Sunday Open Thread

If I were going to write another post today, undoubtedly it would be on El Chapo. Rather than do that, I'll put up a new open thread.

All topics welcome.

< Sean Penn Interview With El Chapo in Rolling Stone | R.I.P. David Bowie >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When it comes to mental vacations, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 08:08:47 PM EST
    this one is as good as any to help forget the sickening things that go on in this country and around the world. Laughter heals.

    Thank you Mrs. Patmore, for being you.

    Florence King died. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:24:05 AM EST
    Her "Confessions of a Failed Southern Lady" is extremely funny.

    When will we find out.... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:07:25 AM EST
    What matters most to Donald Trump, money, or power?

    If Donald Trump is nothing else, he's an American brand. The Trump name adorns luxury condominiums, hotels and golf courses around the world; it has sold a TV show, millions of books, a line of cologne and even, briefly, an airline.

    And that brand, according to new data published here in Politico Magazine for the first time, is taking a major hit in the wake of his presidential campaign.


    But as Trump the candidate has ascended, hitting the top of the polls and staying there thanks to a series of controversial statements and a groundswell of Republican populist support, the opposite has happened to Trump the brand: Among the people Trump's business depends on--the consumer making over $100,000 a year--the value of the Trump name is collapsing.

    A December survey of American consumer opinion, fielded by the BAV Consulting division of advertising and marketing giant Young & Rubicam (and the largest and longest running study of brands in the world), found that since Donald Trump's run for president, the Trump brand has lost the confidence of the people who can afford to stay at one of his hotels, play at one of his country clubs or purchase a home in one of his developments. It is also rapidly losing its association with the gilded traits Trump has long promoted as the essence of his business.

    In categories such as "prestigious," "upper class" and "glamorous" the Trump name has plummeted among high-income consumers. Within the same group, it is also losing its connection with the terms "leader," "dynamic" and "innovative"--quite a blow for a man who criticizes others for being "low energy" and considers himself an industry trailblazer. The brand has been a survey subject for BAV Consulting's regular surveys for over a decade and has never before experienced such a precipitous drop in reputation. It's the kind of change that usually follows a big corporate scandal, like a product recall or financial misconduct. But in Trump's case it's a man's personality that is in play.

    Oh, Donald will still have money, but what will be left in the future?

    I'd be willing to bet that he (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    never in a million years thought a run for the WH would have a negative impact on the Trump brand, so it will be interesting to see where this goes.

    I predict he will be all up in our faces telling us what baloney this is and that the Trump brand is bigger and better than ever.


    I'll say it again...dude bankrupted a CASINO (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:27:10 AM EST
    And it takes some real ineptitude to go broke on degenerate gamblers and sh*t-faced drunk tourists begging to give you their money.

    A casino? (none / 0) (#96)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    Trump filed for corporate bankruptcy on FOUR separate occasions.

    So he only has (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    2 billion instead of 3 billion...

    Oh! The humanity!



    what does he actually own free and clear? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:08:18 PM EST
    I doubt it is anywhere near even 1 billion.

    Nor Would I Think... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    ...anyone with a lick of sense would scoff at losing a third of their wealth in a couple months due to running their mouths.

    Do you honestly (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    Think this adventure is going to lose him money?  Won or lose?  

    I do not believe it will.


    Win or Lose... (none / 0) (#106)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    ...if he loses it's already cost him him a lot of cabbage, and unless something insane happens, he has got a lot more bridges to burn before this is done and if his past is any indication, he is going to turn up the dial which will cost him plenty.

    Jim said a third, I did not.  I have no idea, but his brand might be riding high for some, but for the people that he caters to, more affluent and international, that is not good for the bottom line.  I don't think he lost anywhere near a billion, but I would think he is losing more than any candidate has spent, which to Trump probably isn't much, but in reality it's a lot of money.

    If he wins, I would guess he would double his wealth with each election he wins.

    The thing is no one will ever know except for Trump and some of his people and he sure as hell isn't going to tell anyone either way.


    IMO (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:18:33 PM EST
    There is one bottom line.   He can afford it.  

    And if and when he loses he will turn it into another windfall.


    That is a Different Argument... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    ...and probably right, but he is definitely losing money, especially in the Middle East and other foreign investments.

    Obviously he can afford it, but I tend to think people who are defined by their wealth don't like it when it's decreasing, even marginally.


    Then why are the American people paying (none / 0) (#109)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:22:42 PM EST
    for his secret service protection? With $2 billion, he can afford his own bodyguards.

    I have wondered (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:32:45 AM EST
    the same thing. You know his business has to be hurting from this since so many people have canceled contracts etc.

    However maybe he's running to expose the GOP for what it really is and is going to turn it into a reality show? Or maybe he doesn't care about the lost business if he truly believes he's going to make it into the White House.


    I still maintain (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:34:18 AM EST
    This is a reality show in the making.

    You may (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    be right about that. I guess we shall see.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    When wins both Iowa, where he s now ahead, and NH.

    But probably not for those in deepest denial.


    I go (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    back and forth on this to be honest. Most of the time it seems yes, it is what it is and then he's so over the top it seems surreal some of the times.

    If it only seems (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    Surreal some of the time I would get my surreal meter checked.

    But it's serious.  He's going to win NH.  I think he coukd win Iowa.  The momentum seems to be happening with more than one poll showing him ahead.  The attacks on Cruz are working. I thought they would.  If he wins both.......


    LOL (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    Too many tea partiers around here that have probably made my "surreal" meter off.

    I never thought I would say it (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:13:00 PM EST
    But I think it may end up being Trump and Rubio.    Which will be no contest.  But I'm starting to think Marco may be the last one standing in the establishment lane.   But no bets there.

    Yes (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    today it sure looks like Rubio instead of Cruz. Tomorrow it might be a different story.

    Why Rubio? (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:20:40 PM EST
    Cruz is holding his own....and well ahead of Rubio...

    Rubio (none / 0) (#120)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    Is not really a establishment candidate, but has fallen into that category.
    When he ran against Charlie Christ in Florida, the establishment Republican Party told him no, wait your turn.
    When he first considered running for President, he was told the same thing, wait your turn, Jeb goes first.
    He hasn't really listened "to the Establishment" ever.
    He originally was a Tea Party favorite until the Gang of Eight, which has tarnished his rep with the conservatives.
    He just is so much more palatable to the "Establishment" than Cruz or Trump, the establishment welcomes him now with open arms.

    He's no (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:10:10 PM EST
    threat to the Trump machine for sure.

    Rubio (none / 0) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    is absolutely an establishment candidate and is lumped in with Christie, Bush, and Kasich. One of the four will survive at least to the final three.

    Agreed, Rubio (none / 0) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:17:25 PM EST
    is definitely an establishment candidate--which is not to be confused with "moderate."  Or, sane.

    The establishment (none / 0) (#127)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:29:22 PM EST
    Will embrace him, but he never listened to anything they said.
    Rubio came in on the Tea Party wave, against Establishment wishes that he not run against Christ.

    Yes (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    Rubio has listened to them and the killer with most voters seems to be his support for immigration reform.

    Correct (none / 0) (#136)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:12:14 PM EST
    a Rubio administration would be staffed much like a Bush administration. I have long seen Rubio as an attractive plan B(puppet material) for the Bush cabal, unfortunately for the establishment, Jeb seems unwilling to pull the cord.

    I (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:41:29 PM EST
    still think Cruz will win in Iowa even though his surge has definitely stopped, a combination of Trump's attacks and Carson's bottoming out I'm guessing.

    There are some natural advantages for in Iowa for Cruz. He has reportedly has built an impressive ground game and ground game is paramount in Iowa.

    Conventional wisdom I know, a risky bet in this cycle, but a wisdom that has yet to be tested.

