in not-so-hushed tones, and their room door was opening and shutting constantly. "C'mon in, everybody, 'cause we're open all night!"

    I immediately checked out that following morning, and relocated to a hotel by the airport, which was also across the street from a church.

    ;-P

    Parent

    I am not familiar with Denver. (none / 0) (#58)
    by vml68 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:01:25 PM EST
    Was just guessing at the hotel. My husband was on his way to Aspen last week and his flight was cancelled. So he stayed at the Westin at the airport. He said it was brand new and really nice for an airport hotel.

    Parent
    Bern her! (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:51:57 PM EST
    That's almost funny (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    And almost accurate.. (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 04:59:08 PM EST
    though she has been known to turn a couple of people into newts.

    Then later they got better.

    Parent

    Or, more accurately (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    She's been able to silence Newt.

    Parent
    I just wish he'd finally go back to (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:04:16 PM EST
    the bottom of that pond where he came from.

    Parent
    You actually (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:18:05 PM EST
    hear him from time to time? Here in GA we never hear from him anymore. I think he shows up at some GOP events but the GOP seems to want to keep that even underground.

    Parent
    You need to watch more FIX news (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:22:11 PM EST
    Or not.

    Parent
    Or any of the (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    "Sunday shows". He is a fixture.  Don't ask me why.  But if Bill Kristol who hasn't been right about anything since 1984 can keep making his living this way, why not Newt.

    Parent
    I remember his Obama book.. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:35:45 PM EST
    something about Obama leading the long slow march toward "socialism and secularism" (the two S's)..

    It made think of when the PTA used to say rock n roll lead to miscegenation and heavy petting on the first date.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:36:47 PM EST
    As you can tell I never watch Sunday morning shows. They annoy me too much with all their "beltway conventional wisdom"

    Parent
    Ben Jealous endorsement (none / 0) (#40)
    by AnnL on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    Heard Ben Jealous on CNN earlier he's supporting Bernie because Clinton was in favor of crime bill (1994). But didn't Bernie vote for it?

    Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:38:01 PM EST
    did vote for the bill.

    Parent
    Ben Jealous endorsement (none / 0) (#45)
    by AnnL on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:46:22 PM EST
    I guess I don't understand Jealous's advocacy if his guy voted for the bill. Why hasn't there been some push back on this b.s.?

    Parent
    Have to (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:48:45 PM EST
    Put it on the list of things there has been no pushback on.

    Parent
    But...but.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:49:25 PM EST
    Iraq War Vote!

    Parent
    And the progressive congressional caucus (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:53:49 PM EST
    Or whatever the hell its called.

    Parent
    Hillary's (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 05:54:36 PM EST
    campaign has pushed back against it but you're asking the media morons to actually do some research and follow up on things?

    Parent
    Oy. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    How does one logically hold Mrs. Clinton -- who was First Lady 22 years ago and not yet a member of Congress -- entirely accountable for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law No. 103-322), while simultaneously making an exception for Sen. Sanders, who as Vermont's sole U.S. House member actually voted in favor of the enacting legislation (H.R. 1355)?

    Perfect is always the enemy of the good -- particularly whenever perfection isn't nearly so cut and dried as some people would otherwise wish to believe. When one's purity of intent succumbs to the political expediency of the given moment, its result often stands as an example of craven hypocrisy -- much as Mr. Jealous's endorsement of Sanders does here.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Easy! (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by smott on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    Because, Clinton.

    Parent
    Haha (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 06:40:11 PM EST
    so I see the president of Mexico is declaring that he absolutely will not pay for that "stupid wall".

    Dogpile on Marco (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:21:53 PM EST
    Jeb - Hillary would "strip the bark off Marco"

    Christie - Hillary would "eat him alive"

    The punditry is .........strained tonight.

    Just heard a guy say Bernie is a great cheerleader but Hillary is the quarterback.

    Setting aside the genderfu@k the mental image of Bernie as cheerleader will stay with me.
    As will the one of Hillary stripping the bark off Marco.  

    This voting stuff is arriving just time.

