Tuesday Open Thread

Here's a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< R.I.P. David Bowie | State of the Union Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • In Trump vs Sanders... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    ...who is the grandpa and who is the celebrity, it seems as if you think Trump isn't going to be 70 in a couple months.  I highly doubt he is going to wrap up the minority vote, that is actually pretty funny.

    The rest of your comment is silly, Biden and Warren, I mean seriously.  Speaking of grandpas.

    I feel like one of the few people (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:02:55 PM EST
    who - at the end of the day - could be happy with either Dem candidate at the end of the primary.

    I still think it's going to be Hillary, but I sincerely hope that Bernie pulls in a lot of votes, and the rest of the Dem party isn't stupid enough to ignore that loud message from the left/youth.  A lot of people are hungry for a dramatic shift in economic policy.

    I Go Back & Forth... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    ...I like Sanders better, but HRC has had the best chance of winning the election.  But recently Bernie is doing better than HRC in the general against Trump.

    While I think Sanders represents me better, HRC represents the democratic party better and I think she would be able push her legislation though with better results than Sanders.

    Really, when it comes do to it, I will put winning the Presidency over my personal wants because having another republican, especially Trump is a burden I don't think the country can bear.  But given the recent trend, that might not be a choice I have to make.

    If Sanders can continue to show that he can win in the general then I will be a happy camper, if not, HRC is about the best back-up one can have and will be happy casting that vote as well.  It's nice to have two good viable candidates that actually have some substantial differences.

    I just glad I am not a republican and have to decide between Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, that would be like getting kicked in the junk, knowing that I will be voting for someone wholefully unqualified to be President and possibly someone who actually thinks all out woes will be solved with walls and religious bans.


    I'm voting for Bernie (none / 0) (#67)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:09:23 PM EST
    in PA primary. I fear HRC brings too much baggage along with her. This is strictly my opinion, but I think there are conservatives and possibly independents who would stay home if Bernie were the candidate vs. Trump or Cruz. But those same people would come out in droves to vote against Hillary Clinton.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    but if it's Bernie there are going to be a lot of disappointed women voters out there.

    Not this one (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    I didn't say every woman just a lot of them.

    To be honest I would prefer (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    to never see another white male president in my lifetime...go ahead, I deserve all the slings and arrows about to come my way. I am not really a sexist racist, just tired of the same paradigm year after year after year.

    But if my choices are Bernie or any of the GOP choices, of course I will be happy to vote Bernie.


    I hear you on that (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by CST on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:38:04 PM EST
    But I think a lot of the people who blame "Clinton hate" for Bernie's support are missing the point.  Look - there's no escaping the fact that that exists.  But that's not why people are flocking to Bernie.  O'Malley was up there too, and on paper, is who you might consider a more traditional candidate.  But he didn't get the not-Clinton vote, Bernie did.  And there is a lesson in that for the Dem party if they care enough to pay attention.

    And I'd even go so far as to say that a majority of his support is pro-Bernie, not anti-Clinton.  Hillary can't do anything about the anti-Clinton stuff if she wins.  But she can certainly address the pro-Bernie people.


    I completely agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:35:59 PM EST
    Sanders offers different positions on many issues  then Clinton does. I don't attribute his support to Clinton hate...disagreement with her on issues is not the good old fashioned Clinton Derangement Syndrome we have known in the past. Though I'm sure if I looked much further than this blog I would see some overlap there.

    Sanders and O'Malley are not at all alike in my view. Though I confess I just don't listen to O'Malley...sorry dude, you may be fine, it is just not your year.


    Yes. This comment nails it. (none / 0) (#81)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:48:45 PM EST
    But, sadly, it's easier for some Clinton supporters to blame her poll numbers vs. Sanders as a simple matter of sexism. As you said, while there may be some sexism in the Sanders support, it is not the majority of it. And everyone knows that, if she is the nominee, there will be an onslaught of sexism and misogyny hurled at her. The same people who are saying she can take it from the GOP because she's prepared for it, don't think she can take it from the -- IMO -- minority of Sanders supporters.



    I agree with the last part (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    But those people do not have a firm grip on reality.    Bernie is doing as well as he is, in part, because Hillary does not want to hit him with even a tiny portion of what would come at him from republicans because she doesn't want to offend his supporters.  Wisely, she will need them.
    She can win the nomination without doing that.   But it's not because she doesn't know how to do it or is in any way squeamish about trench warfare.

    I think they made a decision (none / 0) (#121)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    at the outset not to go after each other in any personal way. Unlike Republicans, they behave like adults. If she wanted to hit him harder on issues, then she could and should. She's smart, she articulates on policies as well as anyone. It's just a matter of whether her actual policy positions will bring those Sanders supporters along. I'm not sure. But the continual victim-of-sexism charge is really starting to wear thin with me. I don't see her as anyone's victim. And I sure don't think she sees herself that way.

    I have no arrows (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    And I need this sling, for my torn shoulder from 2008 :).

    Amen (none / 0) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    to that, amigo

    I'm happy with either (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    But lean Hillary

    If Hillary doesn't get the nomination (none / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:24:23 PM EST
    I'm voting for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader.

    Surely you jest? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    Don't call him (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:13:27 PM EST
    "Shirley."   ;-)

    Amen (none / 0) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    Of Course :) (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:14:55 PM EST
    If something bizarre happens and it's Bernie (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:29:33 PM EST
    I'm gonna Bern Baby Bern. If he doesn't make it, I'll be Berning in :) I was going to send pesos to Bernie for start up. But he lagged at the start for a moment and then when he committed I was distracted. I wanted him pulling the discussion left. But I've only sent money to Clinton.

    It has been 240 years (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:52:03 PM EST
    And, maybe finally, a woman would be nominated for President by a major party in the U.S.  Oh ... of course, by all definitions of qualified and/or having the experience to be President, she stands at the top.

    For some potential sadness, take a gander at the internals of the polls especially the antipathy of male respondents.  Maybe a fluke; maybe the looking-for-a-new-face (or shiny penny) thing; maybe we wait until the U.S. reaches 300; maybe and more maybes for me today.

    Once again, I am reminded that strong & powerful women in our country--not token strong, but the top-line definition--sometimes get called those things that rhyme with "witch."  (Like the comments cast Geraldine Ferraro's way when she acceded to the VP candidacy in the 1980s.)


    If she gets elected we are (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    Going to need to get our Sears Toughskins on. You know, Gina is going to be the new Black on Fox News all day every day :)

    I will be happy either way (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    I lean Hillary, but I take to heart the critiques of her. If Bernie earns the nomination, that will be proof of his strength going into the general and would allay some of my concerns in that area, though I still think Hillary would do better. This is still the country that believed John Kerry was an effete NE liberal egghead commie traitor. I think we would be surprised at what they pull out against Bernie.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:48:29 PM EST
    that's a big issue with me too. I have not seen that ability to handle what the GOP can throw from Bernie. He seems to have the "oh, no one believes that stuff" kind of mindset which we all know about how well that has worked out for every candidate that has had that mindset.

    However (none / 0) (#136)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    It ends up in either party,
    The votes for The Bern and The Trumpster show that the voters are tired of the politicians we have,

    But we earned them


    "new flavor"/"shiny new penny" (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:21:42 PM EST
    These characterizations of Sanders really crack me up. First of all, Sanders, Clinton and Trump are all in the senior citizen category. Secondly, how is Sanders (who's been in politics for forty years) more of a "new flavor" or "shiny new penny" than a certain first-term senator from Illinois was in 2008?