    IMO up to this point, Cruz has run the best campaign of anybody in either party. Mostly by staying out of Trumps turbulence and gathering up Carson's Evangelicals and tons of cash.

     Now that he is being sucked into the vortex he absolutely has to step up his game to the next level. He had to see this coming, he's a smart cunning dude there is plenty more in the tank there.

    The underlying numbers suggest that Cruz has more upside than Trump, if his political skills come through and his boots on the ground give him at least some help, I see him squeezing out win  by 3 to 5%, possibly more if Carson's ghost gives up his last feeble support.


    All things remaining the same, (none / 0) (#185)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    I would agree.

    However, the "born in Canada" meme is a real threat to him. I saw the results of a hastily put together poll which, basically, revealed that many of his ardent supporters had no idea he wasn't born in 'murrica. The legal issues are yet to be figured out, but the fact that he may be a "furriner" are sure to be exploited by his opponents.


    Interesting take on the issue (none / 0) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:12:51 PM EST
    The Wages of A$$holery

    There is a price for making everyone you come into contact with think you're an a$$hole and a jerk. Back in 2008, Republican and Democratic Senators came together to pass a sense of the Senate resolution affirming that John McCain was a natural born citizen. Claire McCaskill says today that she won't be doing any similar favors for purported American Ted Cruz. But it's not just a Democrat. The silence of Senate Republicans is positively deafening. Mitch McConnell also says he's not getting involved. Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have both tried to put the kibosh on the growing Cruz-birther movement. But in the Senate, where people know Ted Cruz, virtually no one is coming to his aid. McCain himself is suggesting he's at least Cruz-birther-curious if not coming out as a full-blown Cruz birther.

    NFL exploits schookids for sub minimum wage (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:34:56 AM EST
    The League will be paying about four dollars an hour to the high school kids from my son's school to place seat-cards for a halftime crowd-participation visual. You know, everyone in the crowd has a card, hold up one side, it makes a giant image, hold up the other side for a second image. Four bucks an hour. For the music program. From the richest league in professional sports run by billionaires. Which translates into as*holes in most languages. I told my son no means is he to volunteer for that gig, I don't care about the measly three grand it will bring to the department. Chump change for these NFL plantation owners. Eff them.

    This is for the Super Bowl in a few weeks, btw (none / 0) (#54)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    Played in Santa Clara this year at the Niners boring and unimaginative new stadium.

    Dadler, have you been in the Stadium Club? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:48:10 PM EST
    Great stadium club at 49ers stadium. Very good food. Big. Good set up. Easy access to the field and good seats. My college buddy has seats at the stadium and has taken a group of us the past 2 years.

    Haven't been, won't go (none / 0) (#192)
    by Dadler on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:41:57 AM EST
    Unless somebody wants to comp me and listen to a bleeding heart liberal of the genuine variety rant about corporate bullsh*t all game. ;-)

    Well They are Losing... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    ...their battle with cheerleaders in court, which the NFL wants to call contractors, but in some courts they consider them employees.  Their beef, they want to be paid minimum wage and not be sent to events without pay and to be treated more than sex objects for the team.

    IMO cheerleaders serve no purpose, the idea that we need half naked women to get crowds ignited is pretty antiquated, buy hey if they are going to have them have the decency to pay them minimum wage and not pimp them out.


    FYI, the Packers do not have official cheerleaders, they use college cheerleading squads that include coed squads sometimes.


    A rose by any other name (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    Smells the same.

    And a Nitwit... (none / 0) (#65)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    ...will always be a nitwit.

    And some nits (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    don't even know when they are being agreed with.

    FYI, the Packers do not have official cheerleaders, they use college cheerleading squads that include coed squads sometimes.

    Only Because THE Nitwit... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:17:36 PM EST
    ...once again proves that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

    They are not roses, not do they smell like them just because you have learned how to copy and paste other people's words.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:04:57 PM EST
    First you complain about the NFL having cheerleaders and then you close with GB using college cheerleaders....

    I thought you would also object to that.

    "A rose by another name
    Smells the same"

    Agrees with you.

    But if that's too subtle for you.....please ignore.


    How Do I Get Caught up in Your... (none / 0) (#108)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:22:24 PM EST
    ...inanity, I just keep forgetting that you are a cartoon character.

    An insult to cartoon characters (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    And those who love them

    Sanders (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:49:42 PM EST
    I just saw Bernie Sanders speaking on the Democratic Presidential Forum in Iowa.

    I found him to be very impressive.

    Meanwhile, here in gun free NYC (2.00 / 1) (#31)
    by NycNate on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:10:59 AM EST
    Three teenagers suspected of taking turns raping an 18-year-old woman at a Brooklyn playground after ordering her father to leave her side were taken into custody on Sunday, a law enforcement official said.

    Read more:

    How does one pull a gun out to defend (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by vicndabx on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    when one already has a gun pointed at them?

    Pretty easy (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    He was told to leave.

    He could have removed himself a small distance, taken cover and fired a few rounds in the air.

    Betcha the rapists would have run.

    Or when they walked up he could have pulled his gun and they would have run.


    Serioulsy (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    Jim. There's no need to make anything up. There are live interviews with Bundy where he pretty much states he embraces the Klan mentality--black people were better off as slaves etc. Now I'm sure the wingnut welfare brigade where you seem to get all your information from is not going to tell you what is going on but it's out there if you're willing to wander outside of the bubble.

    There may be more to this (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    story.  According to the NYT reporting, the father and daughter were drinking beer in the playground, when the young men ordered the father to leave.

     Unanswered questions remain about the assault and its aftermath. The father ran to get help, but police said it took him about 20 minutes to come upon two uniformed officers on patrol. By the time the father returned to the playground with the officers, the young men had each raped the woman and fled.

     It was unclear why the father did not get help from bystanders or call the police from a store. Apparently, no 911 calls were made. The father may have been traumatized by the event and was not thinking straight. It does not seem that he was in a good response mode.


    Supposedly he ran into a bodega (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    and asked to use the phone and they wouldn't let..

    Though, you would think a normal father in that situation wouldn't take no for an answer..

    I agree there has to be more to this story.


    Jim, do you think more gun control would have (none / 0) (#141)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:50:11 PM EST
    kept those kids from getting a gun?

    Obama doesn't want to take our guns (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 08:29:05 AM EST
    He only wants to make us register them

    Restrict certain transfers

    Ban certain guns

    Limit magazine capacity

    Prohibit carrying them

    Ban or limit ammunition

    Issue other Executive orders

    Arrest you if you're caught disobeying

    Throw you in prison

    And then he will take your guns......

    (Floating around on FB)


    I didn't use FB (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:28:35 AM EST
    ...until my publisher told me I had to in order to flog the book.

    Okay, now I look at it, and there is so much lying cr@p on it that it isn't a surprise that you found some.

    It's on the Internet, it must be true!

    Don't ever play poker, Jim.


    I would love to play with you (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:08:06 AM EST
    Because you just assume that because I quote something from FB that it must be true.

    You'd be some more easy.

    But as many popular expressions/sayings the larger truth is contained within. And that is that the people do not believe Obama.

    They know him for what he is.

    BTW - You're getting good on plugging that book.

    Are you paying for the advertising???



    "The people" (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    know him for what he is..

    Specifically, what people would that be?

    The one's holed up in the nature preserve in Oregon?

    If anyone wants a good taste of what your people really think, all they have to do is check out the comment section at your favorite site Breitbart..

    "Criminal darkies running amok".."drug-dealing sons of Obama"..

    The problem with your "people" is that they get up in the middle of the night and take the sheets with them.


    Everyone knows (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:08:28 PM EST
    Some just won't admit it.

    And some, like you, will froth at the mouth and make things up, try to reframe, etc., etc.

