Thursday Open Thread

Another day yesterday spent on computer issues. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome, while I catch up.

< Windows 10 Upgrade Fever | Death of Mullah Muhammed Omar Confirmed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Cop indicted for murder. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 29, 2015 at 07:42:59 PM EST

    Need to see more stories likes this. Now let's see if they can get a conviction. I like this DA. He describes the traffic stop as "chicken-crap" and the officer's actions as asinine.

    The curtain is being raised on how much cops lie. Police reports are complete works of fiction. They are trained to repeat terms like "feared for my life," or "he reached for my gun" to justify murdering American citizen.

    The body count of Americans killed by police is up to around 585 and it's only the end of July. In the UK, only 52 people have been killed by police since 1900. Yep, that's a hundred and fifteen years folks. What is wrong with this country?

    My Black friend (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:09:47 AM EST
    ...was shot and seriously wounded by a deputy, who knew he was driving on a suspended license.

    A suspended license.

    When my friend, WHOSE IDENTITY WAS KNOWN attempted to leave the scene, the deputy riddled the car as he emptied his weapon, in a residential area.  

    I saw the car in an impound lot in a police station about 20 miles from where the shooting occurred, and before I was thrown out I took a few photographs of the gunshot damage.  The deputy, who claimed he was in "fear of his life because the vehicle was being driven at him," managed to put six bullets into the driver's door, and both front side windows were gone, so I assume there were others.  There is no way this shot group from a right angle to the vehicle could have been delivered if the vehicle was directed at the deputy.

    My friend is probably in line for a big payday, says we're going to party when it comes.  His arm is still messed up.


    While most of your point is valid (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:02:30 AM EST
    You lose it when comparing to the UK, where not only do most cops not carry guns, but very few people on the street carry guns.  

    It makes for a whole different mindset, and thus, cannot be used for comparison.


    Considering how many people (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    killed by cops are unarmed, I think it's a more than fair comparison.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:04:09 AM EST
    If you assume that a person you are dealing with is most likely unarmed, you would approach that person very differently than if you may / have to suspect that person is armed.

    Like I said, most of your post was right on, but this comparison to the UK is not relevant and is wrong.


    Yes a different mindset in the UK (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:11:19 AM EST
    But the preferred mindset here (just my opinion of course).

    Well That is Because You are Starting... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    ...in 2015, which is fair, but this mess we are in didn't start in 2015.

    Had we decided in say 1900 that more guns is not a solution to any problem, we might be right there with the Brits, making the comparison spot on.

    We armed our criminals with legal guns and now the same logic is being promoted as the solution, once again, with the same nefarious characters behind it.  They say, 'more guns will make us safer' even though history has clearly proven that more guns does the exact opposite of gun manufacture claims, sorry I mean, the NRA's claims.

    There are other factors of course, like sentencing and incarceration, that play into the equation, but the the dependent variable is number of legal guns available to the general public, IMO.

    Guns are like drugs, the more you make, the better chance people will be able to get them even though it is illegal for them to possess them.  Gun manufactures and Cartels understand this, it's why flooding the market is so effective.  

    Gun manufactures need bad guys to own guns, otherwise no one but hunters would need them.


    I don't think it's just a gun issue (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    It's the culture in our law enforcement. They are not held accountable. They have immunity for whatever misdeeds they perform. The escalate to violence instead of de-escalate. They have no training or skills for non-violent means of problem solving. Their go to solution is the gun or taser. Or dispensing a beating. And there's the thin blue line. They protect each other no matter what bad conduct they do.

    I Would Go as Far as To Say... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:42:14 AM EST
    ...it's our culture in general, from the way we treat prisoners, to how they are treated after release, to cops, to citizens, to the way we glamorize violence.  It's like a bad synergy that is enabled by guns.  Remove them and you got a bunch of criminals and law enforcement running around with knives and throwing stars.

    Deadly, but not nearly as efficient.

    I forget the movie in which criminals are sent to an island.  They still figure out how to kill each other, but without guns it takes a lot more work and skill.


    Of course that old Constitution thingee (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:56:12 AM EST
    can be ignored.

    I remeber the words (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    "well regulated" being in there somewhere in that thingee..

    shhhh (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    regulation is anti-American!

    And, for almost 250 years (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:17:50 PM EST
    we had a Supreme Court that was literate, and reading comprehension was not something open to fascist poetic license.

    (BTW, "fascist" is appropriate as anyone who would take a few minutes, and looks in Webster's will agree.)


    Actually, (none / 0) (#146)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:45:14 AM EST
     the supreme court never even arguably  interpreted the 2nd Amendment to confer only a collective right until 1939.

      In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939).

       Miller was  widely criticized on many grounds by scholars on both sides of the issue both in terms of holding and just for being poorly reasoned  written(this link is to a good article)  

      Personally, I agree that there is scant support, textually or historically for the claim the  2nd Amendment conferred only a collective right to bear arms which must be limited to arms held in conjunction with a militia-- well regulated or otherwise.

      Even Miller never quite said that, by the way. what it did state is: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

       The Miller court then reversed a lower court decision ruling that  a couple of bank robbers could not be prosecuted for violating the National Firearms Act for transporting in interstate commerce a sawed-off that  had not been registered in accordance with the NFA and for which the tax stamp was lacking.

       Miller is, as the author I linked to above states,  "an impenetrable mess," but the holding that the NFA was not unconstitutional insofar as it required registration and taxation for the sawed-off does not necessarily even lend support to the argument the 2nd does not confer an individual right. Some court did subsequently so construe Miller but they were  rickety structures built upon a weak foundation.

       In policy terms I would favor substantially more regulation of firearms, but I an find no fault in the holding the 2nd confers an individual right and next to no merit in the arguments that it does not.

      It's also important to note that individual rights may be (and are) constitutionally regulated. Heller changed the landscape perhaps, but more in terms of altering the analysis and standards of review applied to statutes relating to firearms.

      The new body of law will develop slowly and given the current climate probably very slowly. In the absence of legislation seeking to regulate firearms that gun rights advocates would seek to challenge there won't be many cases. The trend now not is not for more restriction but for legislative easing of restrictions. Obviously, no argument can be made the 2nd Amendment mandates government action to restrict firearm possession, so eliminating or easing restrictions will not result in court cases. Some existing legislative regulation can be challenged under Heller, but the scope of Heller likely won't be fleshed out until some legislative bodies  enact statutes placing stronger regulation on firearms and those statutes are then challenged.



    Too bad and so sad (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:06:38 PM EST
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    that you don't understand the meaning.


    Well, neither do you, apparently. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    Because there's certainly nothing that's well regulated about the present state of affairs.

    People who reside in households in which firearms are present are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence, than those who reside in gun-free homes. And if you're one of those who conceal-carry, same thing. you're much more likely to be involved in a violent confrontation involving firearms, than those of us who choose to not pack heat.

    Further, if you're a member of a gun-owning household, you're far more likely to find yourself facing the business end of a firearm being wielded by an angry family member or personal acquaintance, than you are ever to become a random victim of a gun-toting stranger on the street. The vast majority of gun violence victims are actually shot by someone they know.

    I recognize that the Second Amendment isn't going to go away anytime soon. But those in this country who insist upon exercising their rights under that constitutional provision ought to realize that both they and their loved ones are actually less safe because of that personal choice, and are not more secure.

    Guns are a magnet for violence, and not a deterrent to it.


    Donald, while I appreciate, (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:26:10 AM EST
    understand, and believe what you're saying, there are other sides to the gun story.  Since I live alone I don't have any angry family members to worry about.  Most of my guns were given to me by my grandfather and father back in the 50's when we used to hunt.  They are a collection of past memories.  While I do have a concealed permit, I never wear any concealed weapons.  I do take a gun with me to Miami, since it's easy for me to get lost and in some neighborhoods they all seem to have guns.  I did have to pull my gun once up there and wave it at a guy that was sneaking up on me with one hand behind his back.  I didn't like it, but he left immediately.  It appears I'm in a different category than most people, but we already knew that.

    I think it's attitude (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:37:18 AM EST
    It isn't that I didn't grow up around a few guns.  The attitudes were much different though. At the ranch though, occasionally coyotes would attack the sheep, they run them in a circle and then attack into the circle, and when that was going on the guns came out of the gun rack.

    There wasn't a constant focus on guns though. There wasn't a desire to obtain guns that could kill more faster. Having to use a gun had feelings of regret and loathing attached to it.

    There is a segment of society feeding on " gun power" now. There is almost a sociopathic joy in using them being nurtured in some people and families, and the NRA is all about that.


    Of course, fishcamp, there are exceptions. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:53:28 AM EST
    There are many responsible gun owners in this country, such as yourself and members of my own family. I don't worry about people like you.

    It's those persons who would treat their Second Amendment rights so cavalierly and carelessly, as though it were somehow an extension of their own personalities, who have me rightfully concerned. Such individuals have an alarming tendency to project -- and when one projects, one can often provoke.



    It's this paranoic Bircher metality (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 12:01:36 PM EST
    that ANY sane regulation is "the first step" toward "Big Government" completely disarming citizenry and herding us into rededucation camps..

    Total Bircher paranoia..


    Donald. how do you tell?? (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    There are many responsible gun owners in this country, such as yourself and members of my own family. I don't worry about people like you.

    I mean, do you have to be a Democrat sworn to support Hillary??

    Is there some "Mark of the Beast" on them?

    People with guns prevent bad things from happening every day. And yes, from time to time bad things happen to good people. But.... outside of some "Citizens Review Board" how do you tell?? And how honest would the CRB in SF??


    Don't be such an a$$, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 06:33:27 PM EST
    The simple fact of the matter that far more people are victims of gun violence, most of them at the hands of someone they know, than are ever saved by persons packing heat.

    As the CDC's statistics show, as gun owners, you and members of your immediate household are generally at much greater risk of gun violence -- whether it's through a criminal act, an attempt at suicide or purely by accident -- than I am, as someone who chooses to not have such weaponry either on my person or in my household.

    And as long as Congress and the federal courts persist in indulging the NRA and firearms manufacturers at the overall expense of public health and safety -- and yes, gun violence is a serious public health issue in this country, given that it's the leading cause of death for young American men between the ages of 15 and 24 -- then we will continue to pay a steep price for such self-delusions about personal security, as posited by the paranoid likes of you.

    Your attempt to move the goalposts here is duly noted, and hereby dismissed for the BS it is.



    Whats too bad and so sad (none / 0) (#158)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    is that there are people in this country that are so confused and conflicted within themselves that they'd write the biggest blank check in history to fight "terror" overseas while at the same time fighting for right of every homicidal lunatic here in the U.S to go out and buy a gun.

    Yeah Jim... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    ...missiles and tanks are arms(aka armaments), and yet you can't buy them.  Felons can't buy guns, automatic guns are illegal, there is a wait period, so clearly we have realized the original text is flawed and has to regulated.

    Also I see a section called Amendments, what's that all about ?


    Automatics are legal, if you've got the coin (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:53:58 PM EST
    and pass a few background checks.  Youtube has the video proof.  At least one of those videos shows a legally, privately owned, electrically driven minigun blasting away.

    Not sure what the practical application of that is.  Cutting grass with it would be kinda rough on the neighborhood.  Not to mention the cost.