    The economy is always going to be the catalyst with voters. And despite last month's employment numbers, too many people in the U.S. are not personally experiencing the gains. Part-time jobs, contract work, low wages, no benefits, high rents. Where the economy is concerned, Sanders is tapping into the zeitgeist, Clinton is not. I would love to see a woman in the White House as much as anyone, but Clinton is not going to get there if the majority of energized voters view her as being aligned with Wall Street.

    If Clinton continues to falter, it will be because she is not connecting with voters who are still feeling the pain of the recession.

    And, as a side note, the idea that it's only black Americans in prison who convert to Islam strikes me as really out of touch, not to mention racist.

    Yes... and... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    If Clinton continues to falter, it will be because she is not connecting with voters who are still feeling the pain of the recession.

    There is the factor of economic pain - and the fact that HRC's major donors include some of those responsible for the misery...

    But there is also the fact that she is so gung-ho for our military involvement in the civil wars of countries in the M.E.

    There is also the distasteful fact that she is criticizing Obama for not getting us further involved in Syria soon enough! Ugh!
    Just what we need.

    The "new flavor" aspect of Sanders is that he comes across as honest - intellectually honest. This is a contrast, like it or not, with the constant bobbling and weaving of Mrs. Clinton and the rest of them.

    I would love to see a woman in the White House. It would be about time. If that woman were Elizabeth Warren, I would be thrilled out of my mind.

    But if the choice is yet another corporatist-militarist... include me out.


    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by dissenter on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:50:50 PM EST
    I've seen enough of the Middle East and SW Asia for two lifetimes. It is for this reason, along with the fact that I just don't believe anything out of Hillary's mouth, that I will feel the Bern come primary day.

    In 2008, I dragged my mother out in the ice to vote for Clinton but over the last 8 years (several of those years spent in Afghanistan), I just can't vote for her. I can't do it. She is reckless and this country doesn't have a foreign policy (hers or Obama's) that has made an ounce of sense.

    I am back in the States now (permanently I hope and free to speak)and have been sick and stuck in bed for a week. Over that time, I have watched more cable news than I ever want to again, and the more she attacks, the less I like her. Listening to her lecturing, whining and hypocrisy -  as she calls into one cable show show after another - just increases my dislike for her.

    I think Hilary is totally disconnected from ground truth in this country and while I think she is far better than Donald Trump (light years), I do not think she grasps the anger or the fact that her normal playbook will not work. Pandering is not going to cut it in 2016 and her constant changes in positions on critical issues like trade grates on my nerves.

    If she can lose people like me, and my mom who is in her 70's, she can't win because I don't think the under 35 crowd will come out in enough numbers for her to beat the really angry crowd.

    So, as much as I think Sanders is deficient in foreign policy, I have to go with him. I am willing to take that chance just as angry people on the other side are willing to throw the dice on Trump. I want to vote for someone that has principles. I just don't think Clinton has any left except on Women's rights but Sanders 30 year record is stellar there.

    My sense is that there are a lot of people that feel as I do and the more they get to know Sanders' record, they will like him.

    I also think that turn out will be the key. This will be a base election to be sure but in 2016 the Dems need the youth vote and if they don't have it (and I don't think they will turn out in record numbers for Clinton), we are toast.

    That is my two cents anyway.


    She is one hundred percent fos (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:07:43 PM EST
    and sounds like Wolfowitz or Richard Perle in her obsession with ousting Assad -- which is a prime example of being willing to risk utter chaos and the atrocious in a fit of neocon hawk enthusiasm for ousting another inconvenient dictatorship.

    This crap is coming primarily from the world's number one supporters of terrorism, the Saudis, and from the Israeli right-wing..

    Two entities Hillary somehow missed hearing about and refuses to ever acknowledge in public.


    Disagree (none / 0) (#172)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:54:03 PM EST
    we just had 10 sailors taken by Iran and that kind of thing would cause Bernie to be wiped out in an election.

    The American people will chose strong and wrong over weak and right any day of the week.


    I don't think so this time (none / 0) (#190)
    by dissenter on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:06:31 PM EST
    I think Trump's rhetoric will scare the hell out them.... that he will start world war 3. Any other candidate, maybe. I realize this sounds counter-intuitive but I think if Trump has to respond to this for real, he won't be able to control himself and will cause himself more damage than votes.

    His bombastic crap will force US allies to respond to whatever crazy shit he puts out there and he will look like a man with no friends abroad. The best thing for Trump is no big foreign policy incidents because he can't control himself before crowds baiting him on or right wing reporters that want to bomb Iran.

    While Americans say they don't care what other countries think of us, that tune changes quickly when war is on the table.


    Also (none / 0) (#194)
    by dissenter on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:15:34 PM EST
    This incident in the Gulf isn't the first time this has happened. It happened a couple of years ago too. I doubt Iran will hold them long. It isn't in their interests right now.

    You know (3.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    I'm one of those middle aged angry women that the press likes to talk about but Bernie has zero appeal to me. He doesn't offer anything to make my life better that I heard or read about him.

    Can Hillary do better? Sure she can but Bernie's appeal according to the polls is mostly upper income whites.

    And tax rates? If he wants the same ones that they have in Sweden it's 40%.


    I doubt your taxes are going up to 40% (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    any time soon, with or without Sanders as president. And I probably don't need to point out that Sweden--like some other Northern European countries--has a very different political and economic system than the U.S.

    Pretty sure that Sanders is making a point about income inequality, taxes, and services, without actually pledging to turn U.S into the next Sweden.

    My response to you is: if Sanders doesn't appeal to you, then don't vote for him.


    Mine goes to 39.6% this year (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:22:19 PM EST
    when I hit the Powerball tomorrow night. And I'll happily pay every penny.

    Really, what do you even know about (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:07:45 PM EST
    where Sanders stands on anything?  He doesn't offer anything for you?  

    So, I guess you have no interest in or need for things like this:

    Income and Wealth Inequality
    College Tuition Free and Debt Free
    Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy
    Creating Decent Paying Jobs
    A Living Wage
    Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet
    A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy
    Racial Justice
    Fighting for Women's Rights
    Fighting for LGBT Equality
    Caring for Our Veterans
    Fighting for Disability Rights
    Strengthen and Expand Social Security
    Fighting to Lower Prescription Drug Prices
    Improving the Rural Economy
    Reforming Wall Street
    Real Family Values
    War and Peace
    War Should Be the Last Option: Why I Support the Iran Deal

    So,  none of this would make your life better?  Or is Clinton your "but, wait, there's more!" candidate, who's going to do more and better than that?

    You don't know what tax rates he "wants?"  Up above, you said "you read somewhere" that he had pulled out of SC; apparently you aren't aware that he's doing a tour of historically black colleges and universities, beginning Thursday at - well, lookie here....South Carolina State University. Then where?  Tennessee State University, Alabama State University, Jackson State University, Florida A&M University, Virginia State University, Howard University, the Atlanta University Center and Benedict College. Yeah, I guess he's just pulling out of everywhere but Iowa and NH.

    Honestly, why not just say that you support Clinton and aren't interested in even knowing what Sanders is all about?  Maybe that would put some kind of limit on the utter crap you post here.

    Please, I beg of you, stop posting about Sanders as if you have even a clue about him.


    All of that sounds very nice (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:40:48 PM EST
    Has Bernie shown any ability or leadership to actually get any of it done?

    Yes (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:49:15 PM EST
    I'm aware of his tour. He had one in SC and mostly white people showed up and he put all the black people in the podium behind him. I grew up there and people are tired of candidates like Bernie coming to town and promising them stuff and then nothing.