    Seriously. You need to take some anger management classes.


    Everyone knows.. (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    Is what the egocentric say when what they really mean is that they can't bear to hear any dissenting opinions.

    And yes, I 'll continue to refer people to Breitbart's comment section if they're really want to find out what your crowd "knows".


    Well, I wish (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:59:40 PM EST
    you'd link to it so we could all read it.


    Seriously, have you really thought hard about getting some help with your anger issues? They really are causing you problems.


    What's the issue that makes (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    you act here like the human version of a fly around a cows as*?

    Some early trauma connected with your rural upbringing?

    Anybody can go to Breitbart and read what your brothers-in-arms think of the "darkies" and "sons of Obama"..


    So you say (none / 0) (#157)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:14:53 PM EST
    They know him for what he is.

    You mean the guy who tops the list of most admired Americans?  Who is second, BTW, if you know, and trails by how much?

    BTW - You're getting good on plugging that book.

    Are you paying for the advertising???

    My publicist takes care of the bills and doesn't bother me with them, so as far as I know, yes.  I have people for that.


    Jim, I have no problem Belem with background cjech (none / 0) (#37)
    by NycNate on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 08:51:50 AM EST
    My problem is that criminals don't obey laws. Hence no background checks.

    One pulled a gun and ordered the man to leave. The five creeps then raped the woman, according to cops.


    Name a Law in Which Criminals Follow... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    ...using that logic, there should be no laws.

    Not to point out the obvious, but I am pretty sure 5 'creeps' could have done the same thing without a gun and the notion that dad was Charles Bronson isn't really in line with what happened.


    And the father of the girl (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    did not have the opportunity to protect her because of the gun laws.

    Pretty simple.


    Bullsh&t... (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    Armed or unarmed, ya don't run away from your flesh and blood in that situation.  

    Gotta be more to this story...it just doesn't add up.


    I Haven't Commented... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:32:04 PM EST
    ...for that reason.  At face value the notion of a man walking away when his daughter is about to get ganged raped is bothersome to say the least, then complain that the cops didn't get their quick enough.

    I hope there is more to it then that because like you said, it does not add it nor do I believe if that is actually what did happen that a gun would have saved the day as the right is insinuating.

    We are hitting fantasy land in which no situation can't be cured with a gun, which of course ignores the reality of guns.


    I agree (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:57:24 PM EST
    and it seems strange they just let him leave.. and sad that the store clerk wouldn't let him use the store's phone...

    But then again it is New York City where people do such strange things as electing the current mayor.


    If who gets elected... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    is the arbiter of strange...the whole country is as funny as a three dollar bill.

    Sh*t If ya think DeBlasio is strange, his two predecessors are straight outta f*ckin' Ripleys!


    On the other hand (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    I never heard any NYC mayor ever call terrorism victims devil-worshippers..

    I do recall one... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    who turned terrorism victims into meal tickets....that might be worse.

    of course (none / 0) (#92)
    by CST on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    NY mayors are weird.  They're elected by people who, by and large, have actually chosen to live in New York City :)

    NYC's just an exaggerated (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:33:42 PM EST
    version of a lot of other cities in the U.S in which if you have enough money it can be heavan and if you don't it can be a living hell.

    Go live in Jacksonville, Florida or Gary Indiana for a year and then come back and tell me how bad NYC is.


    eh (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by CST on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 09:47:35 AM EST
    I actually like NY, although I'm not sure I'd want to live there.  It's a great place to visit but too intense for me, obviously there are Millions of people who feel differently though, many of whom are my friends.

    I just also like talking $hit about NY.  It's a Boston thing.


    Good point (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    Well he joined the party (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:35:48 PM EST
    in which other people had the devil-worshipper detail covered already.

    I flew into LGA (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:56:19 PM EST
    one time with a guy who liked to talk politics...after listening to him for two hours plus 45 minutes or so while in a holding pattern dodging thunder storms and other traffic....complaining  about high taxes, the state of the country under Bush, crime in general.....I finally asked him if he was going to NY on business..

    "Oh no," he replied. "I live here."

    Using my best dead man stare I replied, "Why?"

    The peace and quiet for the remaining minutes during taxi and gate arrival was blissfully quiet.


    I'm pretty sure (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    That if purgatory exists, it will look something like LaGuardia airport.

    Right, electing the current mayor.. (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:05:57 PM EST
    and where most Jews and other educated folks vote Democrat.

    Go figure.

    Hail, everybody knows di Blasio's a dang communist..


    Store clerk thought the dad (none / 0) (#94)
    by NycNate on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    just wanted to use the phone. Said the dad calmly asked to use the phone. That is the clerk's explanation for not allowing him to use the phone. According to latest article, dad and daughter were drinking beer in park.

    Bingeing on (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 01:39:41 PM EST
    on the first season of House of Cards.

    It is a lot better than I thought.  Got access to Netflix and started watching.   Definitely dark but very good.  

    Too dark (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 02:01:08 PM EST
    for me but to each his own.

    You want dark? Here you go, dark comedy deluxe (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:12:27 AM EST
    The trailer for the film (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:19:32 AM EST
    OMG, Seahawks win 10-9 (none / 0) (#3)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 03:09:38 PM EST
    Cannot believe it. The beginning of the 3rd Q I was convinced that Vikings interception was the death knell for Seattle. Russell Wilson's going to sleep well tonight. And Lockett's been blowing my mind the past two games.

    Let's give credit where it's properly due. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    The Seahawks defense played lights out on a day when QB Russell Wilson and the offense went into the literal deep freeze. But the team actually owes a great deal of gratitude to Lady Luck, because the normally very reliable Vikings PK Blair Walsh shanked his kick badly on what otherwise would have been a 27-yd. chip shot field goal to win the game with 22 seconds remaining.

    Three other times during the regular season, Pete Carroll had been entirely too conservative in his offensive play-calling with Seattle nursing a narrow lead late in the 4th quarter, and it cost his team all three games when the Rams, Panthers and Bengals got the ball back and scored, respectively. Sure enough, Coach twice remained true to form today with less than five minutes to go. The first time, his defense came up big and bailed him out. The second time, fate intervened in the form of Blair's muffed kick.

    Let's hope that's a sign of better times ahead for the Seahawks. If the team that walloped the Cardinals in Arizona last week shows up in Charlotte, look out. If it's today's version, well, the Panthers are infinitely better than the Vikings and it'll likely be a very long afternoon for Seattle fans.



    Seattle will probably have to account (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    for Newton's passing ability more than they did Teddy Bridgewater's, which will result in Newton probably having more lanes to run through when he decides to run..

    And if Seattle doesn't find some way to run the ball themselves, I think they're going to have a very hard way to go with Carolina locking down Doug Baldwin in the passing game and pressuring Wilson..


    They'll run the ball well... if... (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 07:34:02 PM EST
    Marshawn Lynch decides to play.

    I don't think it's going to be a walk (none / 0) (#22)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 08:27:50 PM EST
    by any means, and I sure don't pretend the Seahawks are favored to win next week. But Wilson and this Seahawks team have waged a pretty remarkable come from behind battle this season. When Wilson bobbled the snap and then calmly recovered and threw it to Lockett for 35 yards, that put them in the game today. I know people like to hate Pete Wilson and the Seahawks, but this team has heart and massive intention. With or without Lynch, I think they can do it. Plus, the weather in Charlotte is supposed to be in the high 40's...perfect Seattle weather. See ya'll next Sunday!

    Ha. (none / 0) (#27)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 09:46:10 PM EST
    Pete Carroll, of course. Conflating coach and QB/

    Also, I predict Wilson will run the ball (none / 0) (#23)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 08:29:06 PM EST
    a lot more next week.

