home

Saturday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 01:43:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I like Army +22 versus Navy.

Open Thread

< Thursday Open Thread | Monday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Saturday Open Thread | 210 comments (210 topical)
    Increasing our exports (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 04:40:35 PM EST

    Gun used on Paris terror attack linked to Florida arms dealer

    The (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    EQUAL TREATMENT TIMES

    Parent
    This same company... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:17:54 PM EST
    company had supplied rockets, grenades and other weapons to Nicaraguan rebels as part of the Iran-Contra scandal.


    Parent
    interesting research . . . (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:13:37 AM EST
    But even honest researchers are affected by the unconscious bias that creeps in when everyone thinks the same way. Certain results -- especially when they reinforce commonly held ideas -- tend to receive a lower standard of scrutiny. This might help explain why, when the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project recently sought to retest 100 social science studies, the group was unable to confirm the original findings more than half the time. . .

    Abstract

    Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity - particularly diversity of viewpoints - for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority's thinking. (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

    Since a number of you have expressed your dislike for my posting in this forum at times . . . the research seems to suggest that I might be helping keeping you folks a bit more honest and/or serving other useful purposes . . .

    Though of course, perhaps my only real purpose is to encourage you to read some of the Heller decision before you disagree with it . . .  and become some left-leaning echo-chamber that refuses to consider an argument.

    A little red meat. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    Rubio's turn:  Marco Rubio will work, if elected, to overturn Obergefell v Hodges by appointing Supreme Court justices who will do so.

    And, to show show the M.E. countries (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 06:15:17 PM EST
    what happens when you mess with Uncle Sam, he'll issue an executive order ordering our Universities to develop machines that run on perpetual energy.

    Parent
    Oh my (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    Perhaps not VP

    Donald on Ted on Faux Nooze Sunday

    "I don't think he's qualified to be president ... look at the way he's dealt with the Senate, where he goes in there like a, you know, frankly like a little bit of a maniac. You're never going to get things done that way.

    "You can't walk into the Senate, and scream, and call people liars, and not be able to cajole and get along with people."

    Irony is truly dead

    How long till Donald says (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    He's not qualified to be president because he was not born in the US?

    Betting pool?

    Parent

    French citizens reject Nazi-esque National Front (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:34:46 PM EST
    in weekend elections. Marine Le Pen and her National Right party failed to win office, as hordes turned out to vote against them.

    Capt (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 08:50:46 AM EST
    Count yourself lucky that your health insurance premiums went up only a few bucks.

    Many people aren't going to be so lucky.

    No matter how you slice the numbers, Obamacare premiums will rise significantly next year. The Obama administration estimates rates will rise 7.5 percent in 2016, compared with 2 percent in 2015.

    Insurance markets are complicated. But the story of Obamacare's 2016 premium increase is actually pretty simple: Many health plans -- even those with decades of experience selling insurance -- underestimated how sick health law enrollees would be.

    Add to that, the penalty for an individual being uninsured goes up to $695 or 2% of income (whichever is higher)

    7.5% (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 08:56:14 AM EST
    is about average for premium increases annually I would think. I have seen them go up as much as 20% in one year.

    Parent
    Plus it's close to the amount mine increased (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    The thing people don't seem to quite grasp is that when using my federal income tax to pay for most of my premium makes my payment low enough that HORRIFYING 7.5% increase equals about 14 bucks.  
    I'm surprised it took so long for that kind of response.   Actual facts you know.  Scary things in the info  bubble.

    Parent
    Actual favys (none / 0) (#166)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    Like I said - you're lucky.

    Millions won't be.

    You know. Math and all that.

    Parent

    There's is a map at the link for anyone interested (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:25:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    But since, as I posted, they went up an average of 2% last year, an average of 7.5% is a big jump.

    Also, don't forget that the subsidies have a weird little "poison pill" built in:  currently, subsidies are calculated to make the second-cheapest silver plan on the exchange cost a fixed percentage (or less) of an individual's income.  This percentage is calculated on a sliding scale, so it is low for those folks near the poverty line and higher for those near the top of the baseline.  However, when the subsidies start costing the government more than .0504% of the GDP, the subsidy expenditure will be capped, which means some people will see decreased subsidies and some will lose them altogether. (This probably can't happen until at least 2019, but the threat is out there).

    So, it isn't just jumps in premium costs that matter. (And of course, 7.5% is an average, so there are lots of people who will find much larger increases as well as those who will find no change or even decreases).

    Parent

    Not all silver plans (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:24:39 AM EST
    I just went through the process.  SOME silver plans.  And there is gold and bronze plans.  I know how desperate you are for this to not work.  

    Sorry.

    From your link

    There are other insurers who didn't have this problem, who priced correctly and turned a profit. But they're in the minority of those selling on the health law's new marketplaces.



    Parent
    Plus (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:33:17 AM EST
    As I said in my original comment you did not respond to for some reason there was a huge increase of companies and plans available.  At least for or five times as many.

    Parent
    On the other hand...my daughter (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:47:23 AM EST
    and her little family of three had been paying $600+ per month for a Care First/BCBS plan, and were notified their premium was going up to $900+.  They make too much money to qualify for any kind of subsidy, so they get no relief.

    She found a United Health plan that split the difference, with lower out-of-pocket costs, but...United Health may only be on the exchange for another 2 years.  I guess they're not making enough money to make it worth their while to stay in.

    But with a baby due near the end of the month, she couldn't risk falling into the gap if she had the baby in January: it costs a lot of money to have a baby when you don't have insurance coverage!  As it is, she and her husband have to have their out-of-pocket costs to the hospital paid before she delivers, and that's several thousand dollars (they do let you pay it over the course of the pregnancy, which is good, but still...that's a lot of money even with insurance).

    I suppose my point is that it's a mixed bag - but then, that's true of pretty much everything.

    Parent

    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by CST on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:56:33 AM EST
    This is one of many major reasons that a Clinton/Sanders win is so important.

    Obamacare was half of a healthcare bill.  It made significant strides addressing the access problem, but didn't do nearly enough to rein in costs.

    It's true that health insurance has been rising for years, it's not rising worse under Obamacare (maybe even slightly better).  But it was already too expensive, and it's still rising, and that still needs to be fixed.  So yea, mixed bag is right.

    Parent

    If there's one thing I am certain about, it's (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:24:53 AM EST
    that the only place health care and insurance are going in the hands of Republicans is straight to hell, and it's going to take millions of people along for a very unpleasant ride.  

    Have you been following the "experiment" taking place in Iowa with Medicaid?  As near as I can tell, it's a preview of coming attractions, should the GOP win the WH:

    In an extraordinary social policy experiment, Iowa's Gov. Terry Branstad (R) is kicking about 560,000 of the state's poorest residents out of the traditional Medicaid health-care program for the poor and forcing virtually all of them to sign up with private insurers. The trend toward managed care for Medicaid has been underway for decades and some 39 states do it to some extent. But experts inside and outside government say no state has tried to make such a wholesale change so quickly -- in Iowa's case, launching the program fewer than 90 days after signing contracts with private health-care companies.

    Iowa is conducting an extreme test of a familiar premise of free-market conservatism: that the private sector is more efficient at management and service delivery than government. But the results so far should give pause to those who automatically make such assumptions. The transition of Iowa's $4.2 billion Medicaid program has made the rollout of HealthCare.gov look orderly.

    An Iowa administrative law judge late last month recommended that Iowa throw out the contract it awarded to WellCare, one of the four companies hired to manage the new program, noting that the company failed to disclose details of its "integrity agreement" with the federal government after the 2014 convictions of three former executives involving the misuse of Medicaid money. In addition, WellCare had paid $138 million to resolve claims that it overbilled Medicare and Medicaid, and the firm had also hired two former Iowa legislators, who improperly communicated with the Branstad administration during the bidding process.

    [...]

    The Des Moines Register has reported that the four companies selected to operate the Iowa program have had more than 1,500 regulatory sanctions combined and have paid $10.2 million in fines over the past five years. These involved canceled appointments, privacy breaches, untimely processing and failure to obtain informed consent.

    The Iowa rollout has been hampered by delays, and some beneficiaries of the program are only now getting their enrollment packets, though the deadline for signing up is Dec. 17. Health-care providers complain that they are being forced to sign incomplete contracts or face a penalty, and they complain that some contracts don't cover services that had been covered under the existing Medicaid program.

    Sounds just wonderful, doesn't it?

    Parent

    A mixed bag is correct (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    Access is somewhat improved but meaningful mechanisms needed to rein in costs are not in the legislation. IMO to rein in costs, health care needs to administered in a level playing field environment (single payer or highly regulated) and drug prices must be negotiated.

    Sanders advocates single payer and Clinton does not. She wants to maintain the private insurance model and tweak Obamacare. From what I've read Clinton's plan does not do enough to rein in private insurance premiums but as in everything else it is better than any vague Republican plan which would eliminate ObamaCare and Medicare and replace these programs with vouchers. Effect of voucher plan on Medicare:

    The Congressional Budget Ofice has  calculated that the share of standardized medical expenses paid out-of-pocket by the typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under Ryan's plan, compared with 25% under current law.


    Parent
    Premiums rose substantially before Obamacare (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    Individual health insurance premiums in the years before President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law had large average increases and a high variability in rate hikes across different states and insurers, a study released Thursday found.

    The study, which examined the years 2008 to 2010, found that health insurance premiums for people buying coverage on their own--not as part of an employer-provided plan--grew more than 10 percent on average.

    The study found that in 2008, premiums grew by an average of 9.9 percent, and by 10.8 percent the following year.

    In 2010, premiums grew an average of 11.7 percent. That was the last year that individual insurance market prices were not affected by mandates of the Affordable Care Act, which Obama signed in June 2010.
    ...
    The study also found "enormous variation in rate increases across the states."

    For example, in 2008, the average premium increase ranged from just 2.8 percent in Iowa to 14.7 percent in Wisconsin. And in 2010, Idaho's individual insurance market had an average premium hike of just 3 percent, but Nebraska's market saw an average premium increase of a whopping 21.8 percent.
     . Link">

    The current increases and the variances are inherent in the current private insurance model. Without significant changes to this model, IMO no significant long term cost reductions will be achieved.

    Parent

    You beat me (none / 0) (#178)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:01:32 AM EST


    Parent
    That's such a drag, Anne (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:13:33 AM EST
    and just goes to prove that the system really is convoluted. A lot of the plans, as devised, are only "affordable" for people who are under the income bar where they can still get a subsidy AND don't have actual healthcare needs! I mean, God forbid, a woman should need maternity care. Several thousands of dollars upfront is just an assault on the senses.

    God forbid someone has diabetes, or heart issues, or gets cancer...navigating through all the details of each plan forces one to juggle through priorities...deductibles, co-pays, drug costs, whether you need vision care included, lab tests coverage.

    My silver plan (the only one that made sense for me to buy into) is going up next year almost 20%, and in the past couple months I've had some serious medical needs. Can't wait to get the bill for lab tests. Yeah, I get a subsidy, but I'll still be paying almost 20% more for the same plan, and I'm plowing into savings to cover it already.

    Hopefully, once your daughter's baby is born, and the upfront costs are behind them, you'll all just be able to enjoy a new little one in the family...as it should be!

    Parent

    I'm very curious how it works for you (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    You work?  I'm retired with my only official in one SS.  I had some significant med bills this year too.   I had a colonoscopy early in the year, these were supposed to be free but the insurance companies got around that by saying that because I've had them before it was not screening but diagnostic, and then I had a massive kidney stone that resulted in all kinds of MRIs and ultimately out patient surgery,  I ended up with about 4,500 bucks out of pocket which I'm now working on paying but without coverage it would have been 10 times as much.    Also one welcome surprise was that because of that I hit my out of pocket limit and since then everything has been free.  Doctor visits, prescriptions, no co pay at all.   Even my flu shot was free.
    Also my cousin who has congenital heart problems was having trouble navigating the process so she called one of the guides suggested and she said they made it much easier.