    So Are Silencers in Texas (none / 0) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:46:02 AM EST
    But the hoops you have to jump through to get one legally are insane & costly, but it can be done.

    But that is one or two states, same with automatic weapons, most simply do not have legal access.


    Scott, I just read on Google news (none / 0) (#154)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:21:59 AM EST
    that amazingly 41 states have gun silencers available to citizens.  Why, I don't know, but you're right they are difficult and expensive to obtain.  Having a silencer permit would undoubtedly put one on a government list that is closely watched.  No silencers for me, but you can easily make one with a large plastic cola bottle.

    That is Crazy (none / 0) (#159)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    I thought when Texas legalized them I had read only one other state was on board, but that has been a couple years.

    With the internet, I am sure that can be accomplished with little skill, but to make them legal...


    I believe that was exactly the point (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by sj on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    You lose it when comparing to the UK, where not only do most cops not carry guns, but very few people on the street carry guns.

    It makes for a whole different mindset, and thus, cannot be used for comparison.

    Our mindset s*cks.

    You are correct albeit, (and ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by gbrbsb on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:26:08 PM EST
    ...  no offence intended merely an attempt at clarification for anyone interested in UK gun laws), it depends on what you mean by "guns", "carry" and "very few people".

    If by "guns" you mean those of the type US police "carry", except in Northern Ireland UK police don't "carry" handguns at all since the same as with any firearms they use they are only issued to Authorized Firearms Officers (less than 5% of the force) at a time of exceptional circumstances (e.g. an armed hostage situation), which once resolved sees all guns back to base. And the AFO's guarding No 10, airports and other likely targets, with their fingers always planted firmly on the triggers and/or safety catches of their MP5s seem to me to be more "wielding" their guns rather than just "carrying" them although I accept I might be nit picking a bit on this!

    In respect of "very few people", in the UK only criminals "carry" handguns since the mere "possession" of a gun with a barrel of less than 30 cm (or 60cm overall) is a criminal offence (muzzle loaded, antiques and a few other rarities excluded) leaving handguns of the type used for self defence barred from private ownership altogether... again NI is the exception.

    Curiously despite the UK's strict gun laws it appears a licensed owner can legally walk down the street carrying their unloaded shotgun, sleeved or not, see here), however, since both handguns and automatic or semi-automatic rifles of more than 3 rounds (one chambered) are illegal and even for 3 rounders a license can only be sought for target practice, hunting or pest/animal control, (applying for a gun license on the basis of self defence is barred in the UK), and are only issued after fairly thorough background checks, an undertaking to store the gun inaccessible to non license holders (including family), and an on site inspection of the gun locker, licensees tend to only "carry" their shotguns around when off to shoot which fortunately for us is very rarely at human beings but no so fortunate for the wildlife!  


    some good local news today (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by CST on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    the Boston Public Market opened, which is apparently "America's most local food market".  Really excited, it's right next to my office and the only grocery store that's on the way home.  Stopped by today for lunch and the place was mobbed.  Also the governor is very tall, like taller than the other tallish people in the room.  It's pretty cool, I wonder how some of the produce spots will fare in the wintertime, but there is a lot of meat and cheese and seafood too that should be fine.  I even overheard one of the vendors saying that they are going to double the size of their farm this year because of it.

    There are actually a lot of rural areas in New England that produce food, so it's really cool to see something like this available in the city.  And if day one is any indication, there is a ton of demand for more locally sourced food.  I think there is also a perception (not sure how true) that we have stricter environmental regulations concerning the production of food around here.  It's certainly true that people find it valuable to advertise their sustainability.  Also, right down the street is Quincy market, which has only prepared food, and on any given day is completely mobbed and overrun with tourists.  Today's crowd at the Public Market was decidedly the "business lunch and local old people" crowd.  So it's definitely serving more of a local population.

    The hardest part will be making it affordable.  But I didn't notice astronomically high prices, and there is certainly a growing segment of the population that is willing to pay more for quality and sustainability.  Plus, at the least, lower shipping costs should help.  They are also looking at other ways to reduce cost:

    "All vendors will accept the state's food stamp debit card for all eligible market products. Vendors were asked to find ways to sell their high-end products at lower prices to make the goods attainable for low-income shoppers.

    For Nella Pasta, that means selling mis-shapen pasta at a reduced rate. For Q's Nuts, that means providing the option to buy specialty nuts by the dollar rather than pound. For most farmers, it means selling "seconds," or produce slightly bruised or oddly shaped, at a lower price."

    What great news! (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    I think people really have a desire to both eat well and support the local economy, so this works on so many levels.

    And with it right next to your office, you can probably time your trips there so you aren't part of the lunch mob!  Assuming you have access to refrigeration, if you need it.

    Last year we did a CSA with a local farm, which was great, but looking around, we decided it would be nice to join a co-op that offered more variety.  We chose Friends and Farms, and have been very pleased.  

    This week's basket, which we get today, comprises the following:

        Wayne Nell & Sons Boneless Pork Chops
        Bone-in Chicken Thighs
        Meat Crafters Maple Sage Pork Breakfast       Sausage
        Miller Farms Pastured Eggs
        Trickling Springs Milk

        Rahll New Potatoes
        Miller Farms Sweet Corn
        Raw Virginia Peanuts
        Baywater Greens Squash
        Miller Farms Cantaloupe

        Boyer Orchards Plums
        Lancaster Farm Fresh Red Onions
        Shiitake Mushrooms from Pennsylvania
        Baywater Greens Bibb Lettuce
        Bread from The Breadery

    I like that I can make whole meals from the basket, and the meats I'm getting aren't full of antibiotics and additives.  F & F always provides recipes, and they have a "market" where you can order additional items to be added to your weekly basket.  Every other week, one of the proteins is a seafood - shellfish or fin fish - and it's been outstanding.  Really fresh - I tend to order fish every week now, so we are eating less red meat, now, too!

    One other advantage of eating local is that your food hasn't been sitting in cold storage for weeks, or sometimes months, after harvesting.  It was picked within a day or two of when you're getting it, which is almost as good as picking it out of your own garden.

    I'm sure Boston's market will be a huge success - don't be surprised, though, if you end up spending more money for a while, as you find yourself buying more because it all looks so good and appeals to your tastebuds!


    I tried a CSA (none / 0) (#165)
    by CST on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:36:30 AM EST
    But for me it was just too much food.  I'm usually not cooking for a ton of people so it was always hard to go through everything.  This is great because it's close and convenient and can buy as much or as little as I want.

    I think the only problem I'm gonna have going for lunch is I could easily spend an hour just wandering around looking at everything.  Plus there is this one apple farm that sells donuts and apple crisp which overwhelmingly wins the smell competition and is very dangerous.


    Oh, (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:40:28 AM EST
    man those apple farms. We have them here in N. GA. and they have cider and cider donuts and apple fritters that are wonderful. We try to go every year and buy up a bushel or so of apples. Last year I think it was I made apple butter that was a big hit.

    This year I think I'm going to make peach jam to give away at Christmas.


    Excellent! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:07:10 PM EST
    How nice for you and Boston! In the winter you'll get more winter veggies and storage crops. You can do a lot with them and make some nice winter meals. Also, some farmers may expand and use hoops/tunnels/greenhouses for greens and such in the  winter and early spring produce.

    Sounds like a win for everyone 😀


    Clue: (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:41:18 PM EST
    not the Supreme Court, in this instance. Sometimes they're right. Sometimes, I am not afraid to say, they are not, in my reasonably well-informed, professional opinion. Not that I'm always right either. But in this instance, I'm pretty confident about it. In the end, we just do our best, by careful reading, reasoning and research, to figure it out.

    Etched in Stone Official Debate Rules (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:11:32 AM EST
    for the GOP debate on Fox next week:

    How many will be on the main stage?
    10 unless Fox decides to include 11.

    How many polls will be used to pick the candidates?  
    5 that have been released prior to 5pm next Tuesday.

    Would that be the 5 most recent polls?
    Not really. Fox decides which 5 polls they consider relevant.

    Are there rules to decide what is considered a relevant poll?
    Nope, that's decided at Fox after they see the results of the poll.

    Would they include a poll that was sponsored by CNN or NBC?
    Trick question that can only be answered by Roger Ailes.

    If 17 are running and only 10 are supposed to be on stage, what happens to the other 7?
    There will be a "kiddie table" debate on Fox earlier that evening for anyone that doesn't make the mainstage.

    Are there really 17 people running for the GOP nomination?
    Actually there are currently 129 that have officially filed the paperwork for the GOP nomination.

    Why aren't the other 112 invited to the kiddie table debate?
    No one knows who they are.

    What do we really know about the upcoming debate?
    It will be in Cleveland Thursday August 6 on Fox at 9pm (and 5pm) Eastern Time. The main event will be moderated by Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly. The undercard will be moderated by Bill Hemmer and Martha MacCallum.

    Will there be popcorn?
    Only for those viewing at home.

    This morning (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    i was watching Battle Of The Five Armies and this scene struck me as what we might expect as far as "tone" for next weeks debate.

    the easiest fit for the role of Galadriel here, for me, is Lindsey Graham.   Hopefully he will at some point, if not now, be allowed to save us


    Priceless (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    Just watched. Trump focus group (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:20:39 AM EST
    on Mourning Joe.


    Find it online and watch it.  

    Favorite response-

    What would a Trump presidency look like?

    Classy.  (no, really.   That's what they said)

    My favorite part of the recent coverage is how many are saying they expected this.  PREDICTED it!

    The focus group (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:52:57 AM EST
    members seem to be dictionary-challenged:  Classy, adj. elegant, having or reflecting high standards of behavior.  But, in fairness, the response was about a Trump presidency, with any shortfalls in his elegance department picked up by cabinet members, such as Sarah Palin, whom Trump sees as part of his team.  

    And, among Trump's most attractive qualities is his "success."   The  focus group woman who wanted to ask her mother if she could write to Trump to find out how he became rich, so she could become rich, too, needed to know that she was parent-challenged

    Sadly, the woman chose the wrong mother and father.  Trump, had a privileged upbringing as the son of real estate tycoon, Fred Trump.  Fred Trump was the beneficiary of government financing (FHA) from the great depression.  And, of course, Donald Trump inherited an estimate of between $40 and $200 million, which does give a leg up on success.


    It is truly stunning (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    half women.   They were able to make coherent complete sentences.

    He's just like us except a billionaire.

    The guy has a gift for them to say that.

    This is Reagan level lunacy.   One of them involved Reagan.


    Yes, he is an interesting study (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:19:27 AM EST
    "just like one of us,"  except for the $billions, in my view, comes from his take-this-and-shove-it manner of speech and, his  sublimely admirable crass and bullying behavior.  Something they might want to say or do to their bosses, if they only could.  Sort of the attraction of Christie, until it became threadbare. .

    You noted the other day that there was a subtle shift toward Trump and away from the summertime fluke based on Morning Joe and his Margaret Dumont.  

     This shift seems, to me, to have gone full bore.  Republicans may be moving from denial to acceptance, in accord with Kubler-Ross.stages of grief.  A transition, perhaps, made easier for them as they get a better look at the other miscreants in the clown car.