    And he wants to send the money to the states and let them deal with things. Well, that's great for people who live in some states but here in GA and other states in the south he might as well be saying I'm going to screw you because they know you cannot depend on people like Nathan Deal to do the right thing and the majority of governorship's are controlled by Republicans. He wants to give them MORE power?

    And then there's the Hyde Amendment. He has said nothing about getting rid of it and how is that going to work with single payer? Are women going to have to buy separate insurance in a single payer system? He has big overarching ideas but seems to not have a solid plan for enacting any of them.


    Since we've already established that (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:14:12 PM EST
    you really don't know what you're talking about most of the time, haven't taken the time to educate yourself, while stating that Bernie offers nothing to improve your life, I think I'm done; you just can't stop spouting nonsense.

    Okay. (2.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:17:48 PM EST
    I live in GA. Bernie wants to give money to the states. I have a Republican governor. I don't see how that helps me in the least.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#187)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:59:45 PM EST
    for the boiler plate Democratic platform, you set up the straw argument that she and her supporters do not support all of those positions.

    The differences between Hillary and Bernie are way more a difference in tactics and priorities then any kind of ideological  gulf.

    Come on

    A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy
    Racial Justice
    Fighting for Women's Rights

    and all the rest, why does Bernie own those issues?

    I don't pretend that Hillary is the best on every single issue, she isn't, but she is willing to take steps in the right direction on virtually all of them.

    Bernie has some great ideas but to me they sound more aspirational rather than operational, so to speak. Single payer, free tuition, repeal Glass Steagall, sounds like music to my ears, but I see them all as extreme long shots.

    When I look at most Bernie supporters I actually see very little ideological difference between us.  However it often seems to me they look upon Clinton supporters as heretics and traitors to the cause only because we have a different opinion on the best course to achieve progress towards the goals we all strive for.


    You've completely missed my point. (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:38:04 PM EST
    Georgia stated that Bernie didn't offer anything that would make her life better; I listed his issues because I found her statement remarkably ignorant, and indicative of someone who hadn't taken the time to educate herself about where he stood.

    It pains me that people like Georgia don't seem to have any appreciation for the leftward shift Bernie Sanders has brought to this contest, or for the clear and present energy and excitement he has been generating among Democrats.  

    I'm not attempting to award ownership of these issues to Sanders; rather, I think Sanders has been attempting to remind us that these are our issues - WE own them - and it's up to us to generate the interest, enthusiasm and will to make those aspirations a reality.  

    I'm too old to have illusions about much of anything, but that doesn't mean I'm too old to hope.  I have children and grandchildren who mean the world to me, and I want that world to be kind to them, to provide opportunities for them.  I don't want them to have to support my husband and me in a few years.  

    It is my hope that Sanders stays in this until the last dog dies, because without him, the Democrats have a centrist-that's-too-far-to-the-right nominee who, the moment she becomes the nominee, will put on her right-turn signal and start making common cause with Republicans, in search of voters who miss the old-fashioned Rockefeller Republican party.

    Sure, if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her, because what's at stake is too important to take any chances with Republicans winning.  We'll know more after Iowa and New Hampshire, maybe, and we'll see where we are.

    But, seriously, I have to think I wasn't the only one barking with laughter reading that "Bernie doesn't have anything to offer me," when Clinton isn't offering anything a whole lot different.  


    I think (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:04:23 PM EST
    your last statement kind of says what I think: inspirational instead of operational. Nothing wrong with being inspirational but it's hard let down when the cold reality of hits.

    Only 40% in Sweden? (none / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    Bill's highest rate was about 39%.

    I do think Bernie will need to raise middle class taxes to pay for the programs he wants....That has always been a tough sell.


    Income tax

    Sweden has a progressive income tax, the rates for 2014 are as follows:


    31% + 25% [= 56%]: above 615,700 kr (88,180 USD and up)[4]

    ...the employer additionally pays ~31% of each employee's salary directly to the govt.

    So if the employee was paid all of the money as salary, like is done in the US, the highest rate is 56% / (100 + 31) + 31% / (100 + 31) = 66.41%


    There is also (none / 0) (#125)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    what I perceive to be the fact that we are already taxed up to our eyeballs, but instead of getting healthcare - or safe streets - or good public education - or modern public transportation ----
    we get the development of newer smaller nuclear weapons and endless wars.

    If we changed our priorities, we could have what we need.


    appeal is generational (none / 0) (#170)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:36:06 PM EST
    Actually Sanders mainly appeals to under 45 year olds compared to Clinton.

    coo... thank you for (none / 0) (#179)
    by sj on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:22:56 PM EST
    ...the compliment, luv.
    appeal is generational (none / 0) (#170)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:36:06 PM MDT

    Actually Sanders mainly appeals to under 45 year olds compared

    You don't look a day over 44! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:24:31 PM EST
    At least, not on the internet.

    As for me, I feel younger already.


    Had to uprate (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:28:32 PM EST
    This comment may or may not be a correct analysis or well thought out,  but not worth a "2."

    It is a comment that fits the discussion imo.

    Not used to uprating....


    I find it funny that you think that (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:51:51 PM EST
    Of COURSE he's a new flavor.  That's not a bad thing, but I bet you could find many, many people in this country who still don't know who he is (or could find Vermont on a map).  Obama was a new flavor too - and the Kool kids loved the new flavor of Kool Aid. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton, even if they don't like her.

    Is Clinton faltering?  I dunno - nationally, she's ahead by almost 20 (and a new poll out today has her gaining - she"s ahead by 39).  Things are tightening in Iowa, for sure, but in NH she's gaining ground and within the margin of error. (Sanders was up in NH by 14 a month ago in one poll).  And like I said before - in the next races after NH and IA, she's up by huge numbers.  Maybe that will change, but you're buying the Bernie rhetoric of "she's in trouble" - something people who are running behind say.

    And yes, talking about all their ages is silly.


    I'm not buying "rhetoric" jb (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    I'm looking at polls, which is something a lot of commenters on this blog often like to do. Admittedly, I'm not someone who puts much stock in polls until they are polls taken shortly before the voting, which is why I think the recent polling on Iowa and NH is worth noting. Some of the polls (Quinnipiac, ABC) put Sanders ahead, and some (NBC, Wall St Journal, Marist) put Clinton ahead. And Real Clear Politics averages all the polls of the past week, and puts Clinton ahead by only 0.2%. That means that as we get closer to Iowa and NH, Sanders is starting surge, and she is not. That's obviously a concern for her, as it should be. So, she's going to have to work hard to pull out a win in Iowa. That's just reality.

    Seems to me, a lot of people know, or are finding out who Sanders is, and what his positions are. He is not as much of an unknown as you may think. And the fact that Obama, a true "new flavor" in 2008 won the nomination should be a signal that Democratic voters are tired of the same old, same old, and are looking for different ideas, or at least, different framing of the same ideas.  


    I think it's about to (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:20:28 PM EST
    Get a bit more "unpleasant" than it has been.  From both sides in the dem race.
    Inevitably, but not welcome.  I think that lots of folks including the Clinton campaign underestimated the strength of the Sanders insurgency.   Iowa is surprising a lot of people.    
    All that said, I think after Iowa Bernies fortunes will change quickly.  Hillary's going to sweep the south starting with SC where she is about 40 points ahead.

    It seems Bernie (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    has put it all into NH and IA. I read where he had pulled out of SC though I don't know if that is right or not.