    Parent
    Yes, I work (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    but in my field (Landscape/garden/plant nursery), the demand is seasonal dependent, so you don't always get the same hours every week for more than 3-4 months. I was luckier than some others this year, in that I was able to finagle six days a week (48 hours) for eight months, between two employers. But it was financial necessity...the work doesn't pay enough to live on in Seattle. I've had to dip into savings in order to pay my health care premium. And the schedule was exhausting, as the work is very physical.

    One seasonal job ended in October, so I've been putting in just under 40 hours at the other place, but that will go down to many fewer hours in January and February, and my insurance plan is going up.

    My doctor visits are no co-pay if they are annual visits, but I've had to go in for some outpatient surgery and lots of lab tests. So far, everything is benign, but I will have to pay out of pocket for some things...I don't know how much yet, as the last procedure was just last week, and I'm nervously waiting for the bill. I also have two other referrals for things I need to take care of soon, each of which will be only partly covered.

    As an example on prescriptions, my cap for brand name drugs is $50, generic is $20. But the insurance company will not provide me a generic brand asthma inhaler, only the brand name, so I get charged $50 for each inhaler. Even the pharmacist is shocked I have to fork that over each time, but there's not much I can do. My plan offers other things that I think are fair (and that I really need) but it's a balancing act.

    It may be less expensive now than it would have been five years ago, but that's cold comfort for someone who works her butt off doing physical work, and still has medical needs.

    Too many of us are working too hard, can barely cover the costs, and don't see the possibility of retirement any time soon. We need a single payer plan. The insurance controlled system is a loser.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    I sure if I had been uninsured the care I got with the kidney stone would have been very different.   It was excellent.

    Parent
    I have heard this from other people (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:01:04 AM EST
    Including family members who have employer insurance.   I'm truly sorry.  I guess, my own supposition, that insurance companies are doing their best to continue screwing people and right now their only target is outside the Afordable care act.   You would think it will have to stop at some point.  I'm not sure as a voter and a consumer there is anything we can do but vote for democrats who will be more likely to reign it on as opposed to republicans who will do everything they can possibly do to make it worse because right now, as far as I can see and people I talk to. the only people unhappy with Obamacare are the ones not getting it.

    I don't have a solution but I'm sorry for your family.

    Parent

    7.5% (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:44:42 AM EST
    is average. Yeah, compared to 2% but nobody seemed to be lauding the fact that they only went up 2% and now are moaning and groaning about them going up 7.5%.

    I was in this market back in 2002 to 2006 and saw my premiums double or more in a few short years. I don't think 7.5% is that bad. The truth of the matter is it's just how private insurance works. There's never been a year that I know of where they went down or even stayed the same. Basically the way to keep costs down has been to lower your coverage. Nothing has changed a whole lot.

    Parent

    Related, Sort of... (none / 0) (#191)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:16:56 AM EST
    ...but last time I called my agent to add a car I asked why it was going up, they said because the value of your new car is greater than you old one, then I asked why they don't go down as my vehicle depreciates.

    I did not get an answer, only that is not how it works.
    -----------------

    To make any sort of argument about rates one has to also include the cost of medical expenses for the same periods.

    Parent

    Historical data on health insurance increases (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    The Employer Health Benefits Survey, published by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, is considered the definitive source for health benefits cost information, and its most recent data stretch from 1999 to 2010.

    In 2000, average annual premiums for single people were $2,471, a number that rose to $4,242 by 2006 -- a 72 percent increase. The amounts for family coverage rose over the same period from $6,438 to $11,480 -- a 78 percent increase.

    We also looked at just the portion of premiums paid by employees, because that's the number most consumers really care about. For individuals, the average premium paid by the employee went from $334 to $627; and for families, the employee contribution went from $1,619 to $2,973. That's an increase of 87 percent and 83 percent, respectively.
    Link



    Parent
    More data (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    From 2008 to 2013, premiums rose by an average of 5.8 percent per year. But between 1999 and 2008, premiums rose by an average of 13.2 percent a year -- in other words, twice as fast as premiums rose under Obama.

    So, contrary to the tweet's implication that Obama has presided over runaway health care costs, premiums are actually increasing less quickly than previously.
    Link



    Parent
    shoephone (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 12:23:11 PM EST
    Very sorry for your health worries.  Sending good vibes.  I guess I'm lucky all my prescriptions are available generic except Crestor.  Which is very expensive.  Fortunately there is a program here that, if you have the right Doctor - I do not but my doctor knows one who writes me a prescription - is available for about 70 bucks.  Oddly I can get three months for the same price as one (shrug) so it works out.
    Generally my prescriptions are about three bucks.

    This may be related to MoBlues comment about different prices in different states.

    Comedy copyrighted by Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Dadler on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 01:59:00 PM EST
    A few months ago, during a commercial break during a lumberjack competition on ESPN Wilderness, I saw yet another ad for the little blue pills, and it was the first time I'd taken note of one thing that the voiceover said: "Ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex."

    Hmm.

    So I asked my GP. "Doc, is my heart healthy enough for sex?"

    Now, make no mistake, this is a handsome cat, the best looking doctor I've ever had, and he could hear the slight break in my tone. After a moment, he gave me the sweetest sort of sideways glance, and he then said, "Dave, there is the most romantic little Italian joint at the end of the block. Why don't you put on a nice sweater and meet me there about 7:30...and we'll just see about that heart of yours."

    And that, in short, is how I became a doctor's wife.

    Happy Monday, my old friends.

    Yes, Jim, sales taxes are regressive, (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    and hit the poor unduly, which is why that's not an efficient or sustainable model.

    Single payer--based on the Medicare system, as you say you desire--can be done, using a progressive (read: fair) model, and it will save money over the current for-profit corporate framework.

    It's in the Bernie Sanders plan:

    With NHI, $592 billion would be saved annually by cutting the administrative waste of some 1,300 private health insurers ($476 billion) and reducing pharmaceutical prices to European levels ($116 billion). These savings would be enough to cover all of the 44 million uninsured (at the time of his study) and upgrade benefits for all other Americans, even including dental and long-term care. A single-payer public financing system would be established, similar to traditional (not privatized) Medicare, coupled with a private delivery system

    ....

    In addition to the federal government saving money with NHI, 95 percent of Americans would pay less than they now do for health insurance and medical care. NHI would be funded by a progressive system of taxation, mainly the payroll tax for those with annual incomes less than $225,000--$900 for those with incomes less than $53,000 a year, $6,000 for those earning $100,000 a year, and $12,000 for those with incomes of $200,000. Employers would be relieved of their burden of paying for employer-sponsored health insurance, while gaining a healthier workforce and greater capacity to compete in a global marketplace.

    And, if more funding were needed, there's always that other progressive (fair) option, of payroll taxes on the uber-rich,--so they can enjoy the same responsibility as the rest of us--and making corporate welfare hogs like Microsoft, Boeing, and Amazon actually pay what they owe, instead of allowing their offshoring, their swimming through tax loopholes, and sucking billion$ out of citizens in the form of taxpayer subsidies.

    why murder chrgs rather than manslaughter? (none / 0) (#1)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 02:38:22 PM EST
    So, in Louisana there were 2 dumb off-duty LEO.

    I don't know if we even know why the 2 shot the dad and the kid.  I agree that it is or looks reprehensible.

    A police officer who witnessed the two city marshals, Derrick Stafford and Norris Greenhouse Jr., open fire on Few and his son told investigators he didn't fire his own weapon because "he didn't fear for his life," according to the filing.

    The document also said Marksville Police Sgt. Kenneth Parnell III's body camera shows that Christopher Few's empty hands are raised and visible inside the vehicle "when gunfire becomes audible." Few was critically wounded by two gunshots, while his son, Jeremy Mardis, received five gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene.

    If the 2 leo thought that there was some reason for them to be shooting, they were acting in a way that was careless, reckless, irresponible and reprehensible.  But they likely did not begin the day or even a chase with the idea of shooting a kid or a dad.  I mean, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, but at least most LEO did not begin a day with the idea or intention of finding and shooting a kid, and they don't adopt such an idea even when they have gotten angry.

    We have a charge for such somewhat accidental deaths and it is manslaughter.

    same question for the LEOs in Baltimore . . .

    they took some actions that individually or collective were irresponsible, careless, reckless and negligent  but if and when a person drives over the speed limit by 15 mph or drive through a red light at 40 mph and there is an accident and a death, "we" don't charge it as "murder," because it does not have the same intention as murder, even though the conduct is reckless, careless and reprehensible.

    If the charge of murder is supposed to include a person having the intent to kill, then, wouldn't that mean that all the leo in Baltimore are innocent of that charge, although guilty of being dumb and negligent?

    We need to see the body cam video (none / 0) (#11)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    and other evidence before deciding what really happened.

    "Christopher Few's empty hands are raised and visible inside the vehicle when gunfire becomes audible."

    Does that mean Few's hands were clearly raised and visible before making the decision to shoot? We don't know yet. One thing for sure, the sheriff in charge of the investigation wasted little time in arresting the officers and making public statements against the marshals that suggest guilt of something horrible.

    I mean, I am giving them the benefit of the doubt, but at least most LEO did not begin a day with the idea or intention of finding and shooting a kid, and they don't adopt such an idea even when they have gotten angry.

    I agree about the kid but there have been rumors of one of the marshals having a long standing feud with Few. Perhaps we'll learn more about what their intentions were. Of course, I know it's too much to ask of people around here to wait for the evidence to come out.  

    Parent

    a prob with some law school ed? (none / 0) (#2)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 03:09:23 PM EST
    Scholarly studies have piled up showing that race and gender diversity in the workplace can increase creative thinking and improve performance. Meanwhile, excessive homogeneity can lead to stagnation and poor problem-solving.

    Unfortunately, new research also shows that academia has itself stopped short in both the understanding and practice of true diversity -- the diversity of ideas -- and that the problem is taking a toll on the quality and accuracy of scholarly work.

    Jonathan Alder writes:

    The lack of ideological diversity is a particular problem for law schools as it leaves many law students unexposed to perspectives and arguments with which they will have to contend in the practice of law. Most legal academics are well to the left of those whom law students will represent, as well as to the majority of judges before which they will practice. One need not agree with one's client or a judge to be an effective advocate, but it is important to understand the perspective of the position one has to represent -- as well as the perspective of the other side. The best legal advocates fully comprehend the strongest arguments for the other side and are able to present arguments that can appeal to decision-makers who may approach difficult legal questions from a perspective quite different from their own. On many issues, however, the perspectives of legal academics are relatively monolithic and reflect little understanding of (let alone sympathy for) common right-of-center viewpoints.

    A week or two ago, I quoted Heller, in a thread given to the purpose of discussing Heller

    The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. . . . apart from that
    clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

    Neither the lawyers nor the nonlawyer opponents of Heller who post in this blog interact with or interacted with these crucial two sentences.  They blithely assumed that the opposite was a proven legal "fact," and that, based on that proven "fact," all that remained was to show that the militia was an early form of the army, state-run and state-governed.  If the militia was an arm of the state, then, the 2nd amendment does not speak of an individual right!!!  Oh, boy!

    About a week ago J deleted a post of mine on the basis that she regarded it as a bigoted rant.  After I learned of this, I posted a post with several statistics with citations and references to Pew Research and other studies to demonstrate the statements.  One poster followed this up with the claim that I was convicted once of bigotry and simply repeating the error.  I hope it is not true of any lawyers, but perhaps the fellow posting in critique of me regards quoting and citing truthful information from a neutral source as "bigotry" if it might make a group appear poorly.

    Michael Waldman (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 07:46:12 AM EST
    President of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law sees Heller differently.

    When the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, Justice Scalia said he was following his doctrine of originalism. But when you actually go back and look at the debate that went into drafting of the amendment, you can squint and look really hard, but there's simply no evidence of it being about individual gun ownership for self-protection or for hunting. Emphatically, the focus was on the militias. To the framers, that phrase "a well-regulated militia" was really critical. In the debates, in James Madison's notes of the Constitutional Convention, on the floor of the House of Representatives as they wrote the Second Amendment, all the focus was about the militias. Now at the same time, those militias are not the National Guard. Every adult man, and eventually every adult white man, was required to be in the militias and was required to own a gun, and to bring it from home. So it was an individual right to fulfill the duty to serve in the militias.