    The Seahawks got a gift from (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    the football gods with that missed field goal.

    More Clinton Email Stuff (none / 0) (#6)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    What do you make of this recently released email chain? Clinton is explaining/dismissing this, but look at the email chain. It's in this linked article. I don't know this site, which is probably a conservative one, but I assume the email chain pdf is accurate.

    Linked article with email chain pdf.


    Nothing out of the ordinary (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 05:47:58 PM EST
    Rules are for other people

    Also recently released was a e mail where Madame Sec expressed surprise that a State Dept employee was using private  e mail for State Dept business.

    The FBI will have the final say, well, almost.
    They will either recommend charges be brought , (there are several potential individuals), or not,

    And if any charges are recommended, the Justice Department gets the final say on whether to prosecute.


    Speaking of conservative sites.. (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 06:05:49 PM EST
    the comment section of Breitbart after the Bengals-Steelers game seems to indicate that rather than being further marginalized, KKK and American Nazi Party-types have now been warmly welcomed into the bosom of the GOP..

    And, proving once again that vicious racism and stupidity always go together, the nitwit site hosts over there aren't even intelligent enough -- in the interests of pr, if nothing else -- to delete the worst comments..

    Truly unbelievable.


    Fox news (none / 0) (#10)
    by ragebot on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 06:50:52 PM EST
    had an interesting analysis of this and another issue with Hillary's emails.  Seems Sid was sending what looked like very sensitive stuff.

    But what Fox said was none of this will move the needle.  Those that like Hillary will ignore it and those that don't like Hillary will think given what is already known it is just another drop in the ocean.

    Kinda agree with that.  Unless DOJ indites her, something that seems unlikely, this changes little.


    You lost me (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 08:40:17 PM EST
    with "Fox news" doing an analysis.....

    Who cares what Fox news says......


    I agree that this email isn't (none / 0) (#25)
    by Green26 on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 09:04:04 PM EST
    going to move the needle of voters. But I wonder, if it turned out that the talking points in question did in fact contain classified information, Hillary directed classified info to be sent on a nonsecure network, and the information was so sent--if that would get the DOJ interested in ramping up the investigation.

    I don't see this AG and administration wanting to go after Hillary, but there are times when others and the career people move along in directions not supported by the higher-ups, and then that can get awkward. Not saying a grand jury would ever get called for this, but a grand jury would have all of the people involved being asked to come in and answer questions. I think it would be interesting to find out what was going on. For example, why does it seem that there aren't classified headings when there probably should be? Was someone taking them off?

    As I've said previously, it makes me nervous that the FBI/DOJ is involved. In my experience, that's never a positive development for whoever is involved on the other end of the investigation.


    That site (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 06:56:20 PM EST
    is part of the wingnut welfare brigade. We've been through this before. The IG has been shown to be a hack by his superiors.

    From the (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 07:01:53 PM EST
    wingnut welfare brigade link?

    The Hill's Brandon Richardson cautions that "It is not clear what the contents of the email were, whether information sent was classified or secure or whether the order was carried out.

    Looks like another Gowdy hack up some email and attempt to create something. Somebody will find the entire email and release it and then we'll all go back to laughing at Gowdy and his conspiracy theories again.


    Nobody (none / 0) (#11)
    by lentinel on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 06:55:37 PM EST
    will probably confront him about it, but I think what Ted Cruz said about spanking his five year old daughter was shocking and horrifying.

    There is of course the collateral issue in which he referred to Hillary Clinton getting a spanking - his euphemism for voter's expressing their disapproval. This is obviously beyond the pale. It so sexist and misogynistic. The lowest.
    He will probably be taken to task for it... One hopes.

    But I am more interested in a national dialogue about smacking little children to "learn 'em".

    This guy, Cruz, belongs in a cesspool.
    He should be run out of town on a rail.

    He's just flat out (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    gross no question about it. I guess someone should ask his wife he spanks her when she misbehaves.

    But yeah, nothing is going to be done about it or probably even said.


    Another major factor worlding against the gop.. (none / 0) (#17)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 07:24:27 PM EST
    99.9% of their public statements aren't an appeal to people on the fence -- they're generally pronouncments meant to rile up people who would never dream of voting Democrat under any circumstances.

    It almost as if they prefer celebrations of right-wing tribal identity over intelligent communicating and campaigning.

    Good for them. I hope they keep it up.


    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 07:47:29 PM EST
    they seem to have this fantasy that 39% is going to win a presidential election.

    The frontrunners are going to (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 08:16:33 PM EST
    end up disgracing themselves so much with some of their public statements that even some of that 39% may be too embarrassed to vote for them..

    This years crop of Republicans is like the other ones from years gone by if they were really, really drunk with all the ugly stuff bubbling to the surface.


    Ricky Gervais (none / 0) (#15)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 07:10:29 PM EST
    Was quite funny warming up the Golden Globes

    Your powerball fix (none / 0) (#16)
    by ragebot on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 07:12:45 PM EST
    linked to here

    The Republicans have a mantra going (none / 0) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 09:38:47 PM EST
    that members of the Democratic are soft on terrorism. This is not a new mantra. They just changed the name of the latest bogeyman. Regardless of any action, taken the Republicans will continue this refrain just as they have always done in the past and continue to do to this day.

    The question now becomes how many more escalations of current military action or new military involvements will we be willing to undertake and rationalize under the premise that it is necessary so that the Democratic Party doesn't look weak. There is an election coming up. But then again along with never ending wars, we do non stop elections. Wash, rinse and repeat.

    It's their castration complex (none / 0) (#28)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 10, 2016 at 09:49:56 PM EST
    GOPers think if they hit Dems on things like terrorism and militarism, they take away their masculinity. Sadly, the only ones with a real masculine insecurity complex are the GOPers.

    And today, Trump is sounding more desperate for votes than ever--"The NFL has gone soft!"


    I have (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:43:42 AM EST
    to agree about Trump. I never thought he would ever sound that way but I'm guessing when you have to top your last over the top statement this is what it comes to.

    That Was Especially Funny Considering... (none / 0) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    ...Trumps role in killing the USFL and his penchant to sue the NFL.

    There is even a documentary about it, Small Potatoes: Who Killed The USFL?

    In 1983 the upstart United States Football League (USFL) had the audacity to challenge the almighty NFL. The new league did the unthinkable by playing in the spring and plucked three straight Heisman Trophy winners away from the NFL. The 12-team USFL played before crowds that averaged 25,000 and started off with respectable TV ratings.

    But with success came expansion and new owners, including a certain high profile and impatient real estate baron whose vision was at odds with the league's founders. Soon, the USFL was reduced to waging a desperate anti-trust lawsuit against the NFL, which yielded an ironic verdict that effectively forced the league out of business. Now, almost a quarter of a century later, Academy Award-nominated and Peabody Award-winning director Mike Tollin, himself once a chronicler of the league, will showcase the remarkable influence of those three years on football history and attempt to answer the question, "Who Killed the USFL?"

    Their (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlJoe on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:37:30 AM EST
    latest catch phrase is "leading from behind", as if A Republican president would lead the charge on Raqqa astride a great white stallion.

    This is a rehash (none / 0) (#34)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:37:32 AM EST
    of their "soft on crime" mantra of days past. That is what gave us the mandatory minimums and other overfilled prisons in the 90s during the Clinton administration. That's what gave us Joe Biden. Democrats were terrified of being labeled "soft on crime" so they sponsored and passed horrendous "get tough" policies that we are paying for today.

    Good (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 08:16:13 AM EST
    You actually got the point of the comment.

    Being terrified of being labeled soft gave us a Democratic backed AUMF to invade Iraq and renewed calls by Democratic politicians for more U.S. military intervention in the M.E. and around the world.