    However I think the theory is that the rest of the states will "fall in line" should he win NH or IA or both. Speaking from Georgia no, it's not going to change anything down here. Bernie just does not have much of a constituency in GA and probably a lot of other southern states.


    With all due respect (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    To Bernie supporters, no one believes that but a Bernie supporter.   The stupid news media pumping it at every opportunity certainly knows better.  They just want a race so bad and BTW they hate Hillary.

    It will go how it goes (none / 0) (#108)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:54:19 PM EST
    and I think most active Democratic voters will behave like adults and deal with it. As a current Sanders supporter (and a decidedly LOW-income white woman), I doubt I will be all that surprised if Clinton sweeps the southern primaries, and I can hardly imagine flipping out if she wins the nomination. I do sense a whole lot of sturm und drang from Clinton supporters though.

    I think you're correct that the real sniping is about to begin, because we are now in primary season.

    It's the sometime-Dem-voter and the unaffiliated/ independents Clinton needs to be concerned with. Like it or not, if her image of being a hawk who's aligned with Wall Street doesn't change between now and November, she's going to have a problem pulling in the independents and/or unaffiliated voters. This reality seems totally lost on some of her supporters.

    And we still won't have a good read on Midwest  and Western polling until just before those primaries and caucuses take place. So far, there is a lot of Sanders support in WA State, and the caucus system (which, incidentally, I don't like) will favor him on March 26.


    I do worry (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    About Hillary the candidate.  Yawn.   She dies not inspire fiery enthusiasm.  Bless her heart.  I think our hope may be that for every Bernie supporter who stays home a republican horrified by the prospect of president Donald  will vote democratic.

    She's decidely (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:10:25 PM EST
    better when going after the GOP. It's like she's holding back during the primary or something.

    The independents (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    are not a homogeneous group. They run the spectrum. The Sanders supporters that are independents are decidedly left wing ones. So in reality it is the left wing that Hillary should need to worry about whereas should Sanders be the nominee he would have to worry about his ability to get moderates on board for an election.

    Saw a pie chart on this (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    Yesterday 40 something "independent" but when they take out "learners" (slightly more blue than red) there was only 14% left in the independent slice.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:19:39 PM EST
    Pew did an extensive study of that and found the same thing.

    The San Diego Symphony, (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    which is searching for its new conductor, may select a female b/4 the U.S. Elects a female President. Pretty sad.

    That's what I linked to polls (none / 0) (#102)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    Apparently, you chose not to read.

    BTW - Hillary picked up the endorsement of  another labor union - the UFCW. They will be working for her in Iowa and other places to get people out to vote.  The union thinks she and Bernie are both good on economic policy, but she is more electable.

    You know, it's yet another grouo of working class people and a solid Democratic constiuency supporting HRC.  If she is so beholden to Wall Street, why aren't ALL unions supporting Sanders?  Why does she have more endorsements than him?  (Oh, I know he's complained about the leadership vs. the members, but funny how he didn't worry about that when he got his few union endorsemwnts)


    Oy, you are a bit over the edge today, (3.50 / 2) (#112)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    even for you. This is funny:

    If she is so beholden to Wall Street, why aren't ALL unions supporting Sanders?

    Unions are run by people, and apparently a majority of UFCW voting members view Clinton as more "electable." I'm not sure why that's supposed to be surprising. The "electable" meme is a strong one in our political culture.

    If you want to discount that she has an image of being aligned with Wall Street, that's your choice. Better to not be in denial about things, and, instead, be prepared for what happens during the general election.


    It is strange (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    to me that there is such antagonism here - a self-described leftist website - to Sanders.

    The contempt heaped upon people who are drawn to his candidacy is really weird. It reads as the bile meted out by right-wing hacks in the media - but it is often coming from people who identify themselves as Democrats.


    It's more than antagonism (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    It's fear, and an intentional denial of what's really going on with American citizens and their very real feelings of disenfranchisement.

    What I read here is antagonism (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:49:26 PM EST
    from both sides. Sanders supporters grind away at the awfulness that is Hillary. Clinton supporters act like Bernie is all pie-in-the-sky with not a foot on the political reality ground neophyte.

    Here I will stipulate that not everyone here who supports either of these two falls into that category, but plenty do.

    Sanders and Clinton agree on more than they disagree. And, IMO, their difference is often one of degree and implementation. They each have strengths and weaknesses. They each are a gazillion times better than anyone on the Republican side. Nothing about either one of them would justify letting a Republican win.


    Funny (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:30:01 PM EST
    Since I've noticing that it's you who's been a bit snippy lately.  Odd, because you are usually more rational, and well, nice.

    So, you gave me the predictable line. Ho hum.

    She's not really about Wall Street,  but it'seems a good meme.


    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    She's not really about Wall Street,  but it'seems a good meme.

    I have no idea what being "about" Wall Street actually means, but the point is that she has the image of being in their pocket. And, when one considers the nearly $3 million in speaking fees she's bankrolled from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and the like--in just the last two years--any attempts to paint her as something other than being a friend to Wall Street bankers is just...bonkers.

    To put these numbers into perspective, compare them to lifetime earnings of the median American worker. In 2011, the Census Bureau estimated that, across all majors, a "bachelor's degree holder can expect to earn about $2.4 million over his or her work life." A Pew Research analysis published the same year estimated that a "typical high school graduate" can expect to make just $770,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.

    This means that in one year --  2013 -- Hillary Clinton earned almost as much from 10 lectures to financial firms as most bachelor's degree-holding Americans earn in their lifetimes -- and nearly four times what someone who holds only a high school diploma could expect to make.

    She netted $675,000 from Goldman Sachs and $485,000 from Deutsche Bank alone. For giving speeches.

    She is viewed as not exactly being "one of us". Most Democrats--most voters of any stripe--do not relate to someone who pays lip service by using populist framing while taking in that kind of money from the people who make their millions and billions by scr*wing the average American worker.

    Ignore it and deride it all you want, but her relationship with Wall Street and the bankers who have made her that much richer is a problem for her. How big a problem? I don't know, and neither do you. I do know that hard working middle and lower income voters care about it. Whether it will keep her from winning the White House is anybody's guess.


    You know what (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:57:30 PM EST
    though? Her plan for banking has been hailed as more effective than Bernie's and Bernie voted for the bill that caused a lot of the problems.

    Hailed by whom? (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:10:08 PM EST
    Robert Reich (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:13:35 PM EST
    would never say anything good about Hillary and you know that already. Jbindc linked to it the other day but I don't know how to find it. Hillary could have the far superior plan and Reich would say it was awful. He said the same thing about Obama in 2008 too when Obama's plans were obviously inferior.

    Oh, well in that case (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:18:19 PM EST
    I'll just ignore anything he says or writes about economics.



    You don't think (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:25:46 PM EST
    that should be taken into consideration? I guess not from what you said.

    I read Robert Reich (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:34:20 PM EST
    because I respect what he has to say. Whether he likes or doesn't like Hillary Clinton personally matters not to me.

    More importantly, Reich isn't the only one who thinks Clinton's plan falls short. The Atlantic Monthly agrees with Reich on that point.

    Are the writers of The Atlantic Monthly also frenemies of Hillary?


    The Atlantic refers to Clinton's plan (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:48:25 PM EST
    as "technocratic incrementalism":

    Why do politicians persist in thinking they can change the way the world works by forcing regulators to write some more rules and then try to enforce them? What's needed are structural changes that reduce the sources of risk directly--for example, by breaking up large banks or increasing capital requirements by a factor of three--not more regulatory discretion. Yes, those types of structural changes will be impossible to get through a Republican House, but so will every item on Clinton's wish list. Change will take years, and it will take leaders who are willing to make the case over the long term.