    Link

    Parent

    well, well, well (none / 0) (#158)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 08:49:50 AM EST
    You are providing possibilities for thought and research, but the first thing to note is that

    1. Pennsylvania was a state founded by William Penn, a well-known QUAKER, and a significant portion of QUAKERS were by theological teaching and conviction, pacifists.  To this day, Pennsylvania is also known as "the quaker state," as you might know from some commercials."

    2. the founding fathers were well-aware that some of their brothers in the states were pacifists and did not expect them to bear arms and expected them not to bear arms;

    3. whatever we might think of your theory as a whole, the Brennan center seems to be wrong about at least one thing, the "every" man or every white man idea.

    I see that when I search for brennan center heller that there are at least 4 and maybe even more articles against heller and claiming that the Heller court rewrote the 2nd amendment.

    By the way, in other news about Brennan, he was the lead dissenter in Massachusettes v Oakes, a "ch*ld p*rn" case in which a dad had taken some photos of his teenage daughter, with her consent, in lingerie . . .

    In other interesting items, Brennan contributed to  the agreement of the majority of Cohen v California, of which 2 of the main dissenters have  Black in their names . . .

    Anyway, I shall spend some time reading the Brennan center on the Heller decision  .  . .

    Parent

    OMG! the exploding MJ article! (none / 0) (#170)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    Well, how interesting for Mother Jones to preface its interview with Waldman re the 2nd amendment . . .

    While Waldman emphasizes that we must understand what the framers thought, he argues that giving them the last word is impossible--and impractical. . .

    Oh, dear, jbindc, you perhaps noticed?  I assume that somewhere after any of your 10th grade plagiarism--not that I know of any in your past--you learned that if you are going to cite a source for a position, it helps to read what the source says before and afterwards?

    MJ: What preconceived notions about the Second Amendment did the history that you uncovered confirm or debunk?

    MW: There are surprises in this book for people who support gun control, and people who are for gun rights.

    hum, OK, I'll bite . . . what might those be?

    MJ: Based on the history you've uncovered, do you think the founders understood there to be an unwritten individual right to arms that they didn't include in the Constitution?

    MW: Yes. . . .  There was the right to defend yourself, which was part of English common law handed down from England.  

    Ok . . . So, the framers DID believe that every citizen had the RKBA, but, and here is the rub, according to Waldman, they just never wrote down the idea . . . anywhere . . .

    From there, the NRA and its allies waged a 30-year legal campaign to change the way the courts and the country saw the Second Amendment. And they started with scholarship. They supported a lot of scholars and law professors.

    OK . . . I am kind of waiting to read the Waldman analysis of the relationship between the prefatory clause and the operative clause . . . which forms 2 key sentences in the Heller decision. . .  We will surely get to that, no?  No? And you surely have read enough of the Heller decision to realize that those two sentences are a key to the decision?

    So there became a rather deafening roar of the pro-individual gun ownership model: They were publishing and reinforcing each other. Some of it was very useful, and I cite it in the book.

    OK, leading up to dealing with the critical sentence, Waldman is explaining how self-reinforcing legal phony arguments from the right-wing echo chamber became deafening . . . and in a moment, Waldman will get to the sentence in Heller . . .

    Uh, oh . . .  Here is the last sentence from this article in which MJ interviews Heller-opponent Waldman . . .

    "And as this judicial consensus has developed across the country to uphold gun laws, we haven't yet heard from the Supreme Court one more time. So I think the Supreme Court isn't done yet."

    Uh, oh, I have one small question.  Why does God need a spaceship?  Oh, no, that's not the one . . . it is this one.

     I can't imagine that a puny non-lawyer as myself could notice . . . but the Heller decision says and also cites sources and examples to say that the "prefatory clause" does not limit the "operative clause."  If by some wild stretch of the imagination that were TRUE . . .  If by some wild fluke Scalia actually was quoting good legal doctrine and commentary . . . we would actually have to deal with that critical sentence.  

    Correct?

    Parent

    Since I think (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    (As do many legal scholars) that Heller was wrongly decided in the first place, and since Waldman clearly lays out that Scalia's argunent for "original intent" is pure fantasy, since there is NO indication the Framers EVER meant for individuals to arm themselves outside of military service, the the rest of your analysis makes no sense.

    I will ignore your ludicrous attempt an an insult about plagiarism, since I obviously linked to the source from which I was quoting, and chalk it up to the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.  As usual.

    And since your four comments are up, we will end this with, well, what I just said - you have no idea what your talking about.

    Parent

    Army +22???? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    That's the funniest line I've heard all year. Navy has won the last 13 games in a row. They will win today. It's 14 - 10 going into the half. I hope you're not a gambler.

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    Obviously you aren't one.

    I won the bet with ease.
     

    Parent

    And Navy wins again. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    21-17. Go Navy!

    Parent
    Army +22... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    means that Army gets another 22pts tacked onto its score - for gambling purposes. A lot of us needed some help with this stuff.

    Parent
    Army Navy pillow fight (none / 0) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:50:17 AM EST
    From Duffle Blog . The reference to reflective belts is kind of cute. The Army is insane about soldiers wearing reflective belts. They have to wear them when riding a motorcycle or during PT, just about any activity outdoors. My husband owns 3, one in the coat closet and one in each car, because they are such fanatics about it right now.

    Parent
    Meet Navy QB Keenan Reynolds, ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    ... whose pointed exclusion from tonight's Heisman Trophy award ceremony has come to epitomize for many football fans what's going wrong with the game, particularly as it falls evermore under the control of the TV networks and their executives.

    Soon-to-be Ensign Reynolds, who was the leading candidate amongst online fans who had been voting on ESPN.com's "Heisman House" poll -- that is, he was until ESPN summarily removed his name from fan consideration. It was restored only after the audience rebelled.

    The increasing marginalization of non-"Power Five" conferences and schools by television executives, for whom audience ratings and perceived marquee name recognition now regularly trump and cheapen the value of actual accomplishment and worthiness on the field and court, is undermining the integrity of college sports across the board.

    Aloha.

    Segue: college football (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 04:35:09 PM EST
    Surprised to read Rutgers is now in the Big "Ten."  Now there's diversity. NJ?  Really?

    Parent
    Maryland's in the Big 10, too... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 04:54:12 PM EST
    go figure.

    Parent
    Big Ten (base 14) (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:04:01 PM EST


    Parent
    And meanwhile, the Big 12 conference ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 11:36:05 PM EST
    ... has only ten members, after the SEC poached Texas A&M and Missouri. Go figure.

    Parent
    Donald (none / 0) (#9)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 05:15:09 PM EST
    you may want to visit the ESPN web site a little more if you think excluding the Navy QB from an online poll is a big deal.

    ESPN gets bashed on a regular basis for a lot of things.  Nothing against Reynolds but Cook was also bashed by ESPN and by most accounts Cook will be drafted in the first round when he comes out next year.  Cook also had stats that were as good or better than the guys who were invited.

    Without question the biggest gripe in the ESPN comments section has to do with the supposed ESPN bias in favoring the SEC.

    Parent

    Ostensibly, the Heisman Trophy's criteria ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 06:17:04 PM EST
    ... require voters to consider and evaluate a player's individual accomplishments and character, exclusive of that player's future NFL prospects, his team's national ranking, and that team's conference affiliation.

    I'm not arguing that Keenan Reynolds should necessarily win the award, but rather that given his accomplishments as a player this season, he certainly merited more serious consideration as a finalist. So did Michigan State's Connor Cook.

    Of the three finalists who were invited to New York tonight, Stanford's versatile running back / return specialist Christian McCaffrey deserves the trophy, having wracked up and NCAA-record 3,496 all-purpose yards this season. Whether he actually wins is an open question.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    The announcers loved Reynolds (none / 0) (#19)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:15:10 PM EST
    Were comparing him to Russell Wilson. He was very good today when I was watching. Army gave Navy a game, though.

    Parent
    When looking at the vote totals (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    it's quite obvious why only three were invited. You can't find fourth place with binoculars. Other than the top three, anyone else was a waste of an invite.

    1.Derrick Henry 1832
    2.Christian McCaffrey 1539
    3.Deshaun Watson 1165
    4.Baker Mayfield 334
    5.Keenan Reynolds 180

    Parent

    How many voters actually watched ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:04:16 AM EST
    ... Keenan Reynolds play?

    Parent
    How many didn't? (none / 0) (#62)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:21:49 AM EST
    Quit blowing smoke where you have no knowledge.

    Parent
    That particular question is perfectly fair. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    And so was the amount of concern expressed by lots of people across the country as to whether ESPN had effectively sabotaged Keenan Reynolds' chances for an invitation to New York through its own neglect, when it removed his name from the Nissan Fan Vote online poll after Navy lost to Houston 52-31 on Nov. 27. That loss eliminated the Midshipmen from the AAC title chase.

    The five names that appear weekly on the Nissan Fan Vote poll are determined by an editorial poll of eight college football "experts" from ESPN. Further, the ultimate winner of that poll then receives a first-place vote in the actual Heisman Trophy balloting.

    Why that's the case, I don't know, but that's the way it is. But more to the point, how does ESPN claim publicly that this "fan vote" in fact does count for something, while allowing its own panelists to manipulate that vote by driving the nominees?

    I would further note that these eight "experts" had removed Reynolds' name from consideration post-Houston even though he had an outstanding effort personally against the Cougars, completing 13 of 16 passes for 312 yards and 1 TD, and rushing for 84 yards and another TD on 19 carries. In fact, statistically, it was Reynolds' best game of the entire season.

    Therefore, in downgrading Reynolds as a Heisman contender after the Houston game, it's quite apparent to this lay observer's naked eye that the primary focus of those "experts" was more than likely on the final score, rather than the Navy QB's individual performance that day.

    It wasn't just bad public optics on ESPN's part, per those of us who watched the Navy-Houston game a few weeks ago. It also constitutes some pretty dubious football analysis on the part of that network's panel of "experts."

    There are 926 Heisman voters. 55 of them are past winners who are still alive (except Reggie Bush, who was stripped of his award), and there is the one aforementioned "fan vote" from that Nissan Fan poll. The rest of the Heisman electorate is comprised entirely of media members, which includes ESPN's panel of eight "experts."

    Hence, my question regarding how many of those Heisman voters actually watched Keenan Reynolds play this season is quite legitimate. Please don't insult me because you're not really interested in the answer personally. You're likely not all that well-informed on the matter yourself.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Is this where I mention that the Naval Academy (none / 0) (#64)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    teaches its students to play games that are much more important than the bread and circus b/s you're yammering about?

    Parent
    The Naval Academy... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:52:45 AM EST
    ...like all military branches, teaches its "students" to be followers first and foremost. Imagination, which is where genuine leadership originates and which is the key to real freedom, is anathema to the military. Imagination (freedom) makes underlings question their superiors with passionate logic. That is the LAST thing the military wants. This is, in short,the ultimate contradiction in a supposedly free society -- that our official military academies are in the business of creating Americans who don't understand what freedom really means. That, for any coercive and hegemonic system, is "brilliant" game planning. And very depressing in the long run. Peace.

    Parent
    To Natural and Dadler (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    We're talking about the Heisman, not anyone's philosophy on life. It's football, nothing more, nothing less.

    Parent
    I get it, my friend (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dadler on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    I just find it very weird, in light of the political and racial realities in our country right now. Minorities in the military academies, and this kid in particular in light of our current reality, when domestic police treat minorities like they are criminals until proven otherwise, represent something much bigger and more daunting, by exponential factors, than the Heisman. That's all. Peace out.

    Parent
    Dadler, my friend (none / 0) (#117)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:03:25 PM EST
    You've expressed your feelings regarding social justice issues often, and, eloquently. You're a fine rudder steering the TL ship on the road to fairness and equality. And, for that I'm pretty sure I speak for many here in extending to you a heartfelt thank you.