    We can continue to justify these actions with rhetoric about it being necessary because there is an election coming up and the mood in the country demands it  - so of course the Dems must advocate for the U.S. to expand their military actions or lose the elections.

    What we get with this reasoning and the Dems Pavlov response is draconian sentencing laws and never ending wars. What we don't get is an end to this cycle. The Republicans continue to label the Democratic Party as soft and the Democratic Party continues to make horrible decisions in response and many Democratic voters continue to defend these decisions as necessary regardless of how bad the results.


    Funny pix (none / 0) (#29)
    by ragebot on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 12:23:45 AM EST
    in this link.

    It is a some what one sided legal analysis of the recent FAA requirements to register RC pilots.  It does seem clear the the paperwork simplification act prohibits rules or regulations of hobby aircraft, in fact those are the exact words used.

    On the other hand there does seem to be a need for some type of control over the small number of crazies flying these RC platforms.

    In any case I got a kick out of a drone flying in a court room.

    Just Another Case... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    ...of doing something just do do something.

    Like anyone is going to register their drone, then fly near real aircraft, and by some miracle, locate the sticker, in mid air, which will lead to locating the owner and proving they were also the operator.

    They did something just to do something, the idea that it will help is more wishful thinking that sound logic.  No different that making people who own laser pointers register them in the hopes that it will cut down on lasers being pointed at pilots.


    Sorry, Bernie (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    You're still getting it wrong - Three Pinocchios

    "Secretary Clinton says that Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the financial crisis because shadow banks like AIG and Lehman Brothers, not big commercial banks, were the real culprits. Secretary Clinton is wrong. Shadow banks did gamble recklessly, but where did that money come from? It came from the federally insured bank deposits of big commercial banks -- something that would have been banned under the Glass-Steagall Act."

    -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), speech on Wall Street and the economy, Jan. 5, 2016


    We can find little support for Sanders's statement that Glass-Steagall banned commercial banks from making loans to investment banking firms to facilitate their trading in the shadow-banking arena. Indeed, the two examples he cited did not fail because of loans received by commercial banks, according to the exhaustive government-sponsored investigation of the crisis. Indeed, in the case of AIG, the problems largely stemmed from a law that Sanders himself supported.

    On a broader level, Sanders would be on more solid ground to argue that the commingling of investment and commercial banking functions permitted by the 1999 partial repeal allowed the growth of megabanks such as Citigroup that exacerbated the crisis. The observation of Rickards, the former hedge fund general counsel, that such shadow-bank loans routinely required Fed permission before the 1999 law is also instructive -- though Rickards also says the 2000 law that Sanders supported was an important factor in the crisis.

    We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchio. But this was a prepared -- and important -- speech by Sanders. So it's essential to get the facts straight.

    Bernie (none / 0) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:08:37 AM EST
    is a politician no more no less.

    NCAA National Championship Tonight (none / 0) (#56)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    Alabama now favored by 7.

    This game reminds me a little bit of the 2013 Title Game where the Notre Dame defense didn't give up rushing TD's during the season, and on Alabama's opening drive the Crimson Tide pounded it on the ground right into the endzone. It was all downhill for the Irish the rest of the way with Bama winning 42-14.

    Tonight it's the other side. Clemson will have to find a way to get through Alabama which has the best defense in college football. If they can't break through that Alabama defensive front early it could be a long night for Clemson.

    Why would the number 2 team in the country be a 7 point favorite over an undefeated Clemson? The SEC set a record with 8 Bowl Game wins this year going 8-2 while the ACC went a mediocre 4-5. That has no actual bearing on tonight's game, but it does explain why the gamblers around the world see Alabama cruising to a win.

    This is the SEC's 9th appearance in the Title game in the last 10 years and Alabama will be trying to get their 4th National Title in the last 7 BCS Championships. That alone should have most the country pulling for the undefeated underdog decked out from head to toe in orange tonight.

    Football - Holly Cow (none / 0) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    Chiefs 30 - Texans 0
    So the Texans folded like it was their job, but not surprising in that the division is about as weak as the Redskins, neither team deserved to be in the playoffs.

    Still hard to watch when you start believing the hype and think Houston will at least be competitive.  They were not, but I think the Chiefs are the best team int he AFC.

    Steelers 18 - Bengals 16

    Good game, but the up until Saturday I liked the Bengals, but between the debacle that lost the game and the fans throwing stuff and cheering at Roethlisberger being carted out, the fans and team showed zero class and deserved to lose.  They simply acted like a bunch of douche bags and it cost them the game IMO.

    Funny how Adam Jones became Pacman Jones after he shoved a Steelers coach.  He also took to twitter and did exactly what one would think Pacman Jones would do, profanity laden rant about the refs.

    Seahawks 10 - Vikings 9
    Another good game fought in the 3rd coldest game ever, minus 5 at kickoff.  It bothered me to no end how everyone was saying MN has the cold weather advantage, seriously, they normally play in a dome, but played at the Gophers stadium this year, which until Sunday was not even close to being cold for any of their home games.

    Neither team was ready for below zero temps and the play showed it, but I cannot express how tired I am of Seattle catching breaks to win.  It's turning into heir forte, not that they don't have a good team, but many of their clinch wins are due to things they do not control, like a missed 27 yard field go.

    Plus the whole Lynch thing is weird, the guy is ready to go, practices all week, then last minute he says he is not, then he doesn't travel with the team.  Sounds like Lynch knows where he will play next year, anywhere not called Seattle.

    Packers 35 - Redskins 18
    God dang was it was good so see the Pack offense playing well, haven't seen that in about 6 weeks.

    The skins played as well as expected from the winner of the NFC East.  It's why I can't get excited by the Pack, they are in the playoffs, but that doesn't mean they can compete with the Big Dogs, Carolina & Arizona.  They can't so while they walk away with a win, next week they play a team that beat them 38-8 3 weeks ago.

    The Skins were simply over matched and now they move forward with out RG3.  I think the teams that gets him will have a world class QB.  Griffen was throw into the injury grinder last year when the team interests outweighed RB3's need to heal.  This is what he left in his locker, class all the way.

    Next week predictions, two teams will lose, GB and Seattle.  I can't see the Chiefs losing to the Pats.  If Manning is on, which is not a guarantee, Denver will win, if he's not there, I don't know that Osweiler can get the job done unless Roethlisberger is out.  If he is Pitt might as well stay home.

    If I remember right, the last time Pitt went to Denver in the playoffs, some guys were benched because of altitude sickness, but they still won and went on to the SB.

    The most interesting part of your comment (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    the fans throwing stuff and cheering at Roethlisberger being carted out...They simply acted like a bunch of douche bags

    Sounds like the Bengals fans and Roethlisberger are two peas in the pod.


    I really like the Steelers (none / 0) (#72)
    by CST on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    They are my second favorite team in the NFL.

    But yea, Roethlisberger can go f*ck himself.

    I went to college in Pittsburgh when he first started playing there.  Pittsburgh is definitely one of those "small town/big cities".  The worst kind of rumors followed him around, and it wasn't just the one that made the papers.


    I think the league is full of d-bags, self- (none / 0) (#75)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    centered, entitled rich boys working under the control of a lizard brain.

    Steelers/Bengals was ugly as hell, and Vontaze Burfict among the ugliest.  He should have been benched.

    No love for either team, for sure; I never bought the Bengals hype, and once again we see that as good as they can be, they can't extend their season beyond round one of the playoffs.

    Will be cheering for Denver against Pittsburgh, I guess, though they don't wow me, either, and I get sick of the Peyton love.  He's a great player, but come on - must we listen to the announcers - usually Nantz and Simms - give Manning a non-stop BJ for 3 hours?  

    I think at this point, I'd root for Green Bay, Kansas City or Arizona - maybe one of them will still be standing for the big game.