    Clinton's supporters will argue that their candidate understands what she is up against, and that's why her strategy is to give incremental powers to regulators and encourage them to use those powers (even if they aren't actually new). But that was the Obama-Geithner-Summers strategy, and it has had little impact on either the concentration or the mismanagement of the financial system.

    In the end, the Clinton plan looks like a laundry list of marginally better-than-nothing reforms that are likely to vanish into an abyss of rule-writing and regulatory dithering. If she wanted to position herself as the heir to President Obama--who talked a good game while leaving Wall Street largely as he found it--she couldn't have done a better job.

    What is her plan? (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    Do you even know?

    Quick!  To the Google!

    Look up Bernie's plan while you're at it, because I'd guess you don't know anything about it, and I'd bet $1 you don't even really know anything about her plan other than that it's hers and that makes it better.  Oh, and someone, somewhere said hers was better.

    Oh, and Robert Reich - what does he know?

    Okay, we get it: you're voting for Hillary.  Good for you.  You'd think with all the time you have to be online, the least you could do is a little research now and then.  I promise, the additional information won't kill you.


    Well (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    on Bernie's website he just says he wants to break up the big banks.

    That's not true (none / 0) (#198)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:23:36 PM EST
    He has a list of nine actions he has taken, or is currently taking to reform Wall Street. Only one, the introduction of the "Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act," is about breaking up the big banks.

    Funny (none / 0) (#127)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:27:50 PM EST
    Since I've noticing that it's you who's been a bit snippy lately.  Odd, because you are usually more rational, and well, nice.

    So, you gave me the predictable line. Ho hum.

    She's not really about Wall Street,  but it'seems a good meme.


    I'm not "buying" (none / 0) (#130)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:31:25 PM EST

    But there is this;

    Bernie Sanders Has Edge in Iowa and Widens New Hampshire Lead, Polls Find


    People with varying agendas can cite whatever polls they wish to influence the behavior of others.

    But I am more than ever convinced that HRC is extremely vulnerable in the general election.


    The Green Inferno (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:16:54 PM EST
    This is more of a comment than a recommendation.  I just saw this movie directed by bad boy Eli Roth and I liked it then felt really guilty about it.  It's definitely not for everyone.  Or I dare say even for most.
    But if you are interested in a wild ride, you are not squimeash and have had all your shots, go for it.
    It is an often offensively dumb story of a bunch of obnoxious liberals who go to the Peruvian rain forest to protest and are eaten by cannibals.  Attn-Trevor,ragebot et al.  You will laugh (I did) but I instantly felt guilty.
    Looking for validation I GOOGLED.  and was surprised by the positive reviews of course mixed in with the horror and revulsion.  Ebert incredibly (IMO) gave it 3 stars.   That what I linked to.

    "The Green Inferno" is accordingly at its best when it's a horror film that thinks it's a satire, and not a satire that acts like a horror film. There are a couple of notable missteps, particularly in the scene where blonde vegan Amy (Kirby Bliss Blanton) has diarrhea. The scene is presented as an unnerving, even surreal moment in an already unbelievable, intolerable situation. But the sound effects guy was clearly instructed to go to town, and he winds up giving short shrift to one of the film's most believably pathetic characters. Thankfully, while one might wonder what value a horror film that uses savage tribesmen stereotypes, Roth's film does represent anti-heroic Justine and her peers through a lens that is both critical and human enough. "The Green Inferno" is not exactly a feel-good film, but it gets a very particular job done.

    I did laugh (none / 0) (#139)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    But just from reading your comment

    Might pass on the movie

    Don't do horror well anymore

    At least not when viewing  alone.


    IN that case (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:55:51 PM EST

    Definitely.  It's only value is mentioned in Eberts review.  But it's well done beautifully shot (unfortunately, makes you wish for grainy B/W) and interesting.  Only to a film, and especially horror, nut.  I am both.


    1st time (none / 0) (#150)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    I saw Night of the Living Dead,

    Still living at home, must have been in community college at the time,
    Just back from a night out at the bars,
    Had a bite to eat and turned on the tube,
    B&W movie, flesh eating zombies,
    Scared the Be Jesus out of me,
    Exorcist did a pretty good job on me as well
    Have been considering taking a look at Crimson Peak,
    Excellent actors for a horror movie


    Yeah This made Me Laugh... (none / 0) (#144)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:59:38 PM EST
    ...talk about something I didn't expect:
    It is an often offensively dumb story of a bunch of obnoxious liberals who go to the Peruvian rain forest to protest and are eaten by cannibals.

    Has a real (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:05:59 PM EST
    Train wreck quality.

    I don't want to see this.  But I secretly want to see this.


    Living on a boat (none / 0) (#166)
    by ragebot on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:02:38 PM EST
    I seldom get to watch movies, especially off beat ones that are not in mass distribution.  I will look for it but I am getting in the busy part of having my boat hauled out and bottom painted.

    Thanks for the heads up.


    A black guy (none / 0) (#1)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:31:04 AM EST
    ...with a knife and mental issues gets shot down in a hail of gunfire by a dozen police, each of whom carries a baton as well as a pistol.  If you can't use that baton to defend yourself from a crazy guy with a knife, you don't deserve to be a police officer.

    Meanwhile in Oregon, all the money we spent arming the National Guard with APCs and automatic weapons turns out to be useless against a bunch of losers with AR-15s.

    Like to see a Guardsman with a mini-gun (3000 7.62mm rounds a minute) turn those fools into Alpo on live TV.

    Exactly what, in your opinion, RR, (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    have the Bundy idiots done that might warrant their summary execution, or even the use of deadly force to ensure their apprehension for trespassing, destruction of government property, or even for sedition?

    I think he's being facetious, Peter. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:21:30 AM EST
    Likely he's exasperated by the American far-right's nonstop threats of violence, as I imagine are most of us, and is wondering aloud in a black humor sort of way what it would be like if they actually got what they asked for. I think most everyone here would like to see this impasse resolved peaceably and without bloodshed.

    I like to think I have a pretty good sense (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    of humor. But I don't see any humor, black or otherwise, in bloody fantasies of violent death, even of my political adversaries.

    My fantasy is ti dose 'em all with organic (none / 0) (#84)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    mescaline, lock them in, and force them to listen to the Glenn Gould version of the Goldberg Variations for 36 hours or so..

    I think that might possibly yield better, more long-lasting results..


    Then you likely wouldn't enjoy ... (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:06:55 PM EST
    ... any of Quentin Tarantino's films. Humor comes down to a matter of personal taste, I guess. I'm sorry that you were offended by Repack's dark musings, and I'm sure that he never intended to cause you any grief.

    That said, I respect and appreciate your perspective as a defense counsel, because were I to have to defend any of these militia clowns in court, I probably wouldn't appreciate such public comments, either. If anything, they reflect a probable hardening of our attitudes toward these guys.

    And I'll freely admit, my own patience with the right-wing's d*ck-swinging is also at an end. I say, bring the hammer down on these yahoos hard. Fix them firmly in place and under siege, cut them off from all power, water and contact with the outside world, and starve them out. Then when they surrender, throw the entire damned law book at them and make a very public spectacle of their fate.

    Sic semper stultus. (Thus always to the stupid.)


    Good guess. I don't like (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:54:40 PM EST
    Tarantino's films at all.