    In any event, Trump should not be underestimated. He is the natural outgrowth of the steady diet of simple solutions, misinformation and disdain for government fed by right wing media over a long period of time. And, history should instruct us that "funny little men,"  can be anything but.  


    shoot (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:39:18 AM EST
    I'll admit even I like his willingness to call it like it is with regard to his primary opponents.  Not that Dems haven't been doing it for years.  But if it gets the Fox News crowd to pay attention, more power to it.

    Of course, it would be nice to have an honest discussion about WHY their policies have failed.  But at least they're acknowledging failure.  Or rather having it rubbed in their faces.


    I'm starting to think that (none / 0) (#110)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    ...Trump is going to run away with this.

    The "debates" are anything but discussions of policy, they are canned, vetted talking points delivered by careful people.  As TV goes, that sucks.

    But FOX owns the candidates, and it's being sold as a FREAKING GAME SHOW for the nomination!

    Trump has close to three decades of television experience, has his own shows, and he's MADE for it, the lone straight-shootin' oligarch Rocky figure struggling against the Establishment.

    He's gonna own them.


    I am beginning to think (none / 0) (#134)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:45:28 AM EST
    the Fox debate may be the end of Trump.

    Conservatives will be asking the questions of Trump and they have seen the polls showing Trump to be a disaster against any Democratic candidate.   They will ask Trump questions designed to show he is no conservative, i.e., his past pro choice stance and his statement he was a liberal on health care.

    Trump is  ostentatiously not preparing for the debates, but the conservative poo-bahs will be gunning for him.  

    So far, people have challenged Trump for being outrageous.  That has not worked.  Now, the conservatives who ask the questions at the Fox debate will challenge Trump on policy and show that he is not a conservative...


    I read (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:28:58 AM EST
    an article that talked about Trump's appeal and it said guys look at him and say hey, if I had all that money that's the kind of life I would be living.

    Well, there's all these predictions that he's going to blow up soon, any day now, it's going to be the end. I think he might gain even more voters from the debate.


    Great Trump debate tweet (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:43:15 AM EST
    Imagine a NASCAR driver prepping for a race knowing one of the drivers will be drunk.  That's what prepping for this debate is like.

    I have to say, if he punks the Koch brothers I may put a Trump sign in my yard.


    I'm Telling You... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    ...the guy has some good ideas, the problem is he is an unpredictable, egotistical, maniacal, hot head most of the time who clearly has race, financial, and tact problems that should disqualify him from holding any office.

    But most importantly, the idea that Trump would use the presidency to not promote Trump and benefit Trump greatly, is ludicrous; that some how outside money is worse that Trump's own money, which in past elections was outside money.  It was money given to politicians/lobbyists to get what Donald Trump wants from the government.  All an election would do is save Trump the hassle and cost of 'donating'.

    The idea that he cares about anyone but DT is why I can't take anyone who thinks he would be a good president, seriously.  He might dump on the Koch brothers, but he isn't going to dump on himself for getting what they both want, a government without regulation that doesn't serve it's non-billionaire classes.


    Howdy (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    is just talking about egging on Trump not really voting for him. I think you're taking him too serious.

    It is (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:52:14 PM EST
    that said
    I am aware how much the scenario I laid out for Recon in the Trump thread sounds like a Putney Swopeish political movie pitch where the lunatic actually wins and (insert Godwins Law reference here).

    I just don't think that will happen.  


    Part of me is curious to see what happens when he starts implementing things like universal health care.


    Yes, (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 01:37:34 PM EST
    because I am not sure the people who are following him even care what his stances are for the most part. It seems to be more about "style" than anything.

    I talked to a friend of mine who is a Republican and lives in SC today. She said she probably was not even going to vote in the primary because they are all horrible candidates. I guess you could say at least Trump has some of the GOP excited. I also guess if you're not excited about Trump then you aren't excited about any of them.

    She says the GOP has been taken over by the tea party nuts and wants to get rid of them. I said what better way to get rid of them that to nominate a tea party darling and have them go down in a landslide. I said well, if Jeb is the nominee and loses the tea party lives on. She pretty much agreed with that. It seems the GOP has been going crazy this week. They are dumping on Hillary like there's no tomorrow. That Pew poll was very bad news for them and I guess that's their reaction. If you know you can't win then just keep flinging mud and hoping.


    Style it is (none / 0) (#62)
    by christinep on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 04:34:51 PM EST
    Those who like tough talk, swagger, and Bushian "bring it on" have all sorts of things to imbibe in Trump's bravado.  There always seems to be a third or so of the electorate who want/need to hear a blustery man ... the bluster, then gets mistaken for strength and for telling-it-like-it-is.  

    Which brings me to the point: Other than deporting all undocumented immigrants (adding today that the "good ones" should then be brought back) and equally blowing-smoke "ideas" such as saying that he would replace Obamacare with "terrific" healthcare run be private insurance companies without further detail, has Trump provided any plans on anything? I'm not asking about whether whatever plan for anything that he might have proposed is good or bad ... nope, I'm more interested in hearing the "some good ideas" that a few have alluded to in a general way here.  What ideas are these "good ideas," may I ask?

    The Emperor's Clothes or even less?


    how about (none / 0) (#72)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:23:00 PM EST
    after winning,

    appoint advisors,

    ask advisors to write a plan,

    ask Congress to consider plan,

    blame Congress if Congress does not pass a plan or passes a bad plan . . .


    Trumps (none / 0) (#73)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:23:46 PM EST
    "nakedness" is actually part of his strength. His base of old school Reagan Democrats and other assorted Tea party types have been slavishly voting for the Republicans and their plans for decades. They got squat in return, like the rest of the middle class they are still circling the drain.

    After decades of RW propaganda they are deafened to Democratic ideas, after decades of disappointment they finally see the Republicans plans as empty promises and frauds.

    A light bulb has come on, dim as it may be, they have been lied to and used, now they rather listen to Trumps substance-free bluster then some boring snake-oil/pipe dream policy positions.

    I can hardly blame them, "The great and powerful Trump will make everything terrific" does sound better then "Jeb, the smart! one, will grow the economy on the backs you poor schmucks" I paraphrase here of course.



    Yep (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:43:53 PM EST
    that's it. They've been played and they know it and now they're angry and Trump has been able to channel their anger.

    And exactly what are the wonderful things that the (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:41:58 PM EST
    Demos will do to help the middle class??

    How about (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:58:05 PM EST
    raising the minimum wage and investing in infrastructure just to name a couple.

    Not a bad start but (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    you're a little short on specifics.

    On minimum wages I'd like to see something around $15/hour with a single payer health care insurance modeled on Medicare without the co pay.

    And I'm not sure that does much for the "middle class." Most of the workers I see at Mickey D's are the working poor.

    Investing in "infrastructure" is like saying "love is great." It can mean anything at anytime. Plus, the lag time between saying and doing is very long and always made longer by the environmental wackos suing to protect some previously unheard of stick lizard.

    But maybe some dams to increase hydro power, tax credits for nuke power and building scrubbers on coal powered generators rather than shutting them down would help keep the air clean, electricity cost low and provide high paying construction jobs.

    And while the Internet has slowed the growth rate in highway use we're still behind the 8 ball. But a 10 cent hike in gasoline tax/gallon is regressive to the max on the working poor who driver less fuel efficient cars...and I know you hate regressive taxes.

    Got any other ideas?


    You were (none / 0) (#164)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    asking for plans not specifics and I am far from a policy wonk.

    I agree with you 100% on the single payer issue, but the devil will be in the details of implementing that.

    Maybe the point of helping the "working poor" is to allow them join the middle class, an expanding middle class is exactly what made this country great. A family with one full time worker and a spouse that can only work part time in FF might be able to solidly improve their "class situation".

    There's plenty more, but I got work to do.
    Your whole issue with Infrastructure having lag time is ridiculous, should we wait until all the bridges fall down? We are not talking some emotional feelings here  here, we are talking about real projects and real jobs.

    If I were to run with your silly analogy, the Democrats would be singing "All you need is love" and the Republicans are singing "Love stinks".

    I agree with you on the energy spending, but I would ditch the Nukes ( the middle class subsidizes it anyway) and forget the coal burners. I would invest in renewables and smart grid technologies.

    While I am mostly against regressive taxation, I am open to raising the gas tax a small amount, given that the price of gas fluctuates up to 10-20 cents seemingly everyday a small increase would be lost in the noise at and at least partially mitigated by the benefits of having safer more efficient highways.

    I would advocate increasing taxes on the rich, getting rid of the carried interest and capital gains rules that enable the extremely wealthy to pay low rates. I would definitely like to see the payroll tax cap lifted to strengthen SS and a transaction tax levied on stock market trading to curb the worst of Wall street excesses.


    No, we shouldn't wait until the bridge falls (none / 0) (#179)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 05:49:30 PM EST
    down but the time lag is such that it won't be of much help in the short term.

    And a ten cents/gallon increase in gas taxes doesn't fluctuate. It is always there. Doesn't seem like much but when a working couple burn 30 gallons a week we get $3.00 pulled out of the economy for a $150 annual tax hit. Multiply that and...you get the  idea.

    Short term capital gains is taxed as ordinary income. Long term is less and helps the middle class as well as the rich. Also, to get it the stock must be held. That allows business to execute a long term plan, something we call claim we want them to do.

    If you want to zap the rich, get a sales tax, and drop the current impossible to understand full of fixes for the rich tax code. You can exclude many of the items the poor and middle class buy.

    And while I wish that we could fix our energy supply with "renewable" the current technology won't do the job. And solar isn't "renewable." Panels have end of lives and the material used in their manufacture are mined and refined just like oil and coal....and are very nasty to handle.

    I did a comment about a year ago re a 5K panel that would produce about $50./month electricity
    to sell back to the local utility... pay back takes about 17 years and equipment EOL is estimated at 20 years which means it will be more like 15.

    Clumped installations for small sub divisions is a bit better but not by much. And then we have the problem of the non serendipity event that as the sell back to the local utility increases it's revenue decreases but its overhead increases because it must provide 100% of the demand 100% of the time. All of which means that the per KWH price will have to go up. So the consumer has no savings or, more likely, an increase.

    So we have found no quick fixes for the economy.


    Well, the only thing Republicans know ... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:28:37 PM EST
    ... how to do is blow huge holes in state budgets. When Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's recent budget resulted in a $208 million shortfall this fiscal year, he plugged half that deficit by blowing off the $108 debt payment that was due on July 1, a move which made state bondholders really happy, I'm sure. For the rest, he's withholding the release of legislative appropriations to public education and the University of Wisconsin system.

    But, hey, Walker released the monies to build the NBA Milwaukee Bucks' new arena. When it comes to budgeting and priorities, Jim, you guys obviously don't know your a$$es from your elbows -- never mind the basic differences between general revenues, special funds, fuel surcharges, general obligation bonds and user fees. You're all sound and fury, signifying ignorance and foolishness.



    Make that "$108 million debt payment." (none / 0) (#100)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:29:36 PM EST
    My bad.

    Here's one for ya (3.50 / 2) (#94)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:57:53 PM EST
    Every time you mock, smear, and, or, besmirch the Democratic label, I'm going to take it as a personal affront?

    Understood, Sissy Girl?

    (my apologies to all the wonderful girls out there; Being associated with a Tennessee Twit can't be pleasant, so, be strong, we all must sacrifice.)