    Don't Get Me Going... (none / 0) (#79)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    ...on Phil Simms, the worse thing to happen to football since astroturf.  The guy was doing three games during the regular season and it's obvious he just doesn't know what he is talking about.  Even when what he says isn't what we are seeing, he still back down.  HE is a know-it-all gasbag.

    I always wondered who he had to blow to get that kind of airtime.  I feel for Jim Nance, to be stuck in small space with Simms for 3 hours at crack has to be excruciating.


    Anne, I think of Peyton Manning as ... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:31:12 PM EST
    ... the NFL's "Mr. October." Without a doubt, the guy has compiled awesome career stats during the fall campaigns which will eventually send him HOF-bound to Canton. But come each January, his less than stellar post-season play tells a far different story, one where he's 11-13 as a starting QB and with a single exception in 17 years (2006), he can't win the big one.

    Where's Sam Wyche... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:07:10 PM EST
    I know I'm probably in the minority (none / 0) (#90)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    but I feel kinda bad for Burfict. He played a great game and then lost control and let his urge to get some payback get the better of him -- at the worst possible time.

    Not that I think any of the Steelers are in line for haloes and wings anytime soon..


    I don't feel sorry for him (none / 0) (#170)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:19:38 AM EST
    Disclosure : the Steelers are my second favorite team, so I am rooting for them all the way.

    But this wasn't Burfict's first time at the rodeo, so to speak.

    (Let's also not forget the other d-bag, Adam Jones who said Antonio Brown was faking his injury so his team could win).

    And speaking of d-bags, boo to fans of both teams.


    Burfict - Three Game Suspension for... (none / 0) (#176)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 09:25:38 AM EST
    ...repeated violations of player-safety rules.  He is also responsible for Pittsburgh's 3 best players being put out of action, Bell, Roethlisberger, and Brown.

    There are links to all the people he has taken out of the game, it's shocking to say the least.


    Two words..James Harrison (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:17:35 PM EST
    Who's had more fines in career than a crooked Walk St firm -- because the Steelers are all about nurturing a culture of fair play and concern for players safety..

    And lets no forget about Shazier putting the crown of his helmet right in Bernard's jaw, concussing him and then celebrating and taunting the crowd immediately afterwards.

    All class.


    Seven Staffers from the Carson Campaign (none / 0) (#86)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    have called it quits today. That includes the entire paid staff of his New Hampshire SuperPac and his National Operations Director.

    He'll (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    probably be out after Iowa at this rate.

    I think Ben Carson was (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:30:13 PM EST
    doomed when he showed softness, saying that he wouldn't kill baby Hitler, as opposed to his tough rivals, like "hell yeah, I would, Jeb "    Hope he is nice to his departing staff and has a good-bye party at, say, at a "Popeye Organization."  

    Occupational risks of a stand-up comedian. (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 03:21:29 PM EST
    A supporter was booted from a Trump rally in New Hampshire today for complaining that Trump needs new jokes--the usual are getting old.  Of course, the guy could not have really been a supporter, but that is doubtful since he was escorted out, not beaten.

    Have you (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:01:45 PM EST
     Been following the new meme about Hillary and her response to Bills accusers as opposed to he statement that everyone deserves to be believed, etc.

    I have to admit I knew it was coming but it's coming earlier and harder than I expected.

    There is the NYTimes piece and now everyone is piling on.   I believe they are right about one thing, accusations of sexual misconduct are being taken more seriously now that they were in the 90s.


    The "everyone" (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:33:39 PM EST
    supposedly piling on is--you guessed it--the Repubs.  They do have coordinated talking points.

    Prediction: Not going anywhere.  But, the Repubs are playing it out now ... to what audience, I wonder:)  Seriously, the subject matter is too stale for many and too nothinburger for most.


    Yes, the retelling of Bill's history (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:53:34 PM EST
    in this department was expected.  The Clinton campaign seems to be banking on it playing out as a rehash, but it is a new story for many newer voters. Equating marital indiscretions with Bill Cosby, needs to be countered, as does discernment between sexism and misogyny.

      Of course, the hypocrisy--from that at the time (see Gingrich, Livingston)to now (see Trump, his dalliances did not occur when he was president so it does not count)will not deter attacks.  I am hopeful that this history will register with millennials in a similar manner that it registered with most of the electorate at the time. And, at the time it was the president, not the president's spouse.


    It seems (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:56:16 PM EST
    the plan is to unleash the oppo full force after Super Tuesday and they are lying low about it all right now.

    Not sure that timing is best. (none / 0) (#135)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:01:07 PM EST
    The Republican strategy seems to be to label Secretary Clinton as unelectable.  Benghazi was a bust, emails went nowhere (although their hopes never die), and now they are picking up on Trump's charges.

      The history was always there, it was just a matter of when it could best be tried.  The playing of that issue now seems to be an attempt to influence the primary (not the general) so as to "help" Senator Sanders. A candidate they would probably prefer.


    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    I was not clear. Yes, the GOP is going hot and heavy with this stuff because this is their last chance to try to change the outcome in the primary.

    When I was talking dropping oppo research I was talking about Clinton unloading hers.


    E mails (none / 0) (#143)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:58:38 PM EST
    Are just warming up
    It appears they have grown another avenue to investigate (the ole joke about Federal investigations, it is no joke),
    The report is based on accounts by three unnamed sources.

    "The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one of the sources told Fox.

    Critics of Clinton have questioned whether her work with her family's foundation during her time as secretary of State may have constituted a conflict of interest, and whether the foundation's donors wielded influence over her while she was in office.
    The FBI's investigation up until now has been focused on the classified information shared in the emails


    Lots of weasel words there (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:28:23 AM EST
    "Appears" (appears to whom?)

    "Three unnamed sources" (Sources that actually have knowledge?  Sources with no political axe to grind?)

    "...possible intersection. .." (Yes, that's what we'd all expect them to do in an investigation - they'd investigate.  However, just because they may be investigating an intersection doesn't mean there are any, or, if there are, that there was anything illegal or immoral about them).

    "....sources told Fox."   Ah, there we go!


    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:41:59 AM EST

    National Security Experts Throw Cold Water On Latest Conservative Meltdown Over Clinton Emails

    Experts in both national security issues and legal boundaries tell Media Matters that claims that the email to Sullivan is proof of lawbreaking are overheated, citing the lack of evidence that anything classified was ever sent through any unsecure avenues -- and the fact that separating unclassified from classified information for separate treatment can be permissible.

    "We don't know what was exactly in the email, but we also don't know that it contained any classified information," said Steven Aftergood, Director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. "Not everything in a classified document is necessarily classified and it is entirely possible to separate out unclassified material from what is classified."

    J. William Leonard, former director of the U.S. Information Security Oversight Office under George W. Bush, said such requests must be handled "with care," but also found no proof of illegality.

    "It shows people dealing with the daily frustration in terms of trying to use somewhat cumbersome security accounts," he said of Clinton's email. He later said that to prove anything illegal or improper occurred "you'd have to see the actual substance of what was eventually transmitted."

    Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive at George Washington University who has testified before Congress on related issues, also found no evidence of an improper act being committed.

    "It's certainly not illegal, it's unclassified information," he said. "She has argued that she did not send [anything] classified, or marked classified. And I don't think they have come up with an example."

    E Mails (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:23:07 PM EST
    have been warming up for awhile now..

    Is this like that "the net is closing around Cuomo" update you posted here a few weeks back?


    Actually (none / 0) (#147)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:34:13 PM EST
    Preet has been doing a bang up job so far, got Silver , Skelos, 2 out of the 3 men who ran NY. Now, one of those 3 is still loose, so you are telling me that Dandy Andy is clean...or that the net hasn't closed yet.
    Cuomo shut down the Moreland Commission, and Preet was wondering why. Along with the rest of NY State. Only way Cuomo avoids a indictment is because he didn't get caught, not because he didn't do anything wrong.