    They don't qualify for sedition (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:07:27 PM EST
    That's for damn sure. If this was sedition the President may send in the military. It wouldn't be illegal. With just that mental picture in mind, the safety of the nation's governance is not in jeopardy, and I am content to watch. And enjoy all the punnage smart Libs are ad libbing :) Sure beats watching someone spin their tires in the mud on federal lands for me, not so much for them. If I were a birder though, I'd be so chapped.....this is an outrage.

    Well, no, MT, it actually does meet the definition (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:46:41 PM EST
    of "sedition" that I was thinking of, that is, the federal crime of sedition. Included is "If two or more persons ... conspire ... by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof ...."  It's a 20-year-max felony.  But still a crime, and thus no, the military could not be used. That would "for damn sure" be illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act. It's not "treason" because it's not siding with an enemy of the United States in time of war.

    Sorry Peter, got my insurrection and sedition (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    Mixed up.

    Posse Comitatus isn't as tight as everyone wants to think though. My husband taught a course on Posse Comitatus, and that was before the Bush Administration created the Northern Command. Federal troops were called in for the LA riots though. And you know Northcom has already generated the legal arguments plus paperwork for the future.

    After being around the military, I have come to believe Posse Comitatus is only as good as our arguments to observe it and our sitting President's willingness to observe it.

    The Bush Administration really did a have a bird flu plan in the military databases too that involved the military taking control, they really did...until it was ratted out :)


    They did (none / 0) (#65)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:05:10 PM EST
    ... no less than the rebels who fired on Fort Sumpter did to deserve a response by the assembled might of the United States government.

    Once you take arms against duly constituted authority, and the muzzle comes up to horizontal, you have surrendered a right to a trial.  If you live through the appropriate response, you can have a trial

    When did treason become an accepted political statement?


    It's not treason. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:59:42 PM EST
    See my comment #79. Nor are the actions of the Bundy yahoos the equivalent of a state (or group of states) declaring itself to be an independent nation, raising an army, and engaging a U.S. military post by means constituting an act of war under international law.


    We don't need more carnage. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:28:52 AM EST
    We don't need law enforcement to treat all protesters the way they have approached BLM and Occupy - we need them to do just the opposite: treat peaceful protesters the way they are treating the Oregon contingent.

    I Agree 100%... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    This should be the blueprint in finding a non-violent outcome, not the chance to exercise violence because they can.

    The notion that people should die because other law enforcement went in a-guns-a-blazing is very weak.

    In most situations, law enforcement should be the ones trying to deescalate the situation, not escalate into a situation in which people die who did not need to.

    There will plenty of time for arrests after everyone is out of harms way.  Violence should be the last resort, not the first.

    That being said, at some point the authorities are going to have to deal with armed men.  Even if they pull up leave, someone has to arrest men with guns who probably don't want to be arrested.


    I was just (none / 0) (#14)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    joking about actually using the gunship, but a couple of flybys might be warranted. Not much difference then the APC's in Fergusson.

    Heck  a regular C130 circling at night would spook these clowns.. Bloodshed should be avoided at all cost but a I think a little Psy-ops is fair play.


    I think if other civilians just buzzed (none / 0) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:10:33 PM EST
    Them with their RC planes, it would be a whole lot scarier, and a lot more fun with Fox News and all :)

    I was thinking (none / 0) (#2)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:08:16 AM EST
    maybe a visit from a Spectre gunship, it's a bird sanctuary after all.

    Just having that wicked bird of prey circling in the dark would surely stress their TP supply and undoubtedly ruin their beauty sleep.


    I watched (none / 0) (#3)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:41:23 AM EST
    Sanders live on the Democratic Candidates Forum last night.

    I also caught some of Hillary Clinton.

    I remain more convinced than ever that Sanders is the one who could defeat Trump - or any of the Republican candidates... whereas I see only disaster for the Party and the country if HRC is the nominee.

    It would be truly ironic if HRC gets the nomination due to progressives working against Sanders...

    I dont see that (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    Bernie's professorial life of ideas does not seem well suited to fighting the Republicans....

    He has consistently espoused progressive ideas.  He seems not well grounded in actually accomplishing things or fighting against conservatives.....Trump would eviscerate him.


    I agree (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:41:57 AM EST
    he hasn't seemed to be able to handle even the mild barbs Hillary has sent his way.

    Being flatfooted (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:47:24 AM EST
    with the Black Lives Matter activists....I mean how hard should it be for Democrats to get along with such groups?

    He does not speak well on foreign policy.  He makes good intellectual points....But he cannot brawl, cannot cajole, cannot win.  


    His plan (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:01:24 PM EST
    to fight mass incarceration doesn't add up either

    Sanders is ahead of Clinton (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:32:09 PM EST
    in Iowa. Will the people who despise Clinton turn out to caucus?

    I like Senator Sanders, (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:55:00 PM EST
    but I would feel better about Sanders supporters if they were more pro-Sanders and less anti-Clinton. And, articulated reasons for support, including offense and defense against the inevitable Republican onslaught.

    "likely voter (caucus)" is the key (none / 0) (#111)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    The more the turnout mirrors registered Dems "likely voter" model, the more that favors HRC.  The more the turnout reflects newer voters/first-time caucus-goers and an upsurge in Independents who register that day as Dems, the more that result favors Sanders.  

    A real tell could be the Des Moines Register Poll (Ann Seltzer) scheduled for release this Thursday.  That poll, in the past, matches "likely voters" via tracing to the real registration status.  It may be that Bernie Sanders really has moved even or ahead ... Iowa has a way of doing its thing. Or it may be that the handful of most recent polls--inadvertently or otherwise--are being used to drive the narrative that can create the desired reality.


    IA Secretary of State: (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:49:53 PM EST

    The only time that party affiliation is important in terms of voting is in the case of a political party caucus or a primary election. In those cases, voters must be registered with the political party whose caucus or primary they wish to participate in. Voters have the right to change their affiliation and then participate in the caucus or primary election on the day those events are being held. (Ex. Someone who is registered as a Republican may participate in the Democratic primary election by changing his or her political affiliation to Democratic on the day the primary election is held and vice versa.)

    My understanding is that even in 2008 (none / 0) (#155)
    by christinep on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    the upsurge in Independents and other non-registered changing their registration occurred in the fall months significantly before the caucus event. In the case of NBC/WSJ/Marist, I read their footnote explanation of sample components to suggest that an upsurge would be expected on caucus day in order to devise such "likely caucus voter" assumption.

    NH voter reg.: (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:38:04 PM EST
    Voter Registration Deadlines

    October 30, 2015        Last day to change your party affiliation prior to the Presidential Primary Election.
    May 31, 2016   
    Last day to change your party affiliation prior to State Primary Election Day.
    September 6, 2016    
    Last day to register to vote before Primary Election Day.
    September 13, 2016    


    Who knows? (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    But Sanders is relying very heavily on newbies and I'm not sure that bodes all that well for him when it comes to winning something like a caucus.

    "New" voters meaning... (none / 0) (#163)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:41:17 PM EST
    "young" voters? Because Obama won the young voters in 2008 in the general election, and he handily won the WA State Democratic Caucus by 68% to Clinton's 31%. Anecdotally, my precinct's caucus (which also went for Obama) was heavily attended by young, first time voters. I don't like the caucus system, but it definitely favors whichever voters are more energized (and don't have to work that day). This time around, in an economy where a whole lot of people are working weekends, there's no way to predict who will show up for a Saturday morning caucus.

    Aside from the fact that that BLM (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:57:20 PM EST
    thing was months ago - and Sanders is embarking on a tour of Historically Black Colleges and Universities this week - you must not be paying a whole lot of attention to the numbers in the head-to-head matchups.  