    And, I know you've noticed that we discuss, debate, and argue those issues, vociferously, Monday thru Friday, week-in, and, week-out. But, defeating worldwide injustice is hard, really, really hard. So, I'm sure you'll grant us a few moments of respite when Saturday rolls around, and stand aside as our assorted hooligans, thugs, bozos, and, bruisers act out the requisite American weekend rituals of just being who we know we really are. For instance, I know I'd be superior to Russell Wilson if only..., answering the phone with a single, long, jungle belch (and thinking its funny,) knowing with metaphysical certainty that if you were coaching the team the game would be over by halftime, and, violating every rule & norm regarding empathy for the unfortunate, mentally ill every time a ref makes a call Stevie Wonder would've made more accurately.

    And, that's only the first half. The second half, ritualistically, can't begin until a beer can is smashed into your forehead, and, you've forgotten the number for 911.

    We're not asking for much, Dadler, are we? (burp)  

    Parent

    Just one poll but Cruz leading Trump (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    by ten points 31% v 21%.

    Cruz certainly has better street cred with folks who claim to be religious than Trump and his multiple wives.

    Still a little bit of a shock to see this.

    Right (none / 0) (#26)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:55:09 PM EST
    now he is gobbling up all of Carson's support as his numbers deflate and there is plenty more to be had. Reportedly Cruz has a solid organization in Iowa and plenty of money and momentum. Right now I think Iowa is his to lose and I think he is just too smart to make any unforced errors.

    Parent
    The Iowa race (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    remains fluid from the reported polling. Two out of three Iowa Republican voters say they could be persuaded to choose someone else. So, Cruz had better not rest on his scum earnings.

      Trump does much better than Cruz on managing the economy, illegal immigrants, how to get things done, and reducing the deficit.  Trump runs a little better than Cruz on combating Islamic Terrorism.

     Cruz beats Trump on temperament and working with Congress.

     No reporting on how they contrast in duplicity or sincerity. Of course, the snapshot of these Iowa Republican voters shows that six in 10 say climate change is a hoax; more than half want mass deportations of "illegal" immigrants; and six in 10 would abolish the IRS. Trump is also seen as having a better chance at beating Mrs. Clinton. They have even overlooked Cruz's unfavorable (Iowa) position of ethanol.

    So I wonder just what it is that has Cruz now out ahead.  It is a mystery. Trump seems to be just what they are looking for. Perhaps, something else, something unspoken, at least until all that political correctness has been corrected.

       As for working with Congress, these voters need to speak to other than their Evangelical preachers.  Cruz's cozy relationship with the round up and kill the gays preacher may have warmed the cockles of their Christian hearts. And, of course, who is more dependable in the anti-abortion crusade. Cruz may have a lock on that after saying that the Colorado Springs P.P. terrorist attacker was a transgender liberal activist.  

    But, Trump is already on it.  Starting with the media: the poll by The Des Moines Register. Trump claimed at a rally on Friday, "I'll tell you, you have one of the most dishonest right here in your backyard: The Des Moines Register is the worst.". "Some reporter named Jacobs, she is the worst,"  The dog-whistle could be heard over the cheers and applause. (Referring to The Register's lead political reporter, Jennifer Jacobs.)

    And, then Trump brought up Cruz and religion, saying there are not a lot of evangelicals who come out of Cuba. Sure hope that Trump did not offend those nice Iowa Republicans.  

    Parent

    Also reading he has mad organization (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:01:27 PM EST
    In some of the southern states.   He will probably take Iowa.  It was always going to be a zealot.   He will get that one and Donald will get NH if things stay as they are then we go south and the real fun starts.  Donald is huge down here.  Youuuuge.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:52:58 PM EST
    problems  for Trump Iowa he appears to have flatlined at 28% for 3 months, I still think he gets the win because the remaining 70% will be spread thinly among the rest, but if someone were to drop out and one candidate(Rubio?Christie??) consolidated the establishment vote things might get really interesting.

    The situation is similar in SC with Trump stalled at 28% and Cruz positioned to take all of Carson's support(he should be gone by SC) and make a run at him.  
     

    Parent

    You bring up a good point (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by NYShooter on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    Been reading analysis of past Primaries, and, how the final result differed from the polls taken at this point in time.

    Looking, specifically, at Trump his 30% standing looks extremely daunting vs any one of the 12-14 others. But, this simply means there's 70% to be allocated to those left standing as, one by one, the losers drop out.

    This is going to start being really interesting going forward. There's all kinds of predictions by pundits of every stripe. But, the ones I find more interesting are the predictions coming out of the gambling houses where real money is being wagered. And, right now, Marco Rubio is the hand's down winner vs Donald Trump. The biggest Gambling house of its type has Rubio at roughly 1 to 1. That means, you bet a dollar, win a dollar. But with Trump it's, 4 to 1, meaning, you bet a dollar, you win 4 dollars. In other words, the so-called, "smart money," is saying Rubio is four times as probable to win the Primaries as is The Donald.

    p.s. (I didn't provide links because I didn't write them down when I was reading those things. If anyone insists, I can dig them out, but, please don't make me waste all that time if all you are is a ball-buster. p.s.s. not referring to you, FLJoe)

    Parent

    Hummm (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:04:29 AM EST
    Might be time to do some investing.  

    Watching an interesting discussion yesterday with Nate Silver.  Among the things he says was that he had raised the chances of a brokered convention from 10-20%.   But he said other things that relate to Donald's 30%.  about the convention he said the likelihood was rising because at every time in the past it was unlikely because no one wanted it to happen and that this cycle more and more leaders were seeing it as a desirable thing.  As maybe the last chance to stop Donald.  That fact alone, he says, makes it much more likely.  He also said that one thing being discussed is that when candidates want out the are being encouraged to suspend their campaigns and not drop out.   That way they can hold on to any delegates they might have and take them to the convention for the purpose of pooling them.   Again to stop Trump.  
    Bottom line, the powers don't have much faith in Marco and neither do I.
    One question, look at the early state polls and tell me a state Maro wins.  It sure won't be Florida.

    Parent

    Here's a link (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:07:31 AM EST
    to that conversation

    Parent
    Yeah, really interesting (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:56:53 AM EST
    I like this Costas guy, he's very smart, works really hard, and, seems to be able to get the inside story more than anybody else.

    Plus, he's from NY City, what more is there?

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:34:43 AM EST
    where the whole Rubio argument breaks down. Exactly what state does he win? Every time I ask this question no one seems to have an answer.

    And if you add up Trump, Cruz and Carson the anti-establishment vote is winning. So I'm not sure once someone like Bush drops out that it's going to help someone like Marco or Christie. Might help Christie a few points but so what? He goes from 4 pts to 7 pts?

    Parent

    I suppose (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:51:23 AM EST
    Because of proportionality he, like the others, may be able to stay in.  Maybe with a few delegates and go to the convention and try to get himself "coronated" as the only option that is not Cruz or Trump.

    Oh please oh please oh please.

    Parent

    Did you watch the video? (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:50:15 AM EST
    Cruz has a fabulous organization in Mississippi, and, their primary is on the eighth, two days before Super Tuesday.

    Parent
    He (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    would almost certainly win NH save for the log jam of establishment candidates. Nevada is a total wild card
    Probably ripe for an establishment power grab, Bush and Rubio have been active there and if Bush fold after NH he could easily win it.
    If the field is thinned by
    Tuesday, March 1
    (Super Tuesday)    Alabama
    Alaska (GOP)
    Arkansas
    Colorado caucuses
    Georgia
    Massachusetts
    Minnesota caucuses
    Oklahoma
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Vermont
    Virginia

    I see Col, Mass, Minn, Vermont and even Virginia quite winnable for Rubio, with the other states being split between Trump/Cruz with Cruz presumably taking Texas. Virginia will be huuuge on that day.

    Later on with a bit of momentum and full bore establishment support Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and even Florida become possible wins.

    IMO this will be a legitimate three way race all the way up to the convention, barring a meltdown by one of them.

    Parent

    Trump, Cruz, and Carson (none / 0) (#73)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:54:09 AM EST
    are splitting the same vote.  But that vote is well over 50%.  Rubio may be the best of the GOP establishment candidates but he is struggling to even get to third place with the current field.  Even if all the other establishment candidates drop out Rubio still does not have a clear first place finish.

    On the other hand I could see a Trump/Cruz, or Cruz/Trump but not so likely given Trump's make up, ticket with Carson being appointed to something.  Delegates would then be released to support the head of the ticket.  Even a Trump/Carson with Cruz getting a SC appointment is not out of the question.

    Bottom line is I don't see how Rubio could ever get more delegates than the combined total of Trump, Cruz, and Carson.  I don't really see Rubio getting more delegates than the leader of the anti establishment three.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:01:32 PM EST
    Carson will be gone sooner rather than later Nevertheless, the anti-establishment has been running consistently ~60%,that won't change that leaves 40%. I with Nate Silver that this will eventually shake out to Trump and Cruz splitting the 60 evenly  and Rubio getting the 30% of establishment when they crawl out of their bunkers. The other ten percent will be fought over state by state, with all three of them having opportunities for wins.

    Parent
    Interestingly (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:32:26 PM EST
    if it gets down to those three pretty soon Rubio is going to become just like Trump and Cruz because Rubio is going to have to get some of those 60% of voters to win anything.

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:58:31 PM EST
    thinking of a slow and steady 40% would be the best he could do probably do, spread the right way it might get him a plurality of delegates or close to it.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    the problem for Rubio is that everybody is going to be on the ballot in NH and frankly I imagine Christie is going to come out better there than Rubio is. Traditionally candidates coming from states closer to NH have done better. And perhaps Jeb though it seems NH largely has been infected by the same disease that the rest of the GOP has.

    Parent
    FYI (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 08:09:04 AM EST
    Why Rule 40 won't affect the GOP Primary outcome

    They can still change the rules to a) get the result they want, or b) manage a floor fight.

    It won't be all-out chaos.

    Parent

    Those (none / 0) (#54)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:32:35 AM EST
    odds are not surprising, Rubio seems to be the only establishment horse with any strength, historically that's been a winner.

    This time is different, the establishment has lost control of the game, not only did they lose the rabid base but they seem have lost control of their own house, they desperately need to clear the deck for one candidate and need some others(Hello Jeb!) to fall on their sword, sooner rather then later, but that does not seem to be happening.

    Parent

    The smart money (none / 0) (#72)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:42:45 AM EST
    historically has followed the advice that you don't bet on anything that can talk.

    Let's also keep in mind that the odds are set not by who the house thinks will win but to minimize the chance that the house will lose money no matter who wins.

    As ga6dem noted Trump, Cruz, and Carson (the anti establishment vote) account for over 50% of the boat.  So how does Rubio wind up having a better chance than all three of those guys combined.

    I understand the theory that the establishment may try to have a brokered convention to force a nomination they like.  Problem is that both Trump and Carson have taken the position that they will run independent if something like that happens.  If an independent candidate got more votes than the GOP candidate, something that is not out of the question, it is not easy to see how the GOP establishment could survive.

    Parent

    If they (none / 0) (#74)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:55:21 AM EST
    Want to go independent, they have to make up their mind by March. Sore loser laws would prevent him from getting on the ballot otherwise.
    What may be more of an issue, though, are so-called sore loser laws, which essentially prohibit candidates from running in a party primary and then a general election as a candidate not from that party.


    Parent
    My point (none / 0) (#78)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:21:07 AM EST
    was that if Trump or Carson feel abused they can leave the game and take their ball with them.  Both Trump and Carson currently have more popular support than any of the establishment candidates.  Their support derives from their anti establishment positions and it seems likely if they take their ball they will also take their voters.

    Iowa and NH will be over by March, and we will know a lot more about things.  Trump is getting huge crowds in Iowa.  Problem for him is these crowds may, or may not, go out on a winter night to support him.  But Trump or Cruz will be heading to later primaries with more delegates than anyone else.  If it is Trump I don't see him going independent.  On the other hand if Trump gets bashed in both Iowa and NH I could see it happen.