    I saw (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 07:48:57 PM EST
    that clip with Christie and I laughed and I laughed. It's amazing how easy that was.

    Parent
    Apologize in advance (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:08:20 PM EST
    But this is weird and newsworthy

    In a live event in NH Donald just called Ted Cruz a pu$$y.

    Ok, that's weird.  But WHY he did it is perhaps weirder.   He called him this because he is not willing to enthusiastically support water boarding.

    It was surreal.   He's bashing Ted and a woman screams this out from the audience.  Donald pauses, tells her to scream it louder and then says it himself.

    Can this election cycle get more weird?   Do we really want to know the answer to that?

    And of course (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:14:46 PM EST
    I am already so disgusted by Trump, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:42:37 PM EST
    I can't bear to look at the video.

    I made the mistake of watching some of the Sunday shows, and had to stop because no one was asking Trump HOW he was going to do any of the things he says he's going to do; he just says words, stream of consciousness style, doing his crazy hand jive, pursing his lips.  Ugh, I can't stand it.

    These talking heads just seem so gobsmacked by his bullying insanity that they can't do much more than just move on to the next topic.

    Where is it going to end with these guys?  How is it even possible one of them is going to be the nominee?  And why, in the name of God, are the head-to-head numbers so close?  Why wouldn't any Dem - my dog, my mailbox - not be leading by 30-50 points against Trump?

    Is close to half the country just flat-out insane?

    Parent

    I believe that (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:52:46 PM EST
    Half of the country is, in fact, insane.  I hope to god it's not more than that but the ejection will be close as usual.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is I believe misguided.

    This comment is breaking social media apparently.    You have to admit.  This the stunning.   Really.  It is.   If even one year ago if some one had told you the person apparently about to win substantially in the NH primary, on the eve of voting, would call his closest rival a pu$$y in a live campaign event,  would you gave believed that?

    Parent

    This is part of what boggles my mind, (none / 0) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:01:22 PM EST
    that I just can't believe anyone with a quorum of brain cells could possibly want to elect someone like this.  I mean, we thought Cheney was megalomaniacal, but it turns out Cheney was a piker.  He thought you had to hide it, keep it on the DL, when Trump - and to lesser extents Cruz and Rubio - is showing that it would have worked better if he'd just been right out there with it.  Kill, torture, bring back the guillotine!

    And the media just sit there and try to deal with these people as if they were sane. "Oh, so you want to waterboard and worse - interesting.  Do you care that it's illegal?  No? Okay then, moving on."

    Jesus Christ on a crutch, if this is who people want, we are well and truly fked - even if we do manage to prevail in November.

    Parent

    No, I would not have believed it. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    It is beyond offensive, in the most sexist way possible. It says, my adversary is weak, that is, he is like a woman; and by woman, I mean a woman's sexual organ; and to express that, I will use the coarsest slang possible. And by saying he is like a woman, I mean to be derogatory, since "like a woman" is a harsh insult, to me. All in one word.

    Parent
    Yes, me too. (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:09:32 PM EST
    A year ago.   Now I'm finding it hard to be that surprised.  

    Thought experiment - imagine what happens against Hilkary.

    Parent

    Now reading (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    Trump didn't say it - audience member did.

    Parent
    No idea if true (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:09:10 PM EST
    Haven't watched it yet

    Parent
    He said it (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:10:06 PM EST
    I posted the video

    Parent
    He said (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    "She called him a pu$$y"

    Are we actually saying that doesnt "count"?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:14:05 PM EST
    I just said I was reading around the intertubes, but said I hadn't watched the video yet.

    Parent
    Much as I didn't want to, I watched; (none / 0) (#119)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    I felt like I needed to see it for myself.

    Will anyone call him on it, or will he hide behind "I was just telling the audience what she said?"

    I cannot even imagine, it makes me sick to think about, how he's going to handle running against Hillary, if they are the nominees.  Because you know, even though he "loves the women," he is not going to tolerate being bested by one.

    He's a bully of the worst kind - not that there's a bully of the best kind, but you know what I mean.