    Gee Shooter, that's right out of middle school (none / 0) (#152)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    was your special friend watching as you made the nasty??

    And here I thought, even if you are a transplant, you could turn into a nice person.

    But I was wrong.

    You all have a super day, ya hear!

    And get some okra as one of the sides on your dinner plate down at Perkin's.  All this rain has made it tender and tasty this year.


    And remember Shooter (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    if you ever decide to launch a frontal assault on a black church, keep the Stars and Bars out front and don't let 'er ever touch the ground.

    Ya'll come back now, ya hear?


    Like I Thought Captain... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 02:03:08 PM EST
    ...was pro Trump.  Really ?

    My husband has a friend who, (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 02:25:25 PM EST
    it turns out, likes Trump a lot, and it just makes no sense to him.  He keeps saying, "I thought he was a smart guy - it really makes me wonder about him."

    I know that feeling, because I find myself wondering about those who claim to be Trump supporters, as in "what's wrong with these people?"

    I still say it comes down to people mistaking the ability to speak unfiltered with an ability to govern.  Running the country is NOT like running a business, unless, in Trump's case, he envisions himself as an emperor, or a king, who can sit on a throne and just order people to do his bidding.

    And since he's already said he loves the idea of having Sarah Palin in his administration, one can only wonder who else he would want to head the various Cabinet posts and agencies.  What would a Trump Supreme Court nominee look like, for example?

    For the moment, he seems hell-bent on knocking his opponents, ripping them new ones and screaming their flaws to the masses.  Which, in the end, isn't going to help him as much as it's going to help the Dems.

    Maybe we should get a pool going on when he's going to officially crash and burn...


    I think (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    you nailed it. They are so desperate to have someone scream crazy stuff that it doesn't matter whether he has a governing philosophy or not.

    Since when have wingbats ... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    ... ever given a friggin' rip about effective governance? Even Ronald Reagan used to complain about that disconcerting aspect to their collective personality, and once quipped that they were so doctrinaire that they'd rather jump off a cliff with all flags flying, than compromise for the sake of consensus and problem solving. Just look at the wingbats who've managed to get themselves elected governors of their respective states. They've caused and are causing serious harm to their constituents with their neglect and ignorance.

    Before exasperated California voters finally amended the constitution to do away with the required two-thirds supermajority for passage of the state budget and related fiscal items, a rabid minority of 14 right-wing GOP state senators in that 40-member body regularly and effectively held the entire legislature hostage for years. and with it they trashed their own constituents fiscally, creating tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary deficits and debt in the process by forcing the state to borrow money through bond issues just for operations.

    We should no more trust them with the reins of government, than we would allow our 13-year-old child to drive himself to school in the family car. People are simply asking for serious trouble if they think it doesn't matter. How's it all presently working out for the residents of Kansas, Maine, Michigan and Wisconsin? Even Alaska voters eventually tired of the unbridled wingbattery on perpetual display in the governor's office, and booted Gov. Sean Parnell last November.



    OTOH (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:09:46 PM EST
    ...creating tens of billions of dollars in unnecessary deficits and debt in the process by forcing the state to borrow money through bond issues just for operations.

    They could have not spent the money...which is likely what the dastardly Repubs wanted...


    I guess (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:20:10 PM EST
    you haven't been paying attention to what the GOP actually does not what they say. And what they do is spend money but love borrowing as the solution to pay for it. Then when they leave office and have run up big debts they think that the next person in office should fix the very same problem that they created with their inability to manage money.

    GA, quit defending the Demos (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:48:29 PM EST
    Yes, the Repubs are big spenders. Bush went from a $5 trillion debt to a $10 trillion debt in 8 years. But Obama has went from $10 to $17 trillion in about 6 years. Now that is world class spending and it keeps on getting worse.

    GA, quit defending the Demos (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:48:29 PM EST
    Yes, the Repubs are big spenders. Bush went from a $5 trillion debt to a $10 trillion debt in 8 years. But Obama has went from $10 to $17 trillion in about 6 years. Now that is world class spending and it keeps on getting worse.

    So it's okay (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    if the GOP spends money. Gotcha. That is why people laugh at the GOP Jim. Nobody believes them when they talk about money. George W. Bush added Medicare Part D with no way to fund it which costs way more than Obamacare yet the GOP whines about the cost of Obamacare. And then the war in Iraq? George W. had no way to pay for that one either.

    You know the debt was going DOWN until George W. got into office. If you want to complain about Obama complain about the fact that he didn't discontinue the spending of George W.

    And you see you even agree that the GOP is bad with money.


    No Ga, I didn't say it was okay (2.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:26:31 AM EST
    I even pointed out W's double.

    BTW - W came into office just as the tech bubble burst... NASDAQ off 50% 3/2000 to 3/2001... and 9/11 ripping the economy... he cut taxes and revenue started increasing...setting a record around 2007. Collapsed during the Demo cause 2008 and has never come back.

    See chart.

    And Obama has had 6 years and hasn't fixed squat.


    Tax cuts cost revenue, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:54:02 AM EST
    That's because they are cost items, and they have to be accounted as such in the balance sheets. While tax cuts can spur economic growth if targeted correctly, they create deficits in the process because they reduce revenues, not increase them.

    Again, since you've never had to put together a government budget, you've literally no idea how the process actually works, and so you do not know what you're talking about.

    All you're doing is clogging the blog with nonsensical and long-discredited AM squawk radio tripe, simple-minded and empty clichés that you've somehow come to believe are pearls of wisdom on the art of governance. Well, they're not. Not even close.

    The only things on display here are your own willful ignorance and your refusal to acknowledge the GOP's responsibility for the mess it created.

    So much for the independent thinker you claim to be. Never mind the independent part. Like so many wingbats, you quite obviously gave up any real attempts at original thought a long time ago.

    Take it somewhere else.


    Donald, you ain't the hall monitor (none / 0) (#147)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:48:36 AM EST
    and you just love to jump in with spurious claims that have nothing to do with the discussion.

    Look at my comment. It notes W's sins and provides facts. Look at the chart and you will see a revenue record set around 2000 followed by the tech bubble burst and then a slow increase up to a new high in 2007 and then a drastic drop followed by almost no growth under Obama.

    Of even more interest is to look at the spending.
    It has increased every year.

    Tax cuts increase revenues. The question, which everyone knows, is how long it will take before the cut causes revenue growth to equal the loss. There isn't an easy answer but if you don't restrain spending when the cuts are implemented then you will never catch up.

    And that's what the government has done. The issue now is the rate of increase. 5 to 8 under W. 7 to 6 under Obama.

    You can argue all you want but it is easy to make a budget when you don't have to balance it. You just borrow more money. Well, we're at around $17 trillion.

    And yes, I have never worked on a state budget. But for years, as a Product Manager, I made 5 year product plans that had budgets in them in which I couldn't borrow money. What I could do was expect to be fired if I screwed up. (BTW - I was promoted.)

    So thank you for you personal attack and while it is loaded with spurious and inaccurate claims at least it doesn't have a 1000 words or so about what your relatives were doing as you labored so mightily on HI's budget.

    Bless your heart! You all have a super duper nice day.


    And you're not the table captain here (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:54:46 AM EST

    Get over yourself.


    ... is an argument that's already well lost and really not worth even acknowledging.

    Good day to you.


    Cool story, bro. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 05:36:56 AM EST
    Yes, you see Ga (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:21:21 AM EST
    when W came to office, it's excuses, excuses, excuses..the tech bubble burst..NASDAQ was off..9/11 happened..all untoward events completely beyond Bush's control..Then "the Demos" singlehandedly caused the financial crisis (by ignoring the profound economic wisdom of conservatives), bungled two wars - that were completely the Democrats responsibility - and "haven't fixed squat".

    You won't find a more sober, fair-minded historical analysis than that. What more needs to be said?  


    Feh (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:37:44 AM EST
    I'm used to Bush apologists twisting themselves into pretzels and blaming everyone else for their own mistakes. I even recall W. trying to blame Bill Clinton for Iraq.

    Now let me see... The World According to jondee (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:17:24 PM EST
    The Internet bubble didn't burst

    The NASDAQ didn't run off 50% between 3/2000 - 3/2001

    The economy wasn't collapsing before 9/11

    9/11 had no effect on the economy

    Bush didn't cut taxes

    2007 wasn't a record year for revenue

    The Democrats weren't in charge of both Houses when the Housing bubble burst.

    Clinton wasn't President in 1999 when Fannie cut the borrowers qualification reqs for a housing loan.

    The Democrats and Barney Franks didn't oppose Bush and then McCain's attempt to get Fannie under control.

    Obama didn't say he didn't mind higher gas prices.

    Bush didn't open up more land for drilling leading gasoline prices dropping to $1.81 by the time Obama became the Prez...

    Obama didn't rescind Bush's opening land and gasoline prices didn't go back up...

    And the labor force participation isn't around 1976 levels.

    I guess that covers History Rewrite. When can I review the galley proofs?


    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 05:10:21 PM EST
    did not even attempt to get Fannie under control until May of 2005 and at that time the GOP controlled all branches of government.

    I hate to tell you but the housing collapse started in 2005 and the GOP chose to do nothing about it.

    You know what? I hope the GOP follows your lead and talks about how George W. Bush is never to blame for anything even though he was president for 8 years. And six of that the GOP controlled the entire government.


    Bush tried in 2003 and McCaidn in 2005 (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 05:59:09 PM EST
    Bush could have and should spent more political energy to overcome the brutal attack by Barney F and his buds.

    New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
    By STEPHEN LABATON Published: September 11, 2003

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10-- The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.......

    'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

    ''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.


    But he didn't. The Feds started moving to slow the bubble in 2006...but too little and too late.

    Barney won the battle and the country lost the war.


    You (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 06:21:50 PM EST
    might as well be shouting Acorn! or Benghazi! Virtually every expert analysis has shown Freddie and Fannie had very little to do with the subprime meltdown.

    I would be in Tall Cotton (none / 0) (#185)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:10:46 PM EST
    shouting either.

    But here are the facts.


    And yes, the role of Fannie has been debated endlessly but some knew the evilness of it back in 9/99.

    ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.'

    That happened.

    Note that Obama was elected and while we didn't get into a depression we had the worst recession since '29.


    And fail they did (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:39:39 PM EST
    The scheme is fairly simple. Raines and other top executives made bonuses if they hit specific earnings targets for the securities sold by Fannie Mae. They regularly hit those targets until it was discovered by the (SEC) Securities & Exchange Commission's top accountant Fannie misstated earnings for 3 1/2 years, leading to an estimated $9 billion restatement that will wipe out 40% of profits from 2001 to mid-2004.

    Of course the above was preceded by:

    To understand you must first appreciate that the largest debt market in the United States is the mortgage market. One of the major players in the market, at least until this month, is Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae was initially established in 1938 in order to provide a secondary mortgage market. What does this mean? It would buy mortgages from one lender and sell mortgages to another. It played the role of a broker who helped make the market work.

    Fannie Mae because a private company in 1968 and continued to fund mortgages by issuing mortgage backed securities (i.e., MBS). When Fannie Mae issues the MBS she is guaranteeing the investors a return on their investment and, at the same time, providing a source of funds to supply additional mortgages.