    The real question for me is how the GOP establishment will deal with this.  If the GOP is viewed as being heavy handed in dealing with Trump/Carson, and to a lesser extent Cruz, and ignoring their popularity at the convention to force a nomination of an establishment candidate it could be a death blow to the GOP.  Maybe the GOP has a death wish, but more likely they will simply offer luke warm support to an anti establishment candidate.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:28:17 AM EST
    that's my thoughts too. If Trump is the nominee they more or less have to support him. I mean if you're going to lose either way that way makes the most sense. My theory is the establishment lets Trump run, lose and then looks at the tea partiers and says hey, we ran your candidate. He is everything you wanted and he lost. I just see it as a way forward for the GOP where they can use that kind of thing to modernize their platform and do all kinds of other things that have probably needed to be done for a good quarter of a century now.

    Parent
    Trump is not a Tea Party guy (none / 0) (#98)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:46:05 PM EST
    Carson is the only really Tea Party guy because he is viewed as passing the religious test.  Trump's biggest problem is he seems to want a this year's model wife and that does not fit well with the Tea Party.  Cruz is the next best.

    Parent
    Not Sure (none / 0) (#100)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    About that.

    Origin of the Tea Party was Rick Santelli's rant on CNBC.

    Tea Party was formulated over fiscal issues, I don't think there was a religious test to them.

    Parent

    Carson is the only real Tea Party guy? (none / 0) (#101)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    Cruz is the darling of the Tea Party.

    Senator Rafael Edward Cruz, the son a former political prisoner of Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista, is probably the most prominent member of the intellectual spine of the Tea Party movement. The staunchly conservative Latino is also frequently spoken of as one of the most brilliant members of the current Congress.

    .....

    In 2012, with the endorsement of several party heavyweights - Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Ron Paul, to name a few - and the Tea Party, the relatively unknown Cruz ran against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst for the Republican nomination for the 2012 Senatorial election.

    Carson sticks his finger in the wind and then says something...something that usually sounds totally unintelligent and as removed from reality as anyone who's ever run for the Republican nomination.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#85)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    only point was they have a time table to run independent, and I think March is too early for them to make a decision. The Republican Party will not treat any of the candidates "unfairly" (using Trumps language) by March, the time that they may perceive it is at the convention. I can't see a third party run by any of the anti establishment crowd.

    Cruz , Trump and Rubio most likely will have the most delegates at the convention, probably in that order. The other establishment candidates will most likely throw their delegates to Rubio, he might well have more than Cruz with those.

    And then the food fight begins.

    Still a long ways off, and with Trump around, anything may happen.

    Parent

    Trump and Cruz together (none / 0) (#102)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:57:04 PM EST
    will have a clear majority, especially with Carson thrown in.  No way Rubio will ever have a majority and I don't see how he could even get a plurality.  If the establishment GOP forces a Rubio nomination it is fairly obvious they will lose too many potential voters, not just for the prez but in the down ballot contests as well.

    One thing I have noted is how many talking heads like George Will,as one example of many, seem to have a pathological hatred for Trump, and to a lesser extent Cruz.

    On the other hand Trump is clearly pragmatic enough, and probably Cruz as well, to realize if they combine forces there is no way Rubio, or any other GOP establishment guy can get a majority at the convention.  If Trump, Cruz, and Carson can make a deal, something Trump seems good at, I would bet some combination of those three will wind up being on the ticket and an administration appointment.  I could see Trump at the top with Carson as VP to get the religious Tea Party vote and Cruz as a SC justice.

    Parent

    I know we all think (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    we've got these candidates pegged, and, thereby make predictions based on some sort of fixed criteria. And, all the pundits do exactly the same thing. And, that also why they're almost always wrong.

    Take, for instance, "Carson is the Evangelical's darling." So, naturally, count up the evangelicals in whatever State, and grant them to Carson. But, his numbers have dropped some 15-20 points recently. How come? The number of evangelical voters hasn't changed. Well, maybe evangelicals aren't so monolithically dumb as we've pegged them to be.

    Maybe, little by little, day by day, they're saying to each other, "you know, I was all in for this Carson guy, my mind was made up. But, did you hear what that dumbass said yesterday? Yeah, what is he freaken nuts? Pyramids storing oats, wheat, and, barley? If those Yul Brenners (pharaohs) needed barns, or, warehouses, I sure as hell could've built'm cheaper than what he says they did. I ain't so 100% like I was. I mean, I like'm and all, he's a good Christian, but he's been sayin stuff lately that makes'm sounds dumb as a doorknob.

    Primaries are very fluid entities. Attitudes, and, commitments are so whimsical this early that current poll numbers are almost useless. Some experts are better than others at looking within these numbers, and, can decipher the inner dynamics in a way that, when its all over, will show how smart they were, or, were not.

    It's not unlike some expert horse handicappers. Their pick can be 17 lengths behind the leader at the half-way pole, and, they can start heading towards the cashiers to collect their winnings.  

    Parent

    Ever think (none / 0) (#104)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 03:07:32 PM EST
    At that juncture Cruz sidles up to Rubio?

    Probably the best option for winning, and Cruz may get what he wants,

    SC Justice, Attorney General

    And they will have to placate the Donald somehow,

    Let him build and name the Southern Wall.

    This far out, can't tell anything for sure, other than it will be a food fight


    Parent

    Repeat after me (none / 0) (#106)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    Carson is done, his numbers are down across the board and he is not getting it back, even the hayseed bible thumpers in Iowa are jumping ship to Cruz.

    My read at this moment is Trump will win states with heavy tea party/nativist support, Cruz will win states with heavy evangelical vote and Rubio picks up the "bluer states" where is his relative moderation and party support gives him an edge.

    I have no idea how it will all adds up as to delegates and the polling has been sparse on many delegate rich states but there is no reason to think that Rubio will not be very competitive in the big states of the northeast and midwest.

    Rubio's problem is timing, Trump already has his 30% and Cruz will soon solidify his. Rubio is still waiting to gather his(if he ever does)and the early landscape is not friendly to him.  

    I know this campaign has killed irony, but the fact that that the "establishment" wing of the "disciplined" party is in absolutely quite rich. Chris Christie with his insignificant 2% national could possibly embarrass Rubio in NH and possibly completely derail him. Who the heck knows anymore.

    Parent

    et al again (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    As the only person here who has attended and will attend meetings of an organization that is local but sees itself as part of that mythical organization known to you as the (drum roll, please) "Tea Party" let me assure that either Trump, Carson or Cruz, in no particular order, is most acceptable.

    Rubio inspires because of his background but has failed completely due to his perceived stand on immigration.

    Parent

    And here I thought the Tea Party (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:56:32 PM EST
    or Tea Parties, represented a diversity of concerns, and no one person could presume to speak for a "mythical" Tea Party that only favors candidates A B or C..

    Parent
    "Mythical" (none / 0) (#134)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:15:56 PM EST
    Joke of the day. Apparently, this guy doesn't think its mythical. (Shhh...don't tell Jim...)

    Parent
    You're thinking again? (none / 0) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:29:17 PM EST
    Thought I smelled smoke. Of course it could just be shoe's polish. Or something s/he stepped in.

    Glad to see you at least got something right.

    Yes, they do have a diversity of concerns. And they think Trump, Carson or Cruz are the ones who can solve them.

    Parent

    Which one of those three is (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    the social liberal?

    Parent
    According (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:41:07 PM EST
    to the latest poll Christie is only 5 points behind Rubio in NH. Entirely possible Rubio might be out after Super Tuesday if he comes in 3rd in NH.

    Parent
    Interesting article on why the first Freddie Gray (none / 0) (#15)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 06:31:38 PM EST
     trial is unusual

    Porter's lawyers have said in court that they cannot find any other case in the country in which a police officer was criminally charged for not seat-belting a prisoner. Legal experts also said it's difficult to find criminal cases against police officers accused of inaction.
    'Bout Damn Time, Isn't It? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:30:22 PM EST
    Police have been getting away with nickel rides ever since the paddy wagon was invented.  Now they have no excuse.  It's not like seatbelts are new technology or unusual treatment.  Maybe the transport vehicle needs a dash-cam to record how the vehicle is driven.

    Kind of like how police have been getting away with shooting unarmed Black men forever, until the body cam.  Now they have no excuse for that either.  Wait.  They never did.

    I mentioned this in the other thread, but my Black unarmed friend was shot by a deputy who put one bullet into my friend and 15 more into, well hey, it's a poor neighborhood, awright?  Crime was driving on a suspended license and driving away from the traffic stop, hardly a death penalty, lethal force crime.

    The county will pay my friend $585,000     for his trouble of stopping a bullet and having his car riddled.

    Before you go all, "He committed a CRIME, he's a CRIMINAL," can you imagine a police officer emptying his weapon into the night in a rich neighborhood, when he knows who the fleeing subject is, and can go to his house for him later?

    Parent

    Your friend's injury has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#32)
    by McBain on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 10:08:33 PM EST
    this case.  All of the Freddie Gray trials should be about justice, not social justice.  None of these officers should be convicted because of unrelated events.  It might sound like a good idea to you, but it would have a terrible effect on the future of law enforcement.

    Parent
    Never said (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:48:55 AM EST
    ...that my friend's case has anything to do with Freddie Gray, except as an example of something police used to get away with regularly.  Because of my associations I see  a lot of racist policing, corrupt policing, and incompetent policing of the sort that would not be tolerated in a white middle- or upper class neighborhood.  Whether or not you personally believe Black communities get the worst of police work, I see it close up.

    Deputy service in that area has been described to me as punishment for the veterans, and training day for the rookies.  The deputies clearly dislike serving there, and do not have actual friends in the community like I have friends in the community.

    Do YOU believe it is a good idea to secure an otherwise defenseless prisoner in the back of a police van?  Do you believe it should be mandatory?

    If you do believe it should be mandatory, and someone doesn't do it, and a prisoner is fatally injured because a rule was not followed, is that negligent homicide, like it would be if you or I did it?  

    What if you fail to secure the prisoner, and then deliberately drive in a manner likely to injure him?  Since that suggests premeditation, should that be a harsher punishment than mere negligence?

    Parent

    If Gray was given a rough ride (none / 0) (#38)
    by McBain on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:12:18 AM EST
    those responsible should be convicted.  If he died because of a freak accident related to not being seat belted into the van there shouldn't be any criminal convictions.  

    Parent
    If your hands are shackled behind you, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:57:03 AM EST
    and your ankles are also shackled, taking your ability to balance and compensate for changes in direction away from you, it doesn't take much change in movement to create a situation where something bad can happen.  If you lose your balance, you can't break your fall with your arms - it's your shoulders and your head and neck that are in harm's way.  That, I believe, is the reason for belting in the detainee. And it's why whatever "accident" occurred, it wasn't "freak" at all.  It's happened before, making it reasonable to conclude it could happen again.

    Maybe part of police training should be having to take a ride in a police van under the same conditions as Freddie Gray did - hands and ankles shackled, and no way to anticipate changes in direction because you have no window to the outside.

    Would you volunteer for that?

    Parent

    As I said, if there wasn't a rough ride (none / 0) (#82)
    by McBain on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:31:51 AM EST
    there shouldn't be criminal convictions.  If the cops were truly supposed to belt everyone in and knew about that, there should be suspensions, demotions or termination of employment.  Not jail time.

    Parent
    If I was shackled feet and hands (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    If you lose your balance, you can't break your fall with your arms - it's your shoulders and your head and neck that are in harm's way.

    I would lay down on the floor.

    Parent

    He might have intentionaly lost his balance (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by McBain on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    This all comes down to the driver, Ceasar Goodson.  If he was trying to injure Gray, he should be prosecuted, not Porter.  If he wasn't, no one should be on trial.

    There is evidence/testimony to suggest Gray was an uncooperative detainee who might have tried to injure himself during the ride.  


    Parent

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:40:23 AM EST
    ....suicide of course.  You are beyond ridiculous, maybe Gray broke into the police station and stole the previous memos on seat-belting passengers in.

    Now it all makes sense, as soon as you toss logic out the window, everything falls into place.

    Parent

    I'd be happy to drive the van (none / 0) (#119)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:41:09 PM EST
    if you'd be up for participating in an experiment to test out that theory.