    Is it the deeply ingrained religious (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:36:48 PM EST
    element on the right that makes you guys run so much on wishful thinking, when you're speculating about Hillary's fate or someone like Cuomos?

    I tend to think it is.


    Wow, good timing (none / 0) (#151)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 08:17:43 PM EST
    Can't say that Preet didn't try though, or that he doesn't think anything was there, just couldn't prove it

    Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Monday there was "insufficient evidence" to charge anyone with a federal crime for interfering with the Moreland Commission probe of Albany corruption that was killed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders in 2014.

    Although Bharara didn't name Cuomo, his statement suggested the governor won't be prosecuted for allegedly trying to influence the Commission, which was looking into outside income of since-convicted legislators such as former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos.

    Most Popular

    "After a thorough investigation of interference with the operation of the Moreland Commission and its premature closing, this Office has concluded that, absent any additional proof that may develop, there is insufficient evidence to prove a federal crime," Bharara said in a statement


    Sounds like that net had a few (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:40:38 PM EST
    gaping holes in it.

    Not surprisingly.


    Yes (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:29:00 PM EST
    Fox news is shopping the email rumors again. Remember all the false information they took from Gowdy in the past? Well, he's shopping it again. I thought you said this was supposed to be the end of Hillary a long time ago and that she was "toast".

    Feh, keep the hope alive I guess. If I were a Republican I would be shopping this stuff too considering what is running in the primaries. The GOP is all of a sudden doing a "dump" trying to mess with the primaries. It's quite obvious.


    Oh boy (none / 0) (#148)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:39:49 PM EST
    Do not take Federal investigations lightly, they have many tentacles, and by all reports , the FBI was pissed about Petraeus getting off easy , and are going all in on this one  also.
    The venture into the Clinton Foundation and government corruption is one that most analysts always felt had the most jeopardy for Madame Sec.

    Her husband getting large 6 figure checks from governments that had business before the State Department just don't look goods, and many also believed all those personal e mails deleted (approximately 20 per day) were actually e mails regarding the Clinton Foundation. The FBI is in no hurry, and they appear to throwing a lot of manpower into this anyway.

    We shall see...............


    Your (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:43:26 PM EST
    concern is duly noted however I guess you have forgotten that the FBI stated Hillary is not the target. Not that I expect the wingnut welfare brigade to admit that.

    GA6, saying someone isn't a target (none / 0) (#155)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:57:44 PM EST
    means only that they aren't a target at the particular time. As investigations progress and more information is obtained and analyzed, who is a target or subject can change. While I assume Clinton wasn't a subject earlier, I suppose she could have been.  If the foundation stuff really is a new phase, I don't think that's a good thing for Clinton.

    Here's a short article that explains targets, subjects, and witnesses--and the fluidity of the categories.



    Wishful (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:03:31 PM EST
    thinking. The judge just threw out the lawsuits by conservatives trying to "prove" their was a crime. The state department asked the FBI to keep the emails and as far as the "investigation" goes there is nothing new other than Fox news shopping another rumor for the wingnut welfare brigade to lap up.

    Your concern trolling is duly noted.

    Now the wingnut welfare brigade is trying to move the goal posts since all their previous predictions have fallen apart.


    Nothing wishful from me (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Green26 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 11:32:35 PM EST
    Clinton's my candidate. You obviously don't understand white collar criminal law and investigations, nor the terminology. You don't understand that a civil court judge probably wouldn't have information that the FBI and DOJ have, so a dismissal of a civil lawsuit probably isn't relevant or dispositive to what I'm talking about. Perhaps Clinton will be fine, but I'm getting concerned for her again. You are welcome to continue to live in your dream world.

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    they are wanting to knock her out in Iowa so it's going to be coming fast and furious for the next three weeks. They want to help Bernie get the nomination because they believe they can beat him.

    That opened the door (none / 0) (#124)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:13:51 PM EST
    Been following the new meme about Hillary and her response to Bills accusers as opposed to he statement that everyone deserves to be believed

    You could drive a truck through,

    They viciously attacked and demeaned every Bill CLinton liaison, and many voters 30 and under were unfamiliar with the events may not like how Hillary has evolved to the "women must be believed " line.


    ... I would note that many young people under age 30 are not that stupid or puritanical, and really don't give a rat's a$$ about the now-dated stories of Bill Clinton's womanizing from 20-plus years earlier. This is, after all, a generation that has openly scoffed at the arguments being made by their elders for continued discrimination against LGBT citizens and residents. They're not going to suddenly start channeling the Victorian Era on us now.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:55:20 PM EST
    I have a millennial son and he could care less about all that. He abhors the culture war and all the GOP is doing is cranking that back up.

    It's very effective with aging evangelicals but not much of anybody else.


    Oh no (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 05:59:46 PM EST
    They will condemn Bill CLinton for his dalliances,

    It was the response by Hillary, Sid Blumenthal and the Clinton camp, the vicious attacks upon all the women who claimed sexual advances by Bill, that is the act which is abhorrent in todays climate.


    Oops Correction (none / 0) (#134)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:00:23 PM EST
    Not condemn Bill CLinton

    As far (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:24:58 PM EST
    as I remember Hillary had no public response. There's a lot of conspiracy theories being shopped by the wingnut welfare brigade though.

    No, the millennials are not going to like the GOP cranking up the culture war again. Most of all the GOP is massively insulting women in general with this because they have now moved onto to blaming Hillary for Bill's behavior. And that's really not gonna sell with millennials.


    Well (none / 0) (#142)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:55:34 PM EST
    Millennials are not that hot for Hillary already,

    McCaskill on Low Female Millennial Support For Hillary: "There May Not Be A Natural Enthusiasm" For Her

    Posted on December 17, 2015

    ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC NEWS: I think the Clinton campaign felt that they would have a really enthusiastic base among women. And what they are finding is what all of us are finding in the polling, that there's a generational divide, that older women, college educated women, are supporting Hillary Clinton. Younger women are less so. What do you think -- what do you think the problem that she's had in attracting millennials is?

    SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D-MO): Well, I think part of it is they haven't yet fully looked at the choices. There may not be a natural enthusiasm because the Clintons have been around all of their lives and this doesn't feel as new and as different and as historic as it does to some of us who understand what it means to have a woman president in light of the struggles we have gone through.


    That (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    does not prove your point at all.

    So your postings here (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:09:42 AM EST
    Are simply more about you, attempting to find a way to bash Hillary Clinton. You guys never tire of it.

    Affluenza (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 04:58:28 PM EST
    I can't help but follow this case, it's crazy.

    Now mama affluenza is claiming she is broke, her bond was reduce from a million to $75,000.  I was thinking that they might try the same defense, but it seems after the divorce, she and her son no longer suffer from being too rich to know better.

    Wonder where the $30k they took with them came from or where it is now.  Surely they didn't spend it in their limited time in Mexico.

    I also why they are fighting extradition for the son.  A mexican jail would be my last choice of places to be considering they can't really do much to him when he gets back, but put him in jail for a bit, probably as long as he is going to sit in jail in Mexico, a couple months.


    FWIW, I can't think of a more ill conceived plan then going to Puerto Vallarta to avoid a probation hearing.  It's so obvious that the police were already on the lookout in the city for the two and they were caught when they used their cell phone to order pizza.  The cops were already in the city and the arrest was made quickly.

    She isn't too bright to begin with (none / 0) (#139)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 06:43:38 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure all the countries in the western hemisphere have extradition treaties with the U.S.

    They should have hopped a boat for Senegal. The peanut soup is good there.