    Simply put, and no apologetic can deny, Fannie made the market by saying, "Hey! We'll buy your junk and use it to lie about our return and get our boniness."


    A link from that sad excuse for a blog (none / 0) (#189)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 12:55:22 AM EST
    proves nothing except your peculiar trait of believing the lies that Republicans tell about the housing bubble under GWB.

    I wonder if he took down that (none / 0) (#192)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 11:22:50 AM EST
    picture of Obama photo shopped to look like an African witch doctor yet..

    Maybe after the Immanuel Baptist Church shootings..


    The GOP (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 07:55:02 PM EST
    controlled congress in 2003. So you're proving my point. The GOP wants to sit on their butts and blame everybody else. They could have done something without the vote of one Democrat.

    Ga, and Obama could have passed a (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:14:49 PM EST
    single payer health care insurance program.....without the vote of 1 Repub but he didn't even try. At least Bush pushed.

    With such strong push back from the minority leader and the election looming Bush decided to not spend the political capital.

    Like Obama, he should have.


    C'mon (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 07:13:26 AM EST
    nobody with a brain believes what you are shopping. There's plenty of stuff Bush pushed through with threats. He just would have rather sat on his butt and done nothing about the housing situation until it because a crisis. Look at his behavior during Katrina. Same behavior of sitting on his lazy butt. The guy never held a job in his entire life other than part time governor of Texas.

    Now let me see.. (none / 0) (#191)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 11:14:40 AM EST
    In the topsy-turvy Fox-world according to Jim, the conservative-led, decades long effort to push deregulation and aggressively ignore Wall St fraud had no bearing whatsoever on took place with the in 2007-2008..

    In Jim's world it also didn't matter that the Big Boys on Wall St were making tens-of-billions by actively encouraging the bundling and selling of bad mortgages as commodities; in part because they knew that kiss-up, kick-down errand boys like Jim would do what they were told and always run interference for them..  

    Yes, it was all the doing of that all-powerful, liberal Yankee queer Barney Frank; whose abilities to somehow magically, singlehandedly thwart all GOP attempts to "get Fannie under
    control" brought about the economic downturn..

    2007 was "a record year" for who? the average American worker? Again Jim, the faithful company man/lapdog can't help himself when it comes to providing cover for the entitled 1%, who he hopes will let him come up and work in the big house some day..

    It would be nice Jim, if you could provide any proof that Bush's rescinding of drilling bans increased the supply of oil enough to lower prices, but we both know you can't..

    Just as you can't seem to remember how much the price of oil went up after the Iraq invasion and how much that hurt the average American worker..  


    The federal debt wasn't just going down. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 12:19:29 AM EST
    Federal budget analysts during President Clinton's second term were actually projecting substantial budget surpluses.

    And the very first thing Bush, Cheney & Co. did upon taking office was to frivolously and irresponsibly spend that prospective but yet unrealized surplus on enormous tax cuts for their wealthy benefactors.

    Those tax cuts, when combined with the massive increases in Defense Dept. spending in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, subsequently blew a gaping hole in the federal budget and put us back on the trajectory of steadily increasing deficit spending.



    Actually, Jim, what you just admitted (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 09:50:35 PM EST
    is that Obama increased the national debt by only 70%.

    While Dubya Doubled it.


    Actually W took 8 years to do (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:34:26 AM EST
    his but Obama, being superior in all things, has jacked it to 18 in 6 years.

    So W's rate of increase was $625 billion per year.

    Obama's rate of increase is $1.14 trillion per year.

    But hey! What's $490 trillion a year between friends??


    What would you have done, Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:59:51 AM EST
    This economy was flatlined and would still be so if Obama, Congress, and the FED hadn't injected that money and propped us up.

    Donald recently wrote a nice post here about scorched earth.  But I'm not that nice.  The Republican party currently hosts the biggest collection of horse's a$$e$ on the planet's face.  None of them accept their party's responsibility for the damage caused by their boy, George Dubya.  Or the damage caused by bankster/speculator shills like Senator Phil Gramm.  

    As for the national debt, why do you even bother repeating the talking point?  Nothing you say and nothing you do will affect it.  There isn't a single Republican among that vast herd of self aggrandizing buffoons who is going to do a d*mn*d thing about it.  It's so big and imponderable that it's nothing but an abstraction, a talking point.  "Ooooh, that's scary!"

    Until republicans take responsibility for Dubya's Colossal mistakes and drunken frat-boy face-plant foreign policy, it's scorched earth for me.  The Republican party is a bunch of jerks.


    Mr N and FlJoe (none / 0) (#202)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    FlJoe - No, the economy was not solid when Biush came in. The NASDAQ, which was benefactor of the Internet bubble, had dropped 50% between 3/2000 and 3/2001. Then we were hit with 9/11 and the economy really tanked.

    It has been exhaustively documented that the housing bubble problem started under Carter and then was given steroids under Clinton.

    Bush, and McCain tried to bring it under control but received heavy opposition from the Democrats.  And while it can be said that Bush should have tried harder, the fact is that Bush tried and the Democrats opposed. So who was at fault?

    The Repubs lost both Houses in the '76 elections over the immigration issue in which their base stayed home. When the Demos took over gasoline was around $2.00/gallon, the DJIA was around 12000 and climbing and unemployment was under 5%. Yet in a short 17 months, the summer of 2008, gasoline was around $4.50/gallon, the stock market was falling and unemployment was climbing like a rocket.

    What happened?? First the Fed started increasing the interest rate. In the end that was the pin prick that collapsed the balloon. But it was greatly aided by the financial woes of Fannie, the corruption that was there for all to see and some nifty moves by those in the market. Read "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis for a better understanding. BTW - It is non political so you may not like it.

    In the meantime oil speculators were driving up the price of oil. They did this based on their belief that there would be a shortage and that Demos would not act to increase supply. They were partly right. The Demos blocked legislation 5 times in 5/08 to open new land. And, as always, the super rich wanted to get richer.

    But there was no real shortage and when Bush issued an EO in late July of '08 the oil price bubble burst and gasoline dropped to around $1.81/gallon by the time Obama seized control. Previously he had commented that he had no problem with high gasoline prices. He immediately proved that by revoking Bush's actions and the price of gasoline went up and up and the economy stayed down and down. Even after 6 years the number of people in the workforce is around the same as during Carter's rule.

    And all this talk about percentage of this and the percentages of that is meaningless. We owe what we owe. Bush increased by $5 trillion in 8 years and Obama has increased it by $8 trillion in 6 years. Anything else is just chatter seeking to distract from the rapid rise under Obama.

    Mr. Natural, I agree. You aren't nice. But your problem is that you think that I care.

    Now, what would I have done?? Well, I would not have decreased the loan qualifications as Carter and Clinton did. I would have reformed Fannie. I would not have discussed immigration reform as defined by the Demos. I would not have had the housing bubble because of my previous actions and I would have long past increased energy supplies by opening up new drilling areas.

    And I mention it because you folks don't want to admit that Obama has drastically increased it with such things as Obamacare, cellphones by the dozens, food stamps for all, etc., etc. (I leave out his absolutely failure in all things foreign policy. He has drastically harmed this country. It is obvious he does not love it the way it has been and seeks to radically change it.)

    And no, I have not failed to point out W's failures. I suggest you read.

    And yes, the current crop of Repubs and Demos are the biggest bunch of a$$hole$ that I have seen in my lifetime.

    And that's why Trump is garnering support.

    Have a nice day!


    It (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 10:40:21 AM EST
    must be exhausting and time consuming to rewrite history on a daily basis, and so many words oh my.

    Bush (none / 0) (#199)
    by FlJoe on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:42:55 AM EST
    also inherited a solid economy with the federal budget running a surplus. Obama inherited an economy in free fall with the deficit mines already planted from Bush's tax cuts and unfunded wars.

    Let me explain it to you: (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Aug 02, 2015 at 08:49:29 AM EST

    That chart is one way of looking at the problem. Here's another way. I went back and looked at the monthly reports on the U.S. debt, to determine how much the total U.S. national debt outstanding had increased under different presidents over the past 30 years. (Note: the total debt outstanding differs ever so slightly from the amount of debt subject to the limit.) This may be didactic and repetitive, but stick with me. When Reagan took office, in January 1981, the national debt was $934 billion. Between January 31, 1981, and January 31, 1989, the debt rose to $2.697 trillion--a threefold increase, or $1.763 trillion. Between January 31, 1989, and January 31, 1993--the Bush I years--the national debt jumped $1.47 trillion to $4.167 trillion, up 54 percent. During the Clinton years, January 31, 1993 to January 31, 2001, debt rose another $1.55 trillion to $5.716 trillion, up 37 percent. During the Bush II years, the national debt soared, rising $4.9 trillion, or 86 percent, to $10.632 trillion. The national debt soared again during the Obama years, too. As of August,(2013-Ed)the national debt stood at $16.738 trillion, up $6.1 trillion, or 57 percent, since the president's inauguration. Every president inherits debt, and then adds more. But of the current national debt, 63 percent predates President Obama's arrival in the White House. Every president inherits debt and then adds more.(Ed)



    You have no idea how government works, Jim. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:32:05 PM EST
    And you clearly know nothing at all about state budgets. Of course, that's also completely consistent with everything else upon which you opine in these threads.

    Donald, claiming that I know nothing just proves (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:44:53 PM EST
    that you want to avoid the point.

    The Repubs wanted to reduce spending. That the Demos kept spending by borrowing is meaningless/


    The GOP only wants to reduce (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:56:00 PM EST
    spending on the things they don't approve of - they are happy to fund wars, funnel oceans of cash to military contractors, would gleefully fund a giant wall at the border, will never refuse to spend millions investigating bogus scandals as long as Democrats are involved.  To name a few.

    So, please just don't even try to paint Republicans as great stewards of the nation's bottom line, jim, because that's a giant load of crap.


    No, they didn't want to reduce spending. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:06:22 PM EST
    Rather, those 14 senators were seeking to impose restrictions on the State of California's ability to collect revenue, which then compelled the Davis and Schwarzenegger administrations to seek publicly-approved bond measures to keep state government operating. That's NOT the same thing.

    Further, in each and every one of those instances, California voters overwhelmingly approved those bond measures, thus doing what that know-nothing minority of GOP state senators refused to do, which was to fund the government. And that's why those same voters overwhelmingly approved the constitutional amendment which reduced the threshold of legislative approval for the state budget to a simply majority, and marginalized the GOP malcontents in the process.

    Don't opine with such authority about matters you obviously know absolutely nothing about.



    Donald, you deliberately miss the point. (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:28:29 AM EST
    So YOU'RE the one who's missing the point here, because you're clearly more interested in making silly political statements about government spending which have absolutely no basis in reality.

    Good night.


    Donald, you're falling into (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:42:00 AM EST
    one of jim's traps.  I did that with his faulty Medicare numbers.  We know he throws out bad info on popular subjects to get an argument going.  It is some kind of a psychological need to argue.  It's hard to not fall for his jive when you know he's wrong and you are right.  I used to give him the benefit of doubt until he called me a liar.

    fishcamp, calling my (none / 0) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:57:59 AM EST
    Medicare numbers faulty is calling me a liar.

    I thought we were past that. If you apologize I'll see if I can dig up some old check stubs.