    Parent

    Like I said below (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:25:27 PM EST
    That clip didn't show the audience reaction.  They loved it.  This will just be another thing.  It won't hurt him at all.   The man skates on the edge tho diesnt he?  Not many front runners would do that on the eve of voting.

    Parent
    It won't hurt him with his core supporters (none / 0) (#127)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:43:16 PM EST
    But what about otherwise-undecided or not-firmly-committed socially conservative "rock-ribbed" NH Republicans? Not their style, I wouldn't think.

    Parent
    Sometimes (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:46:24 PM EST
    I wonder if there won't be a huge Stop Trump vote with those voters in NH perhaps even independents abandoning Bernie to do it. And then other days I think naw, Trump will probably attract those voters.

    Parent
    But honestly Peter (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:50:51 PM EST
    How many time have we heard this?  You could be right but I see no evidence.  Here's how I think this works, all the rock-ribbed are now split between 4-5 candidates.  And they will be for a while.  Perhaps long enough for Donald.  And if he grabs the thing they will all fall in line.  No matter what they say now.   When it comes down to Donald or a democrat very few will jump ship.  IMO

    Parent
    He got some months to say (none / 0) (#136)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:08:04 PM EST
    something worse than this, something he'll have an even harder time backing away from. And I'm betting that he will. Then what happens?


    Parent
    I don't necessarily agree (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:12:22 PM EST
    That said, in light of what just happened, which no one on earth would have ever predicted, predicting what happen next seems very misguided.

    Parent
    I'm not surprised.. (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:30:30 PM EST
    the man obviously has some form of spoiled-entitled-rich brat tourettes that gets worse the more applause he gets.

    No way is he going to make to November.

    Parent

    Lawerence (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:42:56 PM EST
    Is having a conversation with 3 republican voters.   One Trump and two others. I forget who they were supporting.  The reactions to this were very interesting.  The Trump supporter was completely fine with it and in fact explained, again, this is what people like about him.  But the reactions of the others, one woman, were interesting too.  They did not exactly endorse it but were not, let's say, horrified.
    You definitely got the impression that, as I said above, if they had to they would hold their noses and bite for him.


    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#142)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:43:57 PM EST
    Not bite for him, VOTE for him.

    Parent
    Here's how it went down (none / 0) (#143)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:01:29 PM EST
    according to the Philadelphia Inquirer reporter who was there:
    At Saturday's debate, Cruz was asked about waterboarding, and answered that he would not support its "widespread use."  Apparently that answer surprised Trump, who expected Cruz to say he is "absolutely" in favor of it.  

    "But he didn't," Trump said [Monday, at a rally]. "He was concerned about the answer, because some people..."

    The Republican presidential nominee paused, and pointed to a woman in the audience and quipped: "She just said a terrible thing."  Trump hemmed and hawed for a minute, as he often does when he's about to repeat an audience member's inflammatory statement.

    "You know what she said? Shout it out," Trump said.

    With a laugh and a head shake, Trump added: "You're not allowed to say ... and I never want to hear that from you again," Trump said, before adding: "She said, I never expect to hear that from you again, she said, 'He's a p***sy.' "

    "That's terrible," he added.


    The article. In this way, Trump consciously attempts to build deniability into the way he says it.


    Parent
    But this is what Trump does. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:13:22 PM EST
    He says things like "I'm not going to say she's a bimbo, but well...."

    And tonight, he said, "okay, I'll tell you: she said 'he's a pu$$y.'"  And then he smiles.

    He encourages this kind of thing.  He laughs about it.  It's part of his breaking away from the restrictions of political correctness.

    Parent

    Ha (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:18:40 PM EST
    Which he MIGHT get away with if he didn't repeat it.

    Maddow played it unbeeped.   Hayes beefed it.

    The YouTube video I posted doesn't show the effect of the audience exploding into TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP.

    Parent

    breaking away from the restrictions (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:44:27 PM EST
    of civility. As he works on leading his followers and the nation away from civilisation itself.