    Howdy (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 09:34:07 PM EST
    Kim Davis is attending the State of the Union invited of course by the FRC. I wonder if the camera will pan over her to see her expressions. Man, she's milking the folk hero thing for all it's worth.

    Might be fun to watch, in that case, (none / 0) (#158)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 11, 2016 at 10:57:18 PM EST
    just to see if she finally got a new hair style. And who will she be wearing??? Dior? Cassini? Vera Wang?? Never mind. She'll probably let us all down by donning one of her usual Jumpsuits For Jesus.

    I'm looking forward to the SOU (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    I think it might be an interesting but if political theater this year.

    Maybe the best National Championship Game (none / 0) (#160)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:00:42 AM EST
    I ever watched.

    And I watched the Gators in a few.

    Hope no one went to bed early or you missed 40 points scored in the 4th quarter.

    Clemson played their hearts out only to get put away by a little Alabama trickery on a kickoff (the best onside kick I've ever seen), a kick return for TD by the backup running back, and two TD's by a Tight End that hadn't scored a TD in 2 years.

    Final score 45-40 and it was closer than the score indicates. Those betting on Clemson will cash in and smile even though as fans they'll go home unhappy.

    Bundy occupiers escalate (none / 0) (#161)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:01:09 AM EST
    Now they're destroying property at the refuge, tearing down a huge fence.

    Eastern Oregon citizens and law enforcement officials alike say the Bundyites are purposely escalating, in order to provoke a response from the feds. It seems the town folk are sick of "these thugs" and want them to knock it off and go home.

    Like I said a few days ago, these Bundy nutsos actually DO want another Waco.

    Unpatriotic Idiots... yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:25:07 AM EST
    but taking down a fence means they want a Waco? That's a bit of a stretch.

    These people are zealots (none / 0) (#164)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:42:05 AM EST
    You should read the articles out tonight on this latest action. People are now convinced they are deliberately trying to provoke a response from the feds. And, in case you hadn't heard, they are armed to the teeth.

    But maybe you have a handy poll on the Oregon situation that will explain it all for us.


    I'm starting to think they're a little (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:31:50 AM EST
    miffed that while they've been getting plenty of press, the reaction of the feds has been along the lines of "meh," so it doesn't surprise me that they're looking to escalate.

    At this point, they've kind of painted themselves into a corner, haven't they?  If no one's making them leave, their egos and overblown sense of their own importance are about all that's keeping them there.

    I'm guessing they will make additional efforts to destroy or damage the land they claim to care so much about, and this will make sense to them.



    I would say (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:46:41 AM EST
    you have a decent take on this. Cutting away 25 to 30 feet of wire fence ("That's all that's needed for cows to go through") is little more than a please don't ignore me moment. In court I'm guessing it would get them about a $1000 fine.

    But "idiots", which they are,  doesn't warrant turning them into "alpo" as suggested in the next open thread.


    They are in (none / 0) (#168)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:51:24 AM EST
    A very remote area,

    Ignore them until they impose upon the rights and safety of others

    Hopefully they will quietly slink away

    Because I do not see this administration offering them a way to save face

    Maybe a 30 day trespassing sentence might make them happy, with a fine

    Do not see any reason to bring this to a boil


    It's Funny... (none / 0) (#178)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 09:52:00 AM EST
    ...that they decided the dead cold of winter was the best time for this stunt.

    I am curious why they are letting supplies flow in and why the power hasn't been cut, but I would agree with you and Anne they are just letting them sit because time is not on their side.

    I think the fence thing was to get publicity as they were falling off the front page.  The government has already drawn up arrest warrants, and I would imagine every antic they try is only going to make the list of charges longer and now there is property damage.  They are digging a hole and the Fed isn't going to take away the shovels.  

    I think all the publicity is only going to ensure the government decides to collect on the debts of the old man.  There is zero chance of them getting what they want, so this is just a show for publicity that if the Fed sits back isn't going to help their cause and they know that.  They want the government to overreact, not Waco style, maybe more like Elian Gonzalez style, something to show the Fed is a beast with no control.

    I also don't think they thought the locals were going to object to their presence, that is not good since they are basically championing the notion locals are tired of the Feds land policies.


    It is being reported that (none / 0) (#180)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:18:27 AM EST
    An Oregon judge says he will bill Ammon Bundy up to $70,000 a day to reimburse Harney County for security costs related to the ongoing occupation of a wildlife refuge.


    Also from that article:

    Bundy and other militants used a backhoe owned by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife to remove fences separating federal land from property owned by a local rancher.

    Bundy said the militants had rifled through files at the occupied building looking for evidence of wrongdoing, but he insisted they had not accessed computers -- although public radio reporters witnessed them doing that.


    They have also changed a sign outside the wildlife refuge to identify the occupied building as the "Harney County Resource Center," although it's not clear how the notoriously cash-strapped militants paid for the new sign.

    There's more, and it's just as galling.


    "People are now convinced" (none / 0) (#165)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:14:59 AM EST
    Yup, "We" are all convinced.

    I tend to agree with (none / 0) (#186)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:13:08 PM EST
    shoephone. They want a confrontation.

    GOP Debate This Thursday (none / 0) (#162)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:23:53 AM EST
    just got smaller.

    Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina have missed the cut and slide back to the undercard with Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

    The main stage will have seven candidates:
    Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich.

    Rand Paul says he will boycott (none / 0) (#172)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:52:22 AM EST
    the JV Debate.

    Hard to say whether boycotting it will get him more attention than joining in the debate. Either way the ultimate outcome for Rand likely remains the same. Sometime soon he'll only be a candidate for the US Senate from Kentucky.

    If it was MSNBC putting him at the kiddie table his argument might gain some traction with GOP voters....but it's FOX that's kicking him out.


    At this point (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:04:22 AM EST
    There are 11 people left in the race.  They've already had debates with 10 or 11 candidates on stage at the same time - why not just eliminate the undercard and have one debate?

    From my perspective on the GOP (none / 0) (#174)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:50:06 AM EST
    I would agree. The more the merrier as it just gets more unseemly.

    From the GOP perspective, they have likely had enough of what many see as a dog and pony show and want some of these men (and one women) that do not go gentle into that good night to get the hell out dodge.


    Seems like (none / 0) (#175)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 09:03:57 AM EST
    Putting the 4 undercard candidates on stage might help dilute Trump's message.  Those 4, who have no chance of winning, could freely go after him, leaving the "establishment" candidates to try and talk substance (or at least make a case that they aren't as crazy as Trump is).

    Trump doesn't like to lose - he's a whiner.  Having 10 people disagreeing with him might drown out some of his nose send and hateful soundbites.


    Paul Can't Be on the Ballot Twice... (none / 0) (#179)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:05:39 AM EST
    ...so they have changed the rules to now have a Presidential caucus that would allow voters to pick Paul before the before the actual primary.  He would get a proportional number of delegates.

    It's all hinged on Paul sending the state party $250k, half of the cost of the caucus, which he has not done.  Paul suggested collecting donations from voter at polling stations.  Say what ?


    This seems like a whole lot of effort for a guy who is barely relevant in the Presidential race.


    He may even stay in thru March 5 (none / 0) (#181)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:26:00 AM EST
    just to lock in those delegates. You just never know what the potential ability to be kingmaker is worth.

    Will anyone notice Paul's absence? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:31:56 AM EST
    I'm frankly surprised Carson is still on the main stage, but if he's going to be there, why not all of them?  

    Why have an "undercard" at all?  What's the point?


    Carson is still there (none / 0) (#184)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:07:10 AM EST
    because he's polling higher than seven of the candidates still officially running. He's in 4th behind only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio (for now).

    Sure, but.... (none / 0) (#191)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 08:49:30 AM EST