    BTW - As I noted at the end of the last thread:

    Something is funny (2.00 / 1) (#211)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jul 27, 2015 at 02:53:33 PM CST
    my supplement was also with United Health care. It will be interesting to see what the state of TN has to say about why it is so much more here.
    I only had 10 years in Naval Aviation so I get no benefits.

    BTW - We're talking across each other. I took your comment as calling me a liar, see my original reply and for some reason you think I was calling you one. Nope, see my comment #163.

    But my numbers are correct. Medicare premium is $104. Hospital co pay is $1260 per stay within 60 days. A good Part D plan is around $80 and my United Health Care premium was over $250 when I opted out went Cigna Medigap  which has a $72 premium with a $4400 out of pocket.

    And I am not opposed to Medicare. In fact I have stated that we need a single payer system modeled on Medicare without the 80/20. But it is in trouble unless Congress ups the funding and the 20% is a huge problem unless you have a SI. And the numbers double, which I did note at the end but you may have missed.

    Either way, thanks. I'm gonna chat with some bureaucrats.

    I have called the analysis guy twice and he has not returned my calls. But being the persistent guy that I am I'll get through sooner or later.



    Jim, as KeysDan calls it (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    You are dictionary challenged.

    Well, for a lot of the Right (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jondee on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    dictionaries, like science, fall into the category of dangerous secular knowledge.

    I am looking at my SI payment (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:41:04 PM EST
    of $454...

    Have a super day. I'll let you know what state guy says...


    I agree. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    I just felt it worth emphasizing that conflation of government spending with debt and deficits is wrong. Governments can spend as much as a majority of their constituents desire, as long as there are incoming revenues are sufficient to meet the expenses.

    Our country's problems with debt are almost entirely derived from the insufficient collection of revenues. From a budgetary standpoint, if you cut revenues, you have to make corresponding reductions in spending in order to balance the budget.

    But that latter aspect involves prioritizing and making hard choices, and that's something which Republicans have long since proved themselves as manifestly unwilling to do. Thus, it's hardly surprising that we regularly see the sharp increases in deficit spending, borrowing and accumulation of debt on their watches.

    Cutting taxes is always both easy and popular. But reducing spending, not so much.



    No Donald, this is not correct (none / 0) (#177)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 04:54:04 PM EST
    Thus, it's hardly surprising that we regularly see the sharp increases in deficit spending, borrowing and accumulation of debt on their watches.

    Look at the links. W increased it by $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama has increased it to $18.1 trillion in  6 years.

    Of course your argument is that government can just keep on raping the tax payer. I understand.

    I just object to it.


    Being defiantly clueless, Jim, does not ... (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 06:43:33 PM EST
    .. render you any less clueless.

    The Bush administration more than doubled the national debt on its watch, and its reckless and irresponsible fiscal policies likely played a great part in plunging this country into the greatest economic recession we've experienced since the Great Depression.

    The Obama administration, which came into office in the midst of that near-freefall, enacted policies which fortunately precluded a wholesale economic collapse and has actually slowed the federal debt's rate of growth, as bequeathed by its predecessor.

    Have a nice evening.


    Donald, you state the obvious by restating what I (none / 0) (#187)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    wrote...... Bush doubled in 8 years. From 5 to 10.

    Obama has taken it from 10 to 18 in 6 years.

    And no. Obama has not slowed the rate of spending as can be clearly seen in this chart.


    I wouldn't mind (none / 0) (#194)
    by sj on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 02:09:37 PM EST
    that you once again took 25% of the available comments on the thread if you had something to offer other than stubbornly, blindly, fact-free ideology.

    Sadly, you appear to really believe you are spouting facts and not spin.


    Sorry that you are math challenged (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 06:55:37 PM EST
    and sorry that you challenge the fact that Bush doubled to 10 and Obama has capped it from 10 to 18 in 8 and 6 years respectively.

    You are wrong...very wrong...in both cases.


    The deficit is falling faster under Obama (none / 0) (#196)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sat Aug 01, 2015 at 07:01:32 PM EST
    than it rose under Bush.

    Our ruling

    Obama said since taking office the country has seen "our deficits cut by two-thirds."

    His claim is accurate if you use 2009, his first year in office with an historically high deficit, as a starting point.

    The claim ignores a stark reality about the deficits, however. The country's spending is not expected to continue its downward route, according to federal forecasters, for factors that include increased interest payments on the debt and the lack of substantial policy changes for the country's biggest programs, like Social Security and Medicare.

    The deficits have largely come down as a result of the improved economy for which Obama cannot assume full credit.

    We rate the claim Mostly True.

    Btw (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:44:57 AM EST
    the kickoff for the Mourning Joe discussion was a new Florida poll with Trump beating both Jeb and Marco.

    Trump (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:08:24 AM EST
    might just roll over both of them. LOL.

    Jeb has now determined that he is willing to risk losing the primary so he can win the general. So if he's going that route he's probably going to lose the primary.


    I wonder right now (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:23:22 AM EST
    If Jeb is considering the longer haul.  How old is he?  He could run again, like Romney or McCain as the more "acceptable" candidate 4-8 years from now.

    No (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    Jeb is planning on winning this nomination if it comes down to Bush and Walker or Bush and any one other as the process plays out. His money will keep him in it for the long haul and he's not spending now.

    I do think the StPete poll that has Trump in front in Florida is a likely outlier. I've never heard of St Pete Polls and it's not affiliated with the St Pete Times (although maybe the chosen name is to give that impression)


    His (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:38:05 AM EST
    plan always has been to be the "last man standing" though I'm not sure that is going to work as a number of the candidates have sugar daddies willing to fund them and then Trump can self fund.

    In a lot of ways I hope Jeb is the nominee because it gives the voters a big chance to smack a Bush that they couldn't do in 2008.


    He might be (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    He could come back as the "savior" of the GOP in four years or more. I think he's 62 so probably too old in 2024 but not too old in 2020.

    CST (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:08:37 AM EST
    He doesn't seem very concerned does he.   Perhaps he too is wary of a Clinton/Bush race.  For many reason not the least of which is he would almost certainly lose.

    Tweet twist (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:30:46 AM EST
    ask yourself

    How many people would watch a NASCAR race BECAUSE they knew one of the drivers was going to be drunk?


    To be clear (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:40:06 AM EST
    That tweet came from John Weaver, a political strategist for John Kasich. And although never mentioning Trump by name it was assumed Trump was the meaning behind the tweet. I suspect it could also have been meant for at least half a dozen others that will be on the main stage August 6 and maybe another 3 or 4 that will be on the second tier stage the same night.

    That is the fun of it. Who hates establishment (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    GOP more than us? Turns out Trump does. I can't disagree with anything he says about them, except the personal insult stuff. the debate should be fun!

    On the debate (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:27:13 PM EST
    i heard today a couple of times that FOX plans to actually put the person leading the polls on the center of the stage.

    Trying to figure out, with ten participants, how that will work.

    Will they be arrayed behind him like backup singers?

    Will the present them as the Nazgul in service of the Dark Lord?

    I saw today that Donald said one thing I completely agree with.

    I would get along very well with Vladimir Putin


    Stagecraft is vital (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:27:50 PM EST
    Trying to figure out, with ten participants, how that will work.

    Obviously it will come down to a negotiation before the event.  Nobody will want to be on the flanks.

    I know who swings the big lumber when it comes to negotiation.


    Howdy.,you can put the leader (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:31:16 PM EST
    on the center of the stage and then group the other 9 any way you want.

    Here is the focus group video (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:51:51 AM EST
    Advice conservatives (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:48:27 AM EST
    Never give themselves.

    Michigan state sentencing guidelines (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:06:28 AM EST
    ruled unconstitutional - said judges should use then in an advisory capacity only.

    I used to work for the judge mentioned  - this is kind of an exceptional story because she is a judge who is RARELY overturned (although, in this case, the sentence she imposed was not overturned, but the basis of how she got there was).

    re disgusting female lawyers and DT (none / 0) (#11)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:08:19 AM EST
    I see that Chris Hayes has an interview with a woman lawyer whom Trump was calling disgusting and from whom he walked out of a deposition .  . .

    It seems like the woman is a bit mad . . .  maybe she is madder than usual . . .

    I saw that (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:15:04 AM EST
    it was a great example of how you can sympathize and agree with every word they say and still dislike them.
    This is  not a moral opinion.  She is not a likable person.

    Mark Halperin had some great lines this morning as the others speculated on what on earth Trump could do that would be his demise.

    Halperin-I know.  A story about sexual assault or a front page NYTimes story about him ridiculing a woman for breast feeding.
    Oh, wait...
    Or if he says something really outrageous like making fun of a war hero...
    Oh wait.


    You and I know (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:24:18 AM EST
    there's almost nothing that Trump can say that is going to be too offensive to the GOP base. The pearl clutchers in DC can't seem to get what the deal is with Trump.

    The sad truth is that there are (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    probably a fair number of people who also think breastfeeding is disgusting - these are the people who lose their minds when a mother discreetly nurses her baby because they see it as something sexual.

    And these people are probably cheering Trump for his remarks.

    Honestly, people are just so small minded and backward about breastfeeding.  It has excellent benefits for both baby and mother, is much less expensive than formula, and yet, it's still not accepted in some quarters.  


    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    just read the comments of that link

    talk about a lack of sex ed (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:10:23 PM EST
    Way too many people who don't understand basic biological functions people.

    Basic biologic functions remind people (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:51:23 PM EST
    that they have a straight-from-nature, mortal body and we can't have that..

    I think we should make a distinction (2.00 / 1) (#59)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 03:26:54 PM EST
    between those who are cognitively deficient, and will never adapt to nature and shifting realities, and, those who are just, momentarily, somewhat startled by some public actions that are fairly new in our society.

    Really now, one can do a momentary, reflexive double-take when a women, in the middle of a, let's say, business meeting, begins the activities associated with breast feeding, as if that action is as commonplace, and, settled in the public psyche as, for instance, taking out a handkerchief and blowing one's nose. (And, for god's sake, don't go postal on me here. No, I'm not equating, ah, never mind.)(And, I'm in no way whatsoever excusing Trump, the insensitive, belligerent Buffoon.)

    Many actions that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, are taking place now, but, still draw some sort of reaction, not necessarily negative, just taking some time getting used to it.

    Two same sex individuals kissing passionately in public, interracial couples, ditto. I'm sure there are millions of good, decent, educated, and, as Liberal & open-minded people as one could hope for, reacting momentarily to an activity that's just new to our society. That's as normal as apple pie, and we should be very careful in the P.C. department in being too quick on the draw with the criticism & condemnation.

    I'm sorry for going further than I thought I would when I started this post, but, let me get it all out, because, as I've found out, people will interpret comments, first through their own filters, and then, to the meaning of the comment as it was intended.

    You know what, never mind. I should just delete this post, but I think I'll leave it, and delete myself instead.  The idea of interesting, adult conversation is just too ludicrous to contemplate. I'm sorry.


    I gathered the attorney who was (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    deposing Trump merely requested a break. He said no, although, in CA, the attorney who noticed the deposition gets to set the schedule for breaks, lunch etc. the second time she told him why she needed the break. At no time, according to her, did she pump breat milk in his presence.  So, he was being an overbearing sexist rich guy.