    Parent
    The thought occurs to me (none / 0) (#120)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:20:35 PM EST
    maybe a thought just for now, but a recurring one: The primary process on both sides has its Pied Piper of Hamlin.  

    Populism is promising ... but, when it turns to pitchforks or stake burnings, the spontaneous (or, perhaps, orchestrated) clamor turns surly at best ... then, the Pied Piper marches to an unexpected place.  

    I can't remember what happens after the entranced followers march to the tune of the Piper???

    Parent

    Those are the children (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Towanda on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:28:47 PM EST
    entranced and following the piper on the path to . . . a future that they believe in.

    Parent
    There are several versions (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    None end well for the children.

    Parent
    Was Hillary Clinton ever favored to win the (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:36:41 PM EST
    2016 NH Dem. primary against Sen. Sanders?

    Back in July (none / 0) (#105)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 08:43:38 PM EST
    Any predictions (none / 0) (#121)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    about the ordained loss for HRC  in NH tomorrow night?  Any further predictions about how long that theme lasts before the turn to the Nevada and South Carolina projected narrative?

    Hey ... my drollness is showing.

    Parent

    I said Sanders by 12 +/- 2 (none / 0) (#124)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:34:47 PM EST
    But I just saw a photo snapped at one of HRC's GOTV rallies being held tonight.  There is a snow emergency on, HRC is expected to lose by 26, and yet there areally HUNDREDS of people in a small gym somewhere in NH out to show support for her.  And this isn't the only one going on.

    Guess they didn't get the memo.

    Parent

    Too long (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:44:26 PM EST
    probably however maybe once they start looking at Nevada and SC they will start talking about something else. It seems Sanders campaign in Nevada is just a huge mess. The one in SC is not any better.

    Parent
    Have you been seeing (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:01:41 PM EST
    What's been going on with the young woman approached ny the Sanders campaign, who agreed to sit on a steering committee about immigration policy (the campaign wanted the perspective of a Nevada DREAMer), and she was told she would be engaged with the campaign and possibly Sanders himself. She specifically told the campaign that she was not endorsing him or any candidate at the time.  Turns out, she was never invited to engage with the campaign or Sanders, but her name was released without her permission stating she eas a prominent Latina supporter of Sanders.

    Needless to say, she is livid and has decided to endorse HRC.

    What the hell is wrong with his campaign?  It's like the Keystone Kops are running the place - let's just keep using images, logos, newspaper endorsements, and names of people in certain demographics to make it LOOK like they support us. Even when they really don't.

    Terrible.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:05:48 PM EST
    I just saw that and then when one dreamer Astrid endorsed Hillary his senior staffers started trashing her all over twitter. Hillary has a long, long relationship with Hispanics going back many years. I guess the Sanders campaign forgot how many enthusiastic Hispanic supporters she had back in 2008.

    Parent
    Don't get me started on Hillary & Latinos (none / 0) (#144)
    by MKS on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 11:02:41 PM EST
    I watched her cream my guy last time around with Latinos.

    The weekend that Obama held his big rally in California where Maria Shriver showed up, Hillary was seen sitting a humble Latino house in Las Vegas sympathetically listening a tale of woe.

    I knew Obama was in trouble.  Didn't come that close in California and lost Latinos 2-1.

    A strong mother figure who helps the probrecitos?  Hillary will always win Latinos.  

    Parent

    The Endorsement-Confusion (none / 0) (#140)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:33:23 PM EST
    It is beginning to look like there are more than the one or two instances of..er, um-- Endorsement Confusion by the Sanders' campaign.  From confusion about the Nashua Telegraph to confusion about American Legion pictures to confusion about the matter to which you alluded, jbindc.  

    A pattern of misinformation or misleading even.

    Parent

    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 09:53:26 PM EST
    Has confirmed he is serious.  Says he has to move by March.

    They talked (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:01:35 PM EST
    about him in Iowa and there was zero interest there.

    Parent
    Bloomberg should change and run as a (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 08, 2016 at 10:23:41 PM EST
    Demo.

    Parent