    Parent
    Take a number (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:44:21 PM EST


    Parent
    so dumb, even more, dishonest (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    How about, "...cannot find any other case in the country in which a police officer was criminally charged for throwing a man into a pool of water

    and, leaving out the part where the pool is filled with starving alligators?

    Parent

    Behold, the party of fiscal responsibility. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 06:58:16 PM EST
    Oooh!-klahoma, where state budgets go swirling down the drain:

    Associated Press | December 12. 2015
    Tax cuts exacerbating Oklahoma's bust-driven budget crisis - "Even as Oklahoma's economy was roaring thanks to an oil boom, Sarah Dougherty watched in disbelief as the Tulsa elementary school her children attend expanded class sizes and eliminated teachers because costly tax cuts and incentives ate up much of the surplus revenue. Republican Gov. Mary Fallin and the GOP-led Legislature pushed through the latest cut, a quarter-point reduction in the top income tax rate, two years ago when $100-a-barrel crude buoyed the state's coffers. While the average tax filer will save only about $85 a year under the cut taking effect Jan. 1, it comes at a $147 million price tag to the state. [...] The true depth of Oklahoma's budget hole for the fiscal year that begins on July 1 is not yet known, but early predictions estimate it could range anywhere from $600 million to as much as $1 billion."

    Ouch.

    But.....but.....butt! (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:04:26 PM EST

    Now I know the Repubs are evileeeee (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 04:57:31 PM EST
    But how did they degrade the public school system?
    The suburbs, notorious for voting Repub, in every case I know, have much better schools than the urban center core schools.

    Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5



    Parent
    America's GOP: You Vote Stupid, You Get Stupid. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:34:50 AM EST
    And honestly, they really don't make 'em more stupid than Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin.

    Parent
    I'm not so sure about that, Donald. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:14:43 AM EST
    Term limited Michigan is swirling down the same drain.  Pols wanna make a splash and don't have much time to do it.  And they're not around to face the consequences of their idiocy.

    Parent
    At what point do you hold voters responsible ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    ... for their own choices they've made at the polls? Term limits weren't imposed upon Michigan residents and their elected officials from the outside, by some malevolent being with a cynical sense of humor. That state's voters did that to themselves.

    Same concept applies to their action in electing their leadership. Both Mary Fallin and Rick Snyder are obvious ideologues without an original thought in either of their respective heads. Yet in spite of that, they were nevertheless both elected governor of their respective states by the voters.

    But Oklahoma -- which has long been in the Republican column -- has otherwise had a lot more going for it economically of late than has Michigan, even if its fortunes are presently wedded firmly to the boom-and-bust price of oil. Fallin and the GOP-led state legislature frittered away significant budget surpluses during the boom, rather than prepare for the inevitable bust. They screwed up royally.

    Michigan, on the other hand, has been struggling to find itself economically for several decades now, certainly since Detroit's heyday. Its present misfortune lies in the fact that in the immediate wake of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, at the very time when sober leadership and prudent stewardship was required, its own voters opted for neither in the 2010 election. Instead, they decided for whatever their reason that this was a great time to pi$$ directly into a 60mph headwind.

    As I've long said, when you vote for stupid, you can expect stupid results. While I can empathize with those residents of both states who've had to struggle with the consequences of voting for stupid, I can't choose their governors and state legislatures for them. That's their responsibility, not yours and mine.

    But when those same voters in those states were offered a clear opportunity in 2014 to go in another direction given the obvious incompetence of their own freely-elected leadership, they instead opted to double down on stupid and return those inept incumbents to office.

    You reap what you sow. I've nothing but pity and contempt for the electoral decisions that voters in both those states have made of late. At some point, hopefully, they'll finally wise up and recognize the concept of cause and effect for what it is, and act accordingly. Until then, well, I guess that some people need to learn from their mistakes the hard way.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    et al (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:56:30 PM EST
    None of you explained how the evileeeeee Repubs destroyed the public school system.

    BTW, Donald. Have you picked out a private school for that grandson??

    Parent

    Get lost, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:48:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Donald, can I put you down as (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:29:58 PM EST
    not being able to answer??

    Why yes. Yes I can.

    Parent

    How about you Jim? (none / 0) (#129)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:00:01 PM EST
    Can we put you down as not being able to answer:

    Why are you so embarrassed to say exactly what "service" you performed in your "ten years in naval aviation"?

    Thought so. Can't bring yourself to answer.

    Parent

    OkoeDokie (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    I defended the country.

    I defended you.

    Hope that helps.

    Parent

    Exactly how did you defend me? (none / 0) (#138)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:48:13 PM EST
    Details needed.

    Parent
    See?Now you demonstrate why I (none / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:18:38 PM EST
    don't give details.

    I mean I gave you some details on my visit to Moscow and you called me a liar.

    That doesn't exactly spin my starter.

    Parent

    Are you kidding with that? (none / 0) (#142)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:25:27 PM EST
    Your "trip to Moscow" was supposed to convince us of what you did in the service?? Your recounting of your trip to Moscow had no information in it, except for what landmarks you saw. Big f*cking deal. My grandmother saw the same landmarks on her trip there--and more--but she didn't claim to have defended the country while visiting as a tourist.

    Admit it, Jim. You can't answer the question. Your tourist vacation to Moscow had nothing to do with any service to, or defense of, the U.S.

    What a laugh!

    Parent

    No, the description of my trip of Moscow (none / 0) (#146)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:37:34 PM EST
    and Brussels was meant to show that you are dishonest and that no matter what I write you will just attack and insult.

    And it proved that very well.

    And I specified that I wasn't in the military during those visits so quit making things up.

    shoe, you're a real piece of work. Thanks for revealing yourself.

    And say hi to your grandmother. We may have had coffee together.

    Parent

    You have quite a fantasy life (none / 0) (#148)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:30:40 PM EST
    Your little exposition proved nothing, except that you fancy a "visit to Moscow," seeing the sights, "shopping at GUM in Red Square," and seeing "the little boy peeing" as something of a service to American citizens.

    Still laughing.

    Parent

    Here are some answers, jim, but (none / 0) (#131)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:04:37 PM EST
    I don't think you're going to like them.

    Here's just one little something:

    As is illustrated in the previous map, there are wide disparities in high school graduation rates, both on state and regional levels. For the most part, the northern United States has higher graduation rates, while the southern United States has lower graduation rates.

    Unlike with economic issues, state-level graduation rates do not correlate purely along partisan lines--the left-leaning northeast, great lakes, and west coast regions are joined by the more conservative mountainous Midwest and plains states in the highest levels of graduation.

    That said, on average, left leaning states tended to have far higher levels of high school graduation than right leaning states. The Deep South bastion of conservative governance is near-universally trailing the rest of the country, while the progressive northeast is leading the country (on average, the Rocky Mountain states have higher graduation rates, but they also have far lower populations).

    There's more - lots more - across a wide spectrum of topics.  And it flies in the face of your theory.

    Parent

    Looking at the results of many (none / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    of today's graduates I say that none should graduate.

    But the claim was that the Repubs had destroyed the public school system.

    I have asked how did the evileeeee Repubs accomplish this task?

    Most of the suburbs vote Repub. Most of the cores vote Demo. Most of the suburbs have better schools.

    For example, Memphis, a city that has been ran by Demos for years and years has given up its school systems turning them over to the Repub controlled county.

    So how did the Repubs cause that?

    None of you have answered.

    Which means that the claim was spurious, nonsensical and ill considered.

    Parent

    Amazing the things you can find if (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 07:59:31 AM EST
    you actually go and look, as opposed to just saying things and expecting people to take it as fact.

    Consider:

    Governor Scott Walker was out of town, giving a keynote address at the American Federation For Children summit in New Orleans, when state Republicans came up with a last-minute revision to the state's education budget, including a plan to siphon millions of dollars in public money into private schools.

    And there's this:

    The conservative wave of 2010 allowed Republicans to implement slash-and-burn governance in several states--what Kansas Governor Sam Brownback called a "real live experiment" in tax cuts for corporate interests and cuts to services for everyone else. One of the most devastating casualties was public schools and universities.

    Now, several Republicans could fall victim to their own experiment. Conservatives are on the defensive in Kansas, North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Florida and Wisconsin over their records on education.

    [...]

    Polls in several states show education as a top-tier issue. One of those is Pennsylvania, where Governor Tom Corbett reduced public school funding by $900 million, or 10 percent, in 2011. Those cuts, plus more the next year, had a sweeping effect: thousands of teachers were laid off, while 70 percent of Pennsylvania's school districts increased class sizes, 40 percent cut extracurricular activities and 75 percent were forced to cut instruction in 2013.

    In a dramatic, late-night hearing on Tuesday, four outraged Democrats on the Joint Finance Committee confronted twelve impassive Republicans, demanding that they explain how the state, after making massive cuts to funding for public education over the last several years, could afford to pay private-school tuition for families who choose school vouchers.

    But, wait - there's more!

    And more:

    Facing budget shortfalls, a handful of prominent Republicans governors want to cut funding for higher education to help make up the gap, while insisting that tax hikes are a non-starter.

    Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker wants a $300 million funding cut for higher education, and Gov. Bobby Jindal has proposed the same level of cuts in Louisiana. Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey wants at least a $75 million cut to higher ed, and Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback is aiming to cut $45 million from K-12 schools and higher education combined.

    They want to cut at the federal level, and then they cut at the state level.  And they do it to fulfill the prophecy that public education is a failure.  Why?  Because they want to privatize it, they want to shift money to private and charter schools. Because the outcomes are better?  No, because of all the companies they can funnel the money to.

    So, you know what, jim?  You're making the standard Republican argument, but the problem is that you're bringing it to the wrong audience.  To people who know better, who are educated and intelligent and have working olfactory systems that can smell your BS miles away.

    It's time for you to sit down and shut up.  Maybe consider a little remedial education yourself, so we don't have to keep reading your fractured spelling and your bad grammar.


    Parent

    anne, the public school systems (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:32:50 AM EST
    in question are the K-12 which are funded by property taxes at the local level with a bit of federal and state money tossed in.

    But let's review.

    ... a plan to siphon millions of dollars in public money into private schools.

    Those tax dollars are dollars paid in addition to the tuition and other fees paid by the parents of the children attending the private school. IOW, they are paying twice.

    Do you think that is fair??

    Plus, what do you think would happen if all the private schools closed and the students attending them were sent back to the public system? Can you say massive tax increases to fund the new facilities and additional staff needed?

    Why don't we get honest and admit that our public school system has failed and can't be fixed as presently managed? Why not just divide the tax pie by the number of students and give each student a voucher worth the resulting dollars? Let the students select the schools they want to attend and let the schools select the student? There are other details to be worked out but it isn't rocket science.

    Instead both sides use our schools as political vessels to attack each other while the student suffers.


    Parent

    The public school system (none / 0) (#199)
    by CST on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    In many blue states has not failed.  It's actually quite good.

    Parent
    Republicans must be extra dumb (none / 0) (#147)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:06:25 PM EST
    if, as you claim, they maintain and attend better schools and still consistently have lower overall intelligence quotient scores and achieve far fewer advanced degrees..

    Maybe the better question isn't whether or not they evileeeeee-y ruined education, but why they seem so devoted to devaluing it.

    Possibly it's because formal education represents the threat of evileeee "secular" knowledge and evileeee "Big Government programs" that might entail paying some evileee tax dollars to support..

    Parent

    "A city that has been ran" (none / 0) (#152)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 06:36:20 AM EST
    I can't even begin to tell you how ironic that sentence is.

    Your grammar is atrocious, and you can't spell, and you couldn't make a cogent argument backed by actual research if your life depended on it, so I think I will take a pass at giving your theories about education any serious consideration.

    Oh, but here's something to ponder...if a Republican governor and a Republican-majority state legislature cut education funding, how is the state of the schools in a Democratic-led city the fault of Democrats?

    Please show your work.  

    Parent

    Reading Your Posts... (none / 0) (#182)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    ...they should be marked as evidence, The People's 1-100,000 on how the republicans have failed education in the United States.

    Remind me again professor how the Earth is cooling, that one is my personal favorite.  But in general some of their greatest hits, dinosaurs and humans inhabited Earth at the same time, evolution is just a theory, and that giving to the rich will benefit the poor.