    You're right, Shooter; you shouldn't have (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:36:22 PM EST
    written this comment, and as a woman and a mother who breastfed two children, who have in turn breastfed their own children, I have to tell you that your comment tells me you don't know thing one about breastfeeding.  

    That you think women are just whipping out their boobs in the middle of business meetings just boggles my mind.

    I don't know if you're showing your age, or your gender, but either way, you clearly have a lot to learn.  A lot.

    And I'm not about to teach you - there's plenty of information out there if you're interested.

    For what it's worth, nose-blowing is pretty disgusting.  Feeding one's baby with food that one's body makes, that is perfect in its nutrition and digestibility, is loaded with antibodies, and doing so in a manner that bonds mother and baby, and builds trust is not disgusting at all.  It's not even close to being disgusting.

    And for you to act as if this is something new?  Even more ridiculous.  My children are 32 and almost 29, and my own mother breastfed me some 62 years ago.  Look around, get a freakin' clue.  Breastfeeding isn't some radical activity that people need to "get used to" for crying out loud.

    And no, I'm not going postal, whatever that's supposed to mean.  But if you thought your comment was so off-the-wall, you didn't have to post it at all - but you did.  



    Exactly, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:48:59 PM EST
    And my two kids are even older than yours (late 30's) and I breastfed them both.
    I agree with everything you said.

    Both my chikdren were breastfed, (none / 0) (#97)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    both my grandchildren were to.

    Stating a fact, that long held societal norms, when they're changed rapidly, might take a considerable amount of time before they're fully accepted by all. Cerebrally, most people understand those changes; viscerally will take longer.

    But, you're right, I shouldn't be here.  


    Breastfeeding does not represent (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 06:47:14 AM EST
    the rapid changing of a societal norm, Shooter; it's not a radical idea, it's not controversial.

    But Corporate America has been woefully slow to recognize and accommodate the needs of the breast-feeding employee, with many women forced to pump in less-than-pleasant surroundings, and made to feel like they are doing something shameful.  

    Ask a working mom who's trying to keep up her milk supply if her company's treatment of her meshes with their likely "family-friendly" claims, and more often than not, she will roll her eyes and then tell you about having to perch on the edge of a toilet seat in a bathroom stall trying not to spill milk or get it all over herself because her company thinks "accommodating" her means "any room that has a door than can be locked."

    Most women who breastfeed are not interested in exposing themselves, they just want to feed their baby; we all learned how to be discreet about it and not make a big deal about it, but there will always be people who think it's disgusting or sexual or weird.  These are the same people, by the way, who would complain about a crying baby, and judge the mother badly for not "doing something" to make it stop.

    Those kinds of minds cannot and will not be changed, but women cannot and should not accommodate that kind of mindset.  We're not talking about women who want to walk around topless, we're talking about mothers feeding their babies, or working women trying to provide enough breast milk for their babies in day care.

    So, to the Donald Trumps and the rest of the small-minded set, I say, get over yourself.


    When we were born during the Baby Boom years, there were many physicians who actively discouraged women from breastfeeding their babies, and urged them to use formula instead -- which was probably great for the manufacturers of Similac, and lousy for the rest of us.

    My siblings and I were all bottle-fed. My aunt said that of her five children, she nursed only the youngest, and that was only because he was not thriving and apparently had a physical reaction to formula; he could not keep it down.

    According to her, none of the doctors suggested breastfeeding, and were content to keep running tests on her baby boy to try and figure out what was wrong. It was her own mother-in-law who then urged her to breastfeed him. She said within a matter of a week, his health problems began to quickly dissipate and he improved and recovered rapidly. As a result of that experience, she urged her own daughters to breastfeed when they became mothers.

    How terribly arcane U.S. medicine was back then on some issues.


    And smoking used to help pregnant (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:21:59 AM EST
    Women relax :) Women gave birth zonked out of their minds, babies pulled with forceps resulting in some horrific injuries. Yep, we've had our arcane days.  20 yrs from now we will probably look back to today in medicine and see a few things we do right now as arcane too.

    Trump may well (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    have found the very idea of a breast pump to be disgusting to him, but it may also be a typical reaction of his to stressful situations.  By stressful situations, I mean the uncomfortable deposition questions that were getting close to the bone.

    The lawyer asking the question seems to have a way of getting under the skin when you agree with her, let alone when you are on the  receiving end of her doing her job.  Apparently, lunch breaks were pre-arranged by both sides  The breast pump matter could have served Trump's need to flee, for the day.


    Dan, find the article (none / 0) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:31:55 PM EST
    that describes the deposition in full detail. I read it, but forgot where it was. It was THE definitive article that points out precisely what will bring Trump down:

    1. He's a rotten, failed businessman.

    2. He stuck thousands of innocent customers with huge financial losses. and laughed about it. (His "University" on how to become a dealmaker, for instance. Forced by the State to shut down.)

    3. Admitted that he calculates financial things (his properties, net worth, rates of return, etc. by his "feelings," not math.)

    4. Most of his value is derived by licensing his name, not equity in any properties. This is the main reason for his boorish, narcissistic behavior. His name is all he's got, and that's why he's "running" for President.

    5. And, the main reason he blew up in that deposition wasn't the breast feeding, it was that a woman (the greatest insult) was tearing him down, limb by limb, proving just what a schmuck "businessman" he is. Pathetic describes him best.

    6. If the other candidates just got together, and started ripping him to shreds over things he actually stated in depositions, his allures disintegrates right before your eyes.

    Even his most ardent, starry eyed moonies would walk away in disgust.

    Couple of things (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:00:20 AM EST
    im not sure why you think any of this stuff will succeed in jolting his moonies out of their enchantment after the things has actually done and said, then bragged about, just in the last few weeks.

    Donald has been a public figure for several decades.   None of this is new.  There was a whole magazine, SPY, whose purpose was to push stories like the ones you mention.   Everyone who cares already cares.    (Btw,I know SPY was more than that it was wonderful just making a point).

    Also I don't think for a second Trump is "running" for president.

    I think he is running for president.
    I think those who still think this is something else has simply not been paying enough attention.

    As far as your calling him a "business" man, I can tell you what his supporters would say-

    "Do you have billions of dollars and property all over the world"
    I have to say that even I would have to disagree with the "business man" thing.   Clearly the guy is a business man.


    You know (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:12:38 AM EST
    what is funny? If it were any regular candidate from NY they would probably hate him simply because he is from NY. The real irony to me is The Donald actually stands for and does many things they purport to hate. But because he's saying the things they want to hear they are willing to overlook all of that. It's freaking hysterical.

    Btw (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:15:14 AM EST
    if Trump stays in the news someone is missing a huge opportunity if SPY MAGAZINE is not raised from the dead.

    And the editors at Spy (1986-98) understood celebrity culture, which is why they became arguably the most influential magazine of the late 20th century, or, in Dave Eggers' words "cruel, brilliant, beautifully written and perfectly designed, and feared by all." Combining an elegant house style, barbed satire, and a healthy dose of class-rage, Spy inspired a radical tonal shift in American journalism just in time for the arrival of a perfectly suited new platform: The Internet.

     It specialized in intelligent, thoroughly researched, irreverent pieces targeting the American media, entertainment industries and making fun of high society.[1] Many issues often featured brief photographs of nudity relevant to a story. Some of its features attempted to present the darker side of celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, John F. Kennedy, Jr., Steven Seagal,[2] Martha Stewart, and especially, the real-estate tycoon Donald Trump

    Labeling (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:27:57 AM EST
    Trump as a "short fingered vulgarian" was Pulitzer worthy in my book.

    MH370 (none / 0) (#18)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:52:30 AM EST
    The economy of Reunion Island is on the verge of getting a big boost:

    If the wing part is confirmed as coming from MH370,

    a massive air, land and sea search is expected to get under way in the region for other debris from the aircraft.

    A torn-off part of the aircraft suggests that other debris would have drifted from the crash site - and the discovery of the flaperon is a powerful clue as to where other pieces would have ended up.

    If the Indian Ocean currents have carried a large piece of a wing some 3,000 miles, there is a possibility that smaller items from the plane, particularly luggage, seat cushions and blankets could have been carried to the Reunion coastline.

    The price of a hotel room is about to soar.

    Go to Jail. Go Directly to Jail (none / 0) (#19)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:03:42 AM EST
    In Spring Hill, FL, a man visiting a county jail parked on the sidewalk and was asked by a police officer to move his car off the sidewalk.

    The driver does what any smart driver would do and moves the car from the sidewalk.

    What he does next got him a short walk into the jail for an overnight visit and a $4000 bail.

    Amy Schumer's birth control truth bomb (none / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 09:07:13 AM EST
    Content Has Been Removed (none / 0) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:39:48 PM EST
    Try this one (none / 0) (#45)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:43:04 PM EST
    Weird - it's still showing up for me. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    Posted another link, though, just in case.

    I Bet It's Filtered at Work... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    ...the second link worked.

    That was really good, they forgot to consult any older republican male because if there is one group that understands women and their reproductive cycle...


    Gee, this sounds familiar (none / 0) (#63)
    by Reconstructionist on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 04:50:48 PM EST
    Data in Clinton's `secret' emails came from 5 intelligence agencies

      I know no one will admit they were wrong or apologize, but I am curious as to what the new spin being slopped will be.

    First of (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 06:04:07 PM EST
    all your link doesn't work and secondly there is nothing new in that story.

    Your concern trolling is duly noted.


    ... you've obviously already spun yourself dizzy on this particular topic. In that regard, it's not unlike seeing exactly how far you can stick your finger down your throat, before you gag and vomit. This time, hopefully, you'll spare us your slop.

    Baltimore FEMA (none / 0) (#64)
    by Uncle Chip on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    Feds won't reverse denial of Baltimore riot disaster aid

    FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate said in a letter to the Republican governor Wednesday that after thoroughly reviewing Hogan's appeal, the agency had reaffirmed its June 12 finding that a major disaster declaration "is not appropriate for this event."...

    Maryland's request included a $19.4 million estimate for emergency protective measures, including police overtime, National Guard activation, and damage to public buildings and equipment....

    More than 400 Baltimore businesses have reported riot damage, according to the quasi-public Baltimore Development Corporation, which is managing a privately funded recovery loan and grant program.

    PS -- none of the Baltimore businesses, homeowners, private entities were going to get any of that $19.4 million anyway as the mayor and governor  had it all scheduled to go into the public coffers.

    nancy grace on the shooting (none / 0) (#75)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:29:31 PM EST

    I don't always pay attention to the national news much . . . and I miss things and I am at times slow to read about them . ..

    on hln and on nancy grace, there is a story of a cop who shot a fellow for a missing license plate, apparently.

    What is the story here?  And the cop is in court and has been charged?

    Surely, you can find something else ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    ... to watch on TV besides Nancy Grace.

    she is not my first choice and (none / 0) (#106)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:42:10 PM EST
    she is not my first choice and she is certainly not a common choice  . . .  She was on briefly and discussing the killing by the policeman of the driver . . . and it is a worthy topic of discussion, one that I had not read much about previously . . .

    She was obviously hysterically anti-Zimmerman and it seems that she tends to let her emotions get in the way of clear thinking at times, but that is ok; she is passionate and so she makes news and was a prosecutor--ok! ?