    The surveys also found Mr. Sanders, buoyed by the support of independent voters, outperforms Mrs. Clinton in hypothetical general-election matchups in both states among registered voters.

    In New Hampshire, Mr. Sanders, who is from neighboring Vermont, beats all three, while in Iowa he tops Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz and is tied with Mr. Rubio.

    Gaius Publius weighs in over at Digby's on the NYT article:

    This especially should not be ignored (my emphasis): "The surveys also found Mr. Sanders, buoyed by the support of independent voters, outperforms Mrs. Clinton in hypothetical general-election matchups in both states among registered voters."

    That, I would think, might make an interesting head-turning addition to the "head-turning addition" to the campaign speech. Significantly greater support from independents sounds like victory to me. And lack of support from independents sounds, well, risky. If I were a Democratic insider who actually wanted to win, I'd give that some thought.

    Trump v Sanders

    Rubio v Sanders

    Cruz v Sanders

    You can ignore it, but I think you do so at some peril.


    Problem is (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    The Republicans have not even begun to turn their wrath on Sanders. Hillary has been their target forever, so to ignore that is foolish.  Everyone likes the new flavor - it's exciting! But his numbers would take a hit (as would anyone's) when the machine gets rolling against him. The question would be - does he have enough appeal and political gamesmanship to fight them off?  He's never had to do it before.

    And, as for the primries, while it may be close in Iowa and NH,  so far it's not in the next primaries - Nevada,  South Carolina, and then the "SEC" states.  If he can't win a few of those, it's game over.  How appealing is he in Arkansas, do you think against HRC?


    I'm not (none / 0) (#57)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    saying that he could beat the Clinton apparatus - and the money that she has collected - some of which comes from sources I'd rather not think about.

    I am saying that I think he would have a much better chance against Trump - or one of the other heavies on the Republican side.

    Sanders is too straightforward to be Trumped.

    I also think, rightly or wrongly, that there is major fatigue with regards to HRC.

    Even here, while I read that people think she would win, I see little or nothing of praise for her positions regarding war.

    And if we stay in these wars, the rest is just soup.


    Bernie (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:27:51 PM EST
    would probably lose to Trump if I know the American voter. They will pick someone like Trump as disgusting as he is over Bernie simply because all Trump has to do is make him an object of ridicule like he did Jeb and others and that will be the end.

    I have (none / 0) (#53)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    seen the numbers.

    I have seen numbers before.

    All I can tell you is what I sense.

    About voting for the least worse: there is not a day that goes by, when I read of the carnage that we inflict daily in the ME, of the state of our inner cities, of the fierce deportations, of the exponential increase in income inequality... that I am not relieved I did not vote for Obama.

    You can argue that McCain would have been worse.
    But, nevertheless, I don't have to have it on my conscience that I enabled so much of what I despise by voting for Mr. Obama.


    Independents (none / 0) (#54)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:28:21 PM EST
    would not Bernie be beholden to their centrist views should he gain office with significant independent support?

    Seems like a setup for disappointment if you are a liberal supporting Bernie.


    You are assuming that independents (none / 0) (#60)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    are centrists, and I don't believe that you can draw such a blanket conclusion; I'm sure independents are everything from conservative to liberal.  

    If Independents are supporting Bernie, whose message has been decidedly liberal, I have to think it's because that's the message that resonates with them.

    Perhaps the bigger question is, if independents are so centrist, why isn't Clinton doing better with them?  Shouldn't her views line up better with them?


    There are european-style Greens (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    out there, and democratic socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, left-libertarians (yes, they exist), even the odd, old school Trotskyite and communist or three who've learned to  keep very low profiles out of fear of being shot, beaten, and stoned to death by liberty-cherishing Tea Party types..

    "Independent" equals conservative is just more propaganda promulgated by those who'd prefer to limit the spectrum of acceptable ideas in this country.


    Assumption not based on fact (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    It is not even a particurly logical assumption. If the majority of Independent voters were centrist, it stands to reason that they would support the moderate or centrist candidate, HRC, rather than Sanders whose policies are unapologeticly liberal.

    A set up for disappointment for a liberal voter would be to vote for a candidate beholden to Wall Street and the financial sector due to the sizable campaign contributions she has received from them over the years.

    A set up for disappointment for would be to vote for a candidate who supports a muscular military policy in the Middle East.

    As a liberal, I'm already disappointed in many of Hillary's stated policies. A set up for disappointment would be for a liberal to vote for a candidate that already disappoints on the off chance that the candidate that most alligns with your positions might disappoint you occasionally.


    No, I have seen those polls (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:18:50 PM EST
    But Bernie has never really been hit.  I don't think he has had a recent race that has been tough.

    The GOP will hit him hard...that has not happened yet.....Socialist, wants to raise middle class taxes....not sure of himself.....weak, indecisive, befuddled professor.....You can see the attacks coming....


    I expect Hillary (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:23:16 PM EST
    Is going to start doing a tiny bit of that in the next week or so.

    I will say again (none / 0) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:50:08 PM EST
    hypothetical head to head matchups are a joke.

    They are wildly inconsistent, even from the same polling organization!
     Clinton vs Trump

    Fox: mid Nov Trump +5, Mid Dec Clinton +11, Early Jan. Trump +3 kind  of makes your head spin.


    You are correct (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:32:32 PM EST
    He did (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    very well against the Clinton barbs last night.

    Did you watch?


    I can't believe (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 09:34:32 AM EST
    No one is talking about the big news - that Rupert Murdoch and Jerry Hall are engaged after only a 4 month courtship.  (Of course, the fact that he's 84 and she's 59 may have something to do with it).

    It probably took every bit of (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:21:01 AM EST
    4 months for the prenup to lock down Murdoch's fortune...

    She's 59 and never been married (none / 0) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:00:23 AM EST
    May as well walk down the aisle at least once. Why not? Although I do suspect divorce lawyers love the possibilities that these relationships offer them.

    She married Mick Jagger (none / 0) (#7)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    And then it was ruled invalid (9 years later), but they still have 4 children.

    She's also been engaged to Roxy Music's lead singer, Bryan Ferry.


    Jerry Hall must be SOOOOO pathetic (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    Amazing how far gone some people get in the material lifestyle game. They'll have 72 hours of bliss, then five years in divorce court. One can only hope for such entertainment anyway.

    Such a Debbie Downer (none / 0) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:17:11 PM EST
    You don't know. Maybe she looked into his eyes and saw that he had soul :)

    I am Prertty Sure... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    ...she looked deeply into his bank account and saw pure love.

    He sure is a jowly mugg (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:32:07 PM EST
    I'd feel like I was marrying my grampa

    I Recently Started Getting Into... (none / 0) (#12)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    ...Ferry.  Not sure how I missed it growing up but I feel a bit cheated and happy to have finally found it.

    Hall, like many of Ferry's girlfriends made a cover of an album, Siren.  Both have written songs about her.

    I can't think any two more polar opposites than Jagger and Murdoch.


    Well.. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    I'm stretching my imagination, and the best I can come up with is that Jagger supposedly studied economics and he's reputed to be a little stingy..

    Though, only one of the two is an avaricious old right-wing goat scrotum of longstanding, and it aint Mick.


    All I know about Roxy Music (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:52:28 PM EST
    ... is this song (which I love): Love is the Drug. I had no idea they recorded so many albums.

    I shall have to give them a serious second look. Or third, fourth, fifth...??