    Parent

    Scott, why do you continually display (1.00 / 1) (#200)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:46:31 AM EST
    your inability to comprehend??

    The point is that the the warming trend has been flat for the past 20 or so years.

    As for "cooling" that would be a relative term. We have had cooling and warming cycles since day 1.

    BTW, I doubt you can fathom the technical details, but here's a link to a new study that appears to tie climate change to cosmic rays which in turn are influenced by the sun's magnetic field.


    Deep in the Earth's history there have been periods when the planet has been gripped by a very deep ice age while at the same time the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were 10 times higher than they are today (note that human CO2 emission have only increased CO2 by 0.3 times). Clearly something other than CO2 was driving such cold periods and even increasing CO2 by ten fold (i.e. five times what man made emissions might do in the next hundred years) had not driven up temperatures.

    There are no changes in CO2 levels that can account for the various climate changes that have occurred in the current interglacial period...

    Although solar radiance doesn't vary very much with changes in the solar cycle the solar wind does vary considerably. The solar wind, the stream of particles that floods out of the sun and washes over the Earth, varies with the changes in the level of solar activity and in turn the solar wind controls how many cosmic rays hit the earths atmosphere...

    To put it simply, periods of low cosmic rays (such as during periods of high solar activity such as during the 20th century) will see fewer lower clouds and a higher temperature, periods of high cosmic rays (such as during periods of low solar activity) will see more low clouds and therefore a drop in temperature.

    Link

    Parent

    Actually, you can't (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:10:05 PM EST
    No doubt Donald can answer that question.  Problem for you, Jim, is that it's none of your business.

    Parent
    And it is none of your biz wax either (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:47:31 PM EST
    But Donald didn't answer either question.

    Can you??

    Why no. No you can't.

    Parent

    Which one? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 07:06:11 AM EST
    The one I was talking about is your silly "question" about his grandchild.  Your other question is easily answered.

    And if you want a private conversation with someone, you'll need to do it on your own blog ... if only someone would show up.  :)

    Parent

    I understand you don't understand (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    but even you should be able to understand that you should be able to offer some small ray of enlightenment on the subject that was not personal to Donald.

    But you can't.

    Parent

    The rays of enlightenment are in this thread, (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:20:50 AM EST
    but I guess you have your blackout sunglasses on and can't see them.

    That would explain a lot, actually.

    Parent

    Defunding Education... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    ...is a top republican priority, especially those evil unions that ensure good teachers get paid a good wage.  

    Scott Walker being the best example.

    Parent

    Walker has survived despite (none / 0) (#201)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:52:32 AM EST
    the target on his back for interrupting the food cycle of tax payer dollars to teacher's unions who send them to the Demos who fund more tax dollars for the unions..

    Kinda like the Daisy Chain you may remember from your Navy days,

    Parent

    Too much Christmas (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:08:45 PM EST
    dontcha wish you lived next door to this?

    Boring. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 07:21:39 PM EST


    Parent
    More than boring, even (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:01:47 PM EST
    Stupid.  And incredibly annoying if you're a neighbor.

    Parent
    More than boring, even (none / 0) (#24)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 08:02:06 PM EST
    Stupid.  And incredibly annoying if you're a neighbor.

    Parent
    Boring is right. And trivial. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:21:44 AM EST
    Xmas lights are supposed to be peaceful.  Instead we get these bonzai eyeball assaults.

    You wanna impress me?  Cover your house with pixels.  Paint it with imagery.

    This one bit/light bulb control stuff is as old as watching jaggied monochrome on an apple ii.

    Parent

    And enough with the blaring music already! (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:22:22 AM EST


    Parent
    Wasn't Noriega tortured in our (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:55:43 PM EST
    name with music?

    Parent
    Hard to know (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:27:50 AM EST
    What would be more annoying as a neighbor.

    The obnoxious throbbing music pulsing lights and pyro or the cheering crowds of thousands.

    If I lived there I would seriously be considering blowing up the power lines and spending Christmas by candle light.   But I suppose there is always generators.  Then you would have fumes too.

    Parent

    If they ran off generators, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:44:11 AM EST
    lol - they'd crank up the sound effects and music even louder to cover the noise of the generators.

    Parent
    If your Christmas decorating involves (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 09:38:02 PM EST
    Pyrotechnics....

    You might be a redneck

    Parent

    If your family Christmas party ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 12, 2015 at 11:56:52 PM EST
    ... was featured in an episode of "Cops," you might be a redneck.

    Parent
    Next Door... (none / 0) (#183)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    ...what about his family, jesus, get that guy some ritalin.

    Parent
    Hah! (none / 0) (#189)
    by desertswine on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    How'd you like to live next to this guy.  At least the Christmas guy is seasonal.

    Parent
    outsider Cruz superior to insider Rubio (none / 0) (#41)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 06:06:01 AM EST
    Cruz and Rubio have nearly diametrically opposed plans on ISIS and Syria, as I have gradually learned.

    Rubio is superior as a debater and it is a bit sad that Cruz has not shown more brightly some of his differences.

    On Syria, Rubio wants a no-fly zone, arming Syrian moderates and removing Assad from power.  

    Cruz wants to arm and empower the Kurds and leaving Assad in power is fine with him and probably preferable to alternatives.

    Rubio has been criticizing Cruz for a vote on security but on false grounds.  the security agencies themselves don't need and can barely use endless and overwhelming data, or so it is alleged.

    The question is whether or not Cruz can strengthen his appeal in southern states . . .

    The (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:32:16 AM EST
    only one blocking Cruz in the southern states is Trump. I would predict Cruz having a complete wipe out of southern states without Trump in the picture. Rubio is the one fares poorly in the south.

    Parent
    Rubio doesn't act crazy enough (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:08:50 AM EST
    He doesn't say enough disgusting things.

    Parent
    Rubio is way too fresh-faced a kid, (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    way too anal-retentive, and way, way, way too inexperienced at managing a budget, especially his own.

    But yeah, GOoPers would vote him in.

    Parent

    Speaking only of sweeping the South (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    Ga6th is right, outside of Florida the Southern GOP does not care for Rubio, not at all.

    Parent
    What is interesting is (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:18:32 AM EST
    that Florida is a "winner take all state."

    According to some polls Trump maintains a 15 - 18 point lead over Rubio. Unless Trump crashes, Rubio might not get any benefit from being from Florida in the primary.

    Parent

    And doesn't Jeb! fare even worse? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    I have no explanation for what is going on in the South other than 8 years of having a black President has them grappling after the biggest verbal vomiting sleazebag they can get their hands on. Anything that verbally resembles how out of control they feel on the inside :)

    I fear that even the older ladies in the charitable organization I joined here back Trump, they won't say so to my face because I freaked out appropriately on facebook when Trump made fun of someone with arthogryposis. Josh has arthogryposis and of course they all know him. They used to talk politics around me though, and after that they don't. Causes me to suspect they firmly support Trump and don't hold it against him what he said because he "only said it to get elected". Ewww, I need a shower now just thinking about it.

    Parent

    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    Bush is doing worse. Somewhere between 7 -11%.

    IMO they are out of control because they fear losing their white supremacy position. Those uppity people have the nerve to protest and make demands on their government. Brown and black people should know that making demands is reserved for white people. Trump "tells it like it is." IOW, he is making it socially acceptable for people to display their racism and bigotry and unlease their violence against people who are not like them.

    I understand how personal your dislike of Trump is but as bad as Trump is (and he is bad) IMO Cruz would be much, much worse.

    Parent

    I still remember Laura Clawson (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    Arguing with me prior to Obama that wholesale racism in the South was largely dead :)

    Parent
    Her put downs do stick in (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 09:01:06 PM EST
    one's memory.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#162)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    It was when I was outraged by Josh's school schedule when we first moved here. MLK's bday break read MLK/Robert E Lee day. I scanned the schedule into the diary as evidence. She basically said I lived in some backwater redneckville of no consequence (and that's true) but the rest of the South is just as bad.

    The school district did finally drop the Robert E Lee bull$hit, so I wasn't the only person who felt slapped in the face. But it took years. They didn't drop it until a couple of years ago.

    Parent

    Miss Laura :) (none / 0) (#164)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    That automatic respectful Miss and Mister BS. Guess what? The high school choir director that my daughter tangled with, and I didn't know what to make of it. Daughter said she thought he was looking to perv on the girls and....busted, he has been, for years. The pervs are shaking out of the school district like fleas. This place is decades behind the rest of the country...Miss and Mister instant respect indeed!

    AND...the Pervy HS choir director has yet to lose his church choir director job :(....sigh

    Parent

    If I wanted to be polite, (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 09:28:38 AM EST
    I could say that when I read the Big Orange, I thought that Miss Laura was rather naive on more than one issue.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    and the media making all the comparisons to how Rubio sounds like Obama sure can't be helping him. Plus Rubio is a minority and they don't want anyone who doesn't at least have some white genes ALA Cruz on the ticket.

    Parent
    LOL (none / 0) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:57:21 AM EST


    Parent
    Rubio (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:28:00 PM EST
    imitates Obama to a T. Isn't imitation the sincerest form of flattery? I mean it's almost verbatim. You don't think Hillary is going to make Rubio look like an idiot?

    And I guess you seem to thing that the GOP base is in love with Obama. I beg to differ on that account.  

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#97)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    Like Hillary made Obama look an idiot.

    No, Rubio will do exceptionally well in debates

    Rubio would give the Republicans most likely their best chance to win,

    The GOP base will come to see that when the time comes,

    And yes, Rubio will have to make some promises,

    I don't know, Attorney General Cruz perhaps????

    Trump?? Hire him as contractor to build the Trump Wall on the Southern border

    Parent

    The main (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:33:54 PM EST
    people that have a problem with Rubio's inexperience are GOP voters. You don't seem to get that fact. So no, it's not the same no matter how desperately you want to make it so.

    Republicans see Trump as the most likely to win a general election. They see Rubio as a sure loser according to polls. Rubio stands up there and sweats during debates. He's running at the wrong time. People don't trust him with national security either.

    Parent

    In what way is Cruz an outsider? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:51:44 PM EST
    He's been to Ivy League universities, worked for the FTC, worked for the Justice Department, clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, worked for the GW Bush campaign, now in the Senate....

    He is certainly a 1st class con man for having convinced people he is some kind of an outsider.

    Parent

    Cruz looks the way I picture Wayne Tedrow (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:41:38 AM EST
    in James Ellroy's The Cold Six Thousand, a novel populated with Cruz-faced rogue cops and Cruz-faced FBI, CIA, and Mob operators.

    Parent
    Have to disagree (none / 0) (#75)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:03:35 AM EST
    Cruz was a nationally known debater in college winning many awards.  He graduated from a good law school and argued, and prevailed, Heller before the SC.  In fact one gripe about Cruz is he is such a good debater he comes across as too superior.

    Rubio went to a couple of no name colleges, got a BA from UF and JD from the U, does not compare well with Cruz going to Princeton, and staring on the debate team, and the Harvard Law.

    Not discussing their respective positions, just their debating abilities.

    Parent

    1960 Nixon/Kennedy Debate (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    radio listener Poll....Nixon won

    Television Viewers?....Kennedy wins

    Rubio, handsome, looks like future, Beats Clinton

    Cruz, looks like a corpse refusing to lay down

    Parent

    I don't see (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    how the GOP gets around Rubio's inexperience after screeching about Obama's lack of experience when the experience level from Rubio and Obama is nearly identical.

    Parent
    It (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Obviously wasn't a issue for the voters

    I can't see how the Democrats try to make a issue with Rubio's experience, it is greater than Obama's when he ran for President

    Parent

    Rubio's (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 08:54:30 AM EST
    experience is pretty much the same as Obama's not that the GOP won't try to lie and fluff up his experience.

    Rubio's problem is going to his record of handling money and his stances. The stances of the GOP are going to be a problem for every candidate except Trump which has a problem with his own stances. With Rubio apparently the GOP thinks it can just put a band aid on their decrepit ideas. Birthing slaves anyone? Who doesn't think Hillary would have a field day with that one?