    Nancy Grace was also ... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 12:28:19 AM EST
    zaitztheunconvicted: "[S]he is passionate and so she makes news and was a prosecutor--ok!?"

    ... an unethical prosecutor, having been cited by the federal court for prosecutorial misconduct. In fact, Jeralyn wrote about it ten years ago.



    thanks (none / 0) (#130)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 08:30:37 AM EST

    now that you have brought this up, I have learned something new!



    I believe this happened in Cleveland (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    and the dashcam vid was key to a murder charge. If we are talking about the same shooting. So hard to keep track these days.

    They Released... (none / 0) (#153)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    ...the officers body cam footage, and his partners was leaked to the press.  Basically the officer stated he was dragged, feared for his life blah, blah, blah.  The video shows he lied.

    A University of Cincinnati police officer was indicted Wednesday on a murder charge in what a prosecutor called "a senseless, asinine shooting" of an unarmed man during a minor traffic stop. Officials say it was the first time such a charge had been leveled against an officer in the county.

    The Hamilton County prosecuting attorney, Joseph T. Deters, released a graphic and much anticipated video of the shooting of Samuel Dubose taken by the officer's body camera that he described as crucial evidence that Mr. Dubose did not act aggressively or pose a threat to Officer Ray Tensing, and that Officer Tensing had lied about being dragged by Mr. Dubose's car. A grand jury, Mr. Deters announced, indicted the officer on a murder charge, punishable by life in prison, and a voluntary manslaughter charge.


    The released video is in the link and you can Google the leaked video.


    re Zach Anderson and sex offense laws (none / 0) (#82)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:05:15 PM EST
    Has anyone seen the news about Zach Anderson and his conviction and now being a sex offender based on he being 19 and having sex with a 14-year-old who had told him she was 17?

    At trial, the girl and her mother testifies on his behalf that they hoped and believed it right that there be no penalty or punishment . . .

    The judge said he does not like casual hook-ups . . .

    anyway, the news says that michigan does not have an automatic defense in cases in which the girl lies about her age . . .  what are the different state laws and exceptions on this subject, and what is the law in Washington?

    Well (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    as I understand it here in GA it doesn't matter if the girl lies about her age. There was a case locally where a guy that was 21 was dating a 15 year old and she told him she was 19 and her facebook page said she was 19 and she lied to her parents about what she was doing and the parents sent the police to the guy's house to get her and only then did he find out that she was 15 and they arrested him.

    We changed our laws in Hawaii ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 08:47:33 PM EST
    ... about a dozen years ago, in an effort to avoid criminalizing teenaged sexual behavior. Up to that point, we were the only state in the country where the legal age of consent was 14. When we increased the age of consent to 16, we also added a five-year age differential that would apply as long as the acts were consensual and both individuals were over 14 years of age.

    So, the sort of behavior that garners that 19-year-old young man a felony conviction for statutory rape in Michigan, is otherwise legal in the islands, due to the aforementioned age differential in our statute. However, had he been 21 and shacking up with a 14-year-old, that would be a criminal offense here.



    some states (none / 0) (#104)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:17:53 PM EST
    do some of the states have actually or allegedly some exception in their laws in place so that if and when a girl lies about her age, a prosecution or conviction would not normally take place?

    It seems to me as if that would be helpful.


    Helpful to whom? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:32:48 PM EST
    Depends on your point of view. If the goal of the law is to protect underage women and girls from predation, you might want to put the burden on the older male to be more cautious.

    in this case (none / 0) (#107)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:53:55 PM EST
    In this case, the girl and her mother at the near-center of the case testified on behalf of the accused.

    They believed and they said that they felt it would be wrong to punish the fellow .  .  .

    the law is managing to destroy the life of a fellow who was not thinking well . . .

    Would you support prosecuting the girl for lying to him?  If not, why not?

    According to court documents, the girl's mother told the judge, "I don't want him to be a sex offender because he really is not." Her daughter added, "I feel nothing should happen to Zach." . . .

    "We're not talking about loosening the law, no one's indicating that someone who preys on a young adult in a predatory manner shouldn't be prosecuted, they absolutely should be," said Zach's attorney Scott Grabel. "This is an instance in my opinion that you rarely get to say the defendant had no criminal intent, and I don't think the defendant was even negligent in engaging in the encounter."

    I think that most persons in the USA have had sex with others to whom they were not married without having checked their government issued ID beforehand.  Probably there are people here at talkleft who have done so and I suspect there is an overlap of those who disagree with me violently on a dozen topics and have had sex with others without having checked their ID . . .  Are you suggesting that in the 1 in 500 or so such cases in which the person whose ID isn't checked is in fact under 16 or under 18 (Cal) that the person having sex with him or her routinely be prosecuted?

    According to the statistics, the only major social group which is even somewhat more chaste that the rest of society, in their college years, are evangelicals and it appears that they are not the majority posters here at Talkleft . . .


    I did not express any opinion (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    about that particular case. Nor even about how I think these laws should be written in general. I simply responded to one point you made in your comment, about what would be "helpful." And I certainly did not say anything about "government-issued ID." You are assuming that I meant to imply conclusions that I did not state. But that's not how I express myself. I try to say what I mean, neither more nor less. If you have read my comments on this blog in general, you already know my point of view about punishment.

    Well (none / 0) (#112)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:26:13 PM EST
    As I read and post more often here at talkleft, I am sure that we will get to know each other better . . .
    and I do appreciate your small bit of help with knowing such things as who prosecuted John kiriakou, if I recall correctly that you helped with that . . .


    and in terms of views, you and I seem to be at least sometimes in agreement . . at least where we have shared a view

    and I do have friends with whom I do not agree!


    rcw exceptions (none / 0) (#114)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:37:11 PM EST
    the state of washington actually does have a defense for those cases in which the minor told the other person an incorrect age and was reasonably believed . . .

    Shadow boxing (none / 0) (#108)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 10:59:08 PM EST
    Too bad and so sad who is right...the SC or you??

    Nothing in that comment addressed the SC or the constitutional aspects of gun ownership.  The comment was on the measurable difference in the possibility of being shot in a home where guns are kept v. a home where they are not.

    It was acknowledged that the legality would not change, but the lethality of gun ownership is measurable.  I know people who have been shot and I know people who have shot other people, a fair number of each as I think about it.  I haven't pulled a trigger since Army service in 1967.  I don't care what you do.

    Darwin might have something to say about people who die after being shot with a gun they owned.

    The Problem... (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    ...is that Darwin is not in effect in most of these cases, it's always someone else who ends up dead, rarely the idiot gun owner. They simply provide the means to the end.

    Yesterday here in Houston some kids thought they were playing with an unloaded gun because they removed the clip, too bad the idiotic owner was so paranoid, he had a shell in the chamber, and placed it under a bed.  So a 3 year old paid the price for his stupidity, hardly Darwin.  

    If only they were rare, 3 in my city this week:

    On Sunday, another child, 4, "died under similar circumstances," the office said. CNN affiliate KPRC reported the boy found the gun underneath a bed. Both cases are under investigation.

    The third shooting took place early Monday when 5-year-old boy shot his 6-year-old brother, KPRC said. The child was rushed to a hospital and is believed to be in critical condition.


    How fricken many people have to die before the idiot brigade realizes what they are doing by idolizing death machines and their manufactures ?

    I do care what they do, because legal guns are finding their ways into bad guys hands.  And their solution, more guns will make us safer, this time.  If we could only arm ourselves like the military... then it would be heaven on Earth.  In reality, each year we slip closer and closer to Africa in which gun violence is an everyday occurrence.


    Very prevalent............. (none / 0) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 30, 2015 at 11:13:40 PM EST
    ".....people who die after being shot with a gun they owned."

    Many (most?) inexperienced gun owners, facing an immediate crisis, tend to, initially, freeze, or hesitate, long enough for the more experienced, and motivated, perpetrator to wrest homeowner's gun away, and assault him/her with it.

    Happens quite often with trained soldiers, also.


    the important question (none / 0) (#117)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 01:48:40 AM EST
    Of course, the most important question I can think of today . . . is

    If I put in Donald Trump in my Bible codes software and search . . .

    what will I find?

    Will he save us from the New Word Order being planned by certain insiders, Kenyans and feminazis?

    Today Hillary and Jeb (none / 0) (#136)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:02:07 AM EST
    are speaking to the Urban League in Ft. Lauderdale.  Not sure how the format will work out, but I would love to be there.  In other morning news Gisele Bündchen, Mrs. Tom Brady, is checking into a French location to repair her sagging breasts and eyelids.  I have half that problem.

    Hillary is also speaking at FIU this morning (none / 0) (#138)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    not far down the street from the homes of Bush and Rubio where she call for an end to the Cuban embargo.  Gotta love when she wades right into their backyard to tell them their policies are foolish and wrong.

    Sadly I have both (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    her problems.  

    Mrs Clinton will say she wants to lift the embargo of Cuba today.   That's a pretty big deal I think.  Not to surprising really but it will be interesting to see how it's received.   Especially in your state.


    Howdy, the eyelid problem (none / 0) (#160)
    by fishcamp on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    is easy and and painless to repair.  Since there's not much but skin in eyelids they heal in about a week, and you will look years younger.  I had mine done with an old insurance policy before Medicare, and they paid for it since the eye doctor said they were blocking my vision.  Now that they have re-sagged Medicare won't pay regardless.  That procedure is named blepharoplasty from the Greek word blepharo for eyelid.  You're on your own with the breast situation. (-:  

    The thing is (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    i don't give a sh!t.  As long as I can see, you know.   I thought I would but I just don't.   I have officially reached the age that how I look is other people's problem.

    It liberating.


    The Clinton campaign addresses the (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:08:35 AM EST
    I just watched CNNs Brian Stelter (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:14:34 AM EST
    Characterize all this as the Clinton Campaign playing the refs.  He claims journalists are the refs on the campaign trail.  DOOD, if journalists are the refs, the New York Times journalists are FIFA refs :)

    scheming, scheming Clintons! (none / 0) (#167)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    The NYTimes (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:16:48 AM EST
    reveals itself to be the same rag that allowed the excrescences of Cheney and Bush and the rest of that gang to gain credibility during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

    They learned nothing.
    That, or they don't care.
    That, or they have a dark agenda.


    Stuff like this (none / 0) (#140)
    by lentinel on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:11:25 AM EST
    is what gives Trump such momentum.

    Hillary Clinton was asked a straightforward question about her stand on the Keystone Pipeline.

    I was interested in her position on this since she presented her energy-conservation renewable sources etc. proposal the other day.

    Her answer was in that Political-evasion-speak that she favors all too often.

    I believe that people are tired of this runaround.
    I know I am.

    Here is a link to her response - and a discussion about it in WashPo.

    Trump just says what he thinks. Unfiltered.
    Alarming, perhaps.
    But it holds an appeal for many.

    I think it is easy to dismiss Trump as entertainment, or a fool.

    But these kinds of fools - Reagan for example - who appear to be straight-shooters - are corralling a lot of people who are exhausted with typical politicians mouthing typical pol-speak.

    I say: BEWARE!

    Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 31, 2015 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    gets less Wall Street money than you think

    Seems the biggest donors to her campaign work for the US government, entertainment, and law/lobbying industries.