    Both... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    ...Roxy Music and Ferry solo.

    More Than This, Avalon, and Slave To Love

    Those are probably songs you know, or at least I had heard them before, just never knew who it was.  XM-33 plays him and them all the time, I downloaded a greatest hits album, there are like 3 of them, but that is basically a double album that has as much as I can take in for a while.

    There must be 50 albums between the two.


    IMO (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:35:34 PM EST
    Avalon is probably one of the top 10 examples of rock ever.

    I love and have them all but that one is special

    Also love Bete Noir


    Also (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:36:54 PM EST
    My Life in the Bush of Ghosts.

    It is was invalid (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:01:22 AM EST
    it never happened.

    Legally (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:48:58 AM EST
    But she did "walk down the aisle".

    The Evangelical's guy, Cruz. (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 10:42:43 AM EST
    Ted Cruz's speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism, writes the conservative NYT columnist, David Brooks.  "There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy.  Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them, he continues."

     "Cruz lays down an atmosphere of apocalyptic fear.."   "as is the wont of inauthentic speakers, everything is described as a maximum existential threat. "   ..."the diagnosis is ridiculous, The Obama administration has done things that people like me strongly disagree with. But America is in better economic shape than any other major nation on earth, Crime is down, Abortion rates are down. Fourteen million jobs have been created in five years."

    "The approach works because in the wake of Obergefell on same sex marrige, many evangelicals feel they are being turned into pariahs..." "Cruz exploits and exaggerates that fear.  He sows bitterness, influences his followers to lose all sense of proportion and teaches them to answer hate with hate. This Trump-Cruz conservatism looks more like tribal, blood and soil European conservatism than the pluralistic American kind."

    David Brooks seems to overlook the fertile ground some of the Evangelicals offer.   Cruz (and Trump) just may have recognized it and now, are tilling it,successfully. And, David Brooks may have overestimated the Evangelical"s Christian virtues of humility, mercy, compassion, and grace. And, Cruz really is their guy.

    Really, I Think One Would Have... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    ...been in a coma the past decade or two to:
    overestimated the Evangelical"s Christian virtues of humility, mercy, compassion, and grace.

    What I learned in Sunday school does not exist in any form in the the south, and if you include slavery and post-civil war, I don't think it would it would be hard to make the case that those values have never existed in the south.

    They are christian in name only(CINO), but in practice they are exactly as described above by Brooks:

    "There is not a hint of compassion, gentleness and mercy.  Instead, his speeches are marked by a long list of enemies, and vows to crush, shred, destroy, bomb them, he continues."

    Not sure where brooks has been, but it's certainly not been anywhere near reality.  Trump and Cruz aren't changing the way evangelics, and many others, think, they are just giving them an option that in recent history has not been available, unfiltered hatred.


    David Brooks just (none / 0) (#97)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:35:04 PM EST
    does not want to acknowledge that Cruz reflects the Republican party today.  And, strip the nostalgia and what Republicans now call "political correctness" away, and the Republican party of the past.

      The establishment Republicans, like Brooks, do not like to see the mask pulled away. Reagan, for example, spoke in such a grandfatherly way--a grandfather right out of central casting.  But, he did open his general election campaign in Philadelphia, MS, no doubt a happenstance. However, the message got across.

       Brooks does not seem to like Cruz. Just not nice like Canadians should be. But, is there much daylight between any of the Republican candidates?  Trump? Rubio? Huckabee?

      Brooks wants a polite, nicely spoken Cruz who couches his words, and policies, such as they are--but that is not what the Republican primary voters appear to want. That would be the abhorrent "political correctness."  They want to say it the old-fashioned way--like they do over the kitchen table or in the locker rooms. Brooks does not, or does not want, to get it.


    This (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:39:49 PM EST
    Is exactly right.  

    When Brooks (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    mentioned the brutality of Cruz, I thought he would mention Cruz's citation of spanking his five year old daughter.

    But he did not.

    Fk Brooks.


    And, wanting (none / 0) (#151)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:11:54 PM EST
    voters to spank Mrs. Clinton.  

    Still Brooks might be on to something (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:28:03 PM EST
    I am surrounded by evangelicals.  The do not like or trust Cruz.   Never really have but less and less.   It confuses some that they could be more attracted to Trumo than Cruz but it's not that mysterious.  Trump comes across an genuine even if it's only genuinely full of sh!t.   Cruz does not.  

    For those that don't want an NFL team (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:35:49 AM EST
    back in LA, it looks like both the Rams and the Chargers could be there very soon.

    So they say (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:42:16 AM EST
    But not because people here want them.....It is the NFL that cannot stand not having teams in such a big media market.  

    And no one here wants to spend any tax money on the NFL.  


    I hate it (none / 0) (#24)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 11:55:07 AM EST
    when cities and states shovel money at already rich NFL teams, and I don't blame you for not wanting to spend tax money on them.
    I'm a native St. Louisan, and although I know that many of my friends and family there are Rams fans, I never was (a die-hard Cardinals fan, though, yes).  I consider them just another parvenu team, not a "real" St. Louis team (yeh, yeh, I know they've been there quite awhile now).  So it won't hurt my feelings if they go back to LA.

    Remember Jim Hart (none / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    and Conrad Dobler?

    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#116)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:11:35 PM EST
    I also remember Dan Dierdof.  ;-)
    And ate a few times at Dierdof and Hart's steakhouse in St. Louis, now closed.
    (Also ate at Stan Musial and Biggie's Restuarant, as well, a few times.  My dad and mom, while dining there, once met Stan the Man, who was frequently in evidence.)

    Good steak (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:46:42 PM EST
    Well prepared veggies at Dierdorf and Hart's.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#157)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    Exactly.  Too bad they closed a couple of years ago.

    Hell.. (none / 0) (#196)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:19:29 PM EST
    I remember Larry Wilson and Jackie Smith..

    And that durn Ernie Nevers could run like the dickens too -- don't let anyone tell you different, young fella.


    More like the NFL likes using LA (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    as a threat against the other cities. What will they do if a team actually goes there?

    People that like to watch football in LA are perfectly happy being able to watch the best games from around the country and not be stuck watching the Rams because of blackout rules.


    And Oakland... (none / 0) (#26)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    ...I am kind of confused, so three teams want to move, only one has the land and a plan, but that is the team least likely to get approval for the move.  The Rams have a city that is willing to build them a stadium, the owner just doesn't like the St Louis market, but in the past that is generally not a good enough reason to approve a move.

    Is there a possibility of two teams sharing a stadium, that is not what I have been reading, but building two stadiums is the greater LA area seems far fetched at best.

    What I don't get is the Chargers played their last game, where are they going ?  Even if it's LA, a stadium won't be ready next season, where are they going to play, college stadium, but why not wait to move until another stadium is ready and it's actually been approved.

    What happens if the owners say 'no' to any moves, they go back home ?  From what I can tell that is not an option either.  But neither the Chargers or the Raiders have any sort of real plan beyond moving.


    The Raiders stay where they are (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    mostly because the league doesn't like the Raiders.

    The Rams and Chargers will probably share a stadium in Inglewood. The owners won't say no. It will get approved.


    It will be interesting (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    To see how this develops.
    After Georgia Fontiere (Rams owner who moved the Rams to St. Louis) died in 2008, ownership ultimately passed to Stan Kroenke in 2010, after the NFL approved it.
    Interestingly enough, Kroenke had said back then that he had never had "any desire" to move the team out of St. Louis.


    The times do change, don't they?


    There is a potential bug (none / 0) (#115)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    In the Rams/