    Parent

    Shiny and New (none / 0) (#96)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    Hope and Change

    Or Same ole, Same ole

    Hope and Change beat Same ole, Same ole 8 years ago

    And Same ole Same ole is now 8 years older, with some new issues to address as well

    Parent

    Cruz argued nine cases before the Supremes (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Peter G on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:10:26 PM EST
    between 2003 and 2010, a couple of them fairly major cases, but Heller was not one of them.

    Parent
    Cruz and Heller (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:51:17 PM EST
    In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Cruz drafted the amicus brief signed by the attorneys general of 31 states, which said that the D.C. handgun ban should be struck down as infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.[52][55] Cruz also presented oral argument for the amici states in the companion case to Heller before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[52][56]

    I sit corrected.

    Parent

    Pretty impressive, I'd say. (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:15:17 AM EST


    Parent
    If only he had decided to stick with (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    what he was (apparently) good at.

    Parent
    They (none / 0) (#76)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 11:12:05 AM EST
    Both do well on the debating stage

    Parent
    Based on current numbers (none / 0) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:22:18 AM EST
    It looks like Rand Paul is 50/50 to miss the mainstage in Tuesday's debate.

    Missing the cut (if that happens) is expected to lead to an announcement On Tuesday that Paul is out of the race.

    Rand Paul survives another day (none / 0) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    Nine will be on the stage Tuesday night.

    Parent
    Philip Haney, whistleblower, claims (none / 0) (#103)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 03:06:28 PM EST
    An alleged whistleblower, allegedly a former employee of Homeland security, named Philip Haney is claiming that he had been doing investigation into various Muslim terrorist groups or terrorist affliliated groups and that his investigation was shut down by DHS on the grounds that 1) the groups he was investigating were Muslim and 2) the group or groups he was investigating were not "Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations. . ."

    He claims also that the mosque in San Bernadino was becoming a part of his investigation, because one of the organizations which were part of his terrorist investigation had ties to the San Bernadino mosque.

    How much of this, if any, is true, I do not know.  It does not seem to be on the usual media.  Not sure if that is because this is all fabrications or because they don't consider the story meaningful.

    After more than six months tracking the Deobandi movement, Homeland Security halted the investigation at the urging of the State Department's Office of Civil Rights, Haney said.

    Reading between the lines (none / 0) (#107)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 04:48:45 PM EST
    of the comments on the results of the talks in Paris on climate change, I think we are doomed.

    Sounds like you try to read between the lines (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:23:18 PM EST
    instead of looking at facts.

    Parent
    And the facts are.... (none / 0) (#111)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:40:05 PM EST
    what exactly?

    Parent
    From the Independent (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:55:01 PM EST

    Long-term emissions goal

    The agreement commits countries to begin reducing global carbon emissions "as soon as possible" and to have "net zero emissions" during the second half of the century - meaning that any CO2 produced would need to be captured and disposed of or offset by planting huge numbers of trees. This is another good development which is expected to spur investment in green energy but is weakened because the timescales are vague.

    The rachet mechanism

    This is an essential part of the agreement and is binding. It requires countries to step up their targets to reduce carbon emissions every five years - which is crucial because the cuts they have promised so far would only limit global warming to between 2.7C and 3C.

    Financing

    The rich countries have promised to funnel at least $100bn (£66bn) a year into poorer countries from 2020 to help them switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy and to help protect them against dangers such as increased flooding.

    An undisclosed amount of money will also be made available to help pay for damage caused by global warming.

    Measuring and monitoring emissions

    A system has been agreed to ensure countries are meeting their emissions pledges although there are questions over how effectively this will be able to establish whether some developing nations, such as China, are doing what they say they are doing.

    I'm sure you will find some gloom and doom but personally I would say the glass may not be half full but it's no longer empty.

    Parent

    At this (none / 0) (#122)
    by lentinel on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 08:23:49 PM EST
    stage in the game, half full is not enough to prevent disaster.

    I wish it were.

    Parent

    The bad news is that if (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    they did all the economy destroying things they want to do then the increase would still be 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

    Given that is a global average there would still be huge changes in the environment.

    The good news is that they have missed every prediction made in the last 20 years....always on the high side.

    Even better news is that Congress is slowly but surely deciding that all of this is BS and wants to take its gonads back.

    What better issue???

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#151)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 05:40:14 AM EST
    are you feeling ok? You just admitted global warming is real.
    The bad news is that is if they did all the economy destroying things they want to do then the increase would still be 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.


    Parent
    Jim (none / 0) (#155)
    by lentinel on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 07:57:00 AM EST
    admits that things are getting warmer.

    He just doesn't think that we, the human race putting all that CO2 into the air, have anything to do with it. It just happens... like every 10,000 years or so things get hotter.

    He, for some reason, expresses himself as if  this is a liberal v/s conservative issue, when, in fact, it is purely based on science and observation.

    But, reading his posts, in his mind it is related to things corporate, it becomes a political issue rather than an objective one.

    What he and others of his mindset don't seem to take in is that, even if he is right... and fossil fuels have nothing to do with the increasing temperatures, wouldn't we be better off not having to breathe in that garbage? Wouldn't he and others in his camp prefer to breathe air that was uncontaminated?

    Personally, I prefer fresh air to air filled with fumes. But hey... maybe that's just me.

    In any case, I'm afraid that Jim is going to have his way - because I don't see that the energy companies are going to go out of their way to make solar more easily accessible... and the current agreement, as I read about it, does not mandate that they do so.

    If someone could give them a way to make a profit out of the rays freely given to us by the sun, we might have a chance. Maybe they could charge for storage and supply, and make their unconscionable trillions that way.

    A tangent... but I did take some pleasure in Trump's reference to the "Dopey Prince".
    I would truly love for those oil-rich freaks in the ME, who have been wagging us like a dog for decades, to go broke and go into some legitimate business - like dry cleaning. (Organic dry cleaning.)

    Parent

    China (none / 0) (#115)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 05:58:35 PM EST
    And India will continue to add coal plants while we put coal plants out of commission.

    And the emerging markets all require cheap energy to bring their people out of poverty.

    Obama administration lawyers discovered early in the day that the latest draft text had a potentially deal-killing tweak: Deep into the document, in Article 4, was a line declaring that wealthier countries "shall" set economy-wide targets for cutting their greenhouse gas pollution.

    That may not sound like such a headache-inducing roadblock, but in the world of international climate negotiations, every word counts. In previous drafts, the word "shall" had been "should" -- and in the lingo of U.N. climate agreements, "shall" implies legal obligation and "should" does not. That means the word change could have obliged the Obama administration to submit the final deal to the Senate for its approval. And inevitably, the GOP-led chamber would kill it on sight.



    Parent
    2 new series start tomorrow on SYFY (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 13, 2015 at 07:30:29 PM EST
    The both have great buzz.  About damn time I say the SYFY network did some actual, you know, SYFY.   Wired agrees-

    Expanse is the new Battlestar Galacta


    SYFY'S NEW SHOW The Expanse features great writing and high production values, and is designed to appeal to the sort of discriminating genre fans who watch Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead. TV critic Andrew Liptak notes that while Syfy has produced some great shows like Battlestar Galactica, recent offerings like Sharknado have turned the network into something of a punch line.

    The other is Arthur C. Clarks Childhoods End

    Watching the events unfold in the three-part miniseries, it's pretty incredible how familiar a lot of its images and plot points feel--a testament to how influential Clarke's book has been on science fiction works that came after it. In a new intro to the novel written a few years before he died, Clarke himself recalls watching the opening scenes of Independence Day and feeling a sense of déjà vu. And Independence Day is certainly evoked here, in turn, when the massive ships arrive and all of humanity stops to gawp and gasp with a mix of wonder and sheer terror.

    My DVR is set

    Not really a Gator fan (none / 0) (#150)
    by ragebot on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 12:02:45 AM EST
    and they did beat my Lady Noles this year.

    But have to say the Lady Gators got robbed by this ref.

    Let me count the ways (none / 0) (#184)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    Lets count some ways that might have prevented the San Bernadino shootings . . .

    and remember, they only killed 14 or so people . . . but the same errors could have led to killing 100 or 3000 . . .

    1. Supposedly Malik was given 3 background checks and 2 personal, in person, interviews before giving her her visa.  The background check people missed the fact that on social media, she had stated that she supported and wanted to be a part of violent jihad.

    2. The background checkers also missed the fact, as it is alleged, that she used a phoney address.

    3. Philip Haney or someone with a similar name was allegedly investigating a terror group with ties to the mosque the killers were attending, but his investigation was shut down by dhs . . . on flimsy, pointless grounds.  Among other things, it is supposedly contrary to religious freedom to surveil Muslim groups which are not on the specially designated list of terrorist groups . . .

    4. The Muslim friend Manquez supposedly made highly suggestive and nearly potentially incriminating statements to other people at various locations over a period of years . . .  No one thought to call police and say, "Hey, we have a Muslim here who says there are people ready to shot up the town.  Would it be a good idea to talk to him?  I think you might want to.  Maybe you should ask if he knows any of them personally and where they live."  No, that would be an invasion of privacy . . .

    5. The dad and perhaps others knew that the son was radicalized . . . but hey, who expects a dad to call 911?

    In other news, one survey finds that about 48% of American Muslims believe that their mosques leaders do not do enough to discourage, reject and argue against terrorism, or violence in support of Islam . . .

    Is that another one we should add to the list?  If the Bernadino mosque leader had been passionate about Muslims not shooting up unarmed civilians . . . and if he had encouraged those attending to make an occasional phone call to 911 about any of their friends who were thinking of it or any who had a "hobby" of building pipe bombs . . .

    Would that have helped?  Is that too much to ask?

      Well, the 1st amendment means that we can't really expect anything of a religious leader other than no human sacrifice and no sex abuse of minors . . . but "we" certainly don't need to let all the adherents of this religion in in which many leaders are so soft about whether or not shooting up civilians at work is good or bad . . .

    Bumper Sticker... (none / 0) (#187)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    ...sort of, but I got my first Trump bumper sticker sighting, it was about a 6" round sticker on the rear window of a 2 door coup.  It said 'F*ck Trump' with a hand and the middle finger extended.

    The driver was hispanic and it made me laugh right until I saw the one next to it with an American flag, it said 'Rand Paul'.

    While looking to see if I could find it, which I did not, I found THIS & THIS one made me really laugh.

    Had a Trump laugh with a neighbor today when (none / 0) (#205)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 01:31:15 PM EST
    we met at Costco.  She said her daughter was thinking about moving the family to Canada if Trump won.

    I said, that's the real reason for the border fence.  It's not to keep "them" out.  It's to keep us penned in following the Trumpocalypse.  

    NFL... (none / 0) (#206)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    ...Packers win, they look better, but still not playing good football.

    I really thought the Texans were up to beating the Pats, I was very wrong.

    The 49ers are 4-9, bet that doesn't happen very often.

    shoephone writes (none / 0) (#208)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    Too many of us are working too hard, can barely cover the costs, and don't see the possibility of retirement any time soon. We need a single payer plan. The insurance controlled system is a loser
    .

    Ah, something I have been saying for years and years.

    The question now comes to details.

    My plan would be modeled on Medicare. That is you could actually keep your same doctors, clinics, etc. And we could keep the same administrative system. No need to reinvent the wheel.

    But there would be no-copays and it would cover everything. Medical, dental, vision and drugs.

    No doubt the naysayers will scream you have to wait 6 months in Canada for a hip replacement...and you do and we would...but you can get the service 99% of the people need promptly and at no cost.

    The issue then becomes how to pay. My vision is that we use a federal sales tax. And yes, I understand that sales taxes are (groan and grimace) regressive. But if you are going to cover everybody then everybody must pay.

    Unprepared food, utility bills under a certain amount, etc. could be excluded in the name of fairness.

    link (none / 0) (#209)
    by ragebot on Mon Dec 14, 2015 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    link

    Big rant by Bergdahl's lawyer about a full court martial instead of an Article 15.

    Saturday Open Thread | 210 comments (210 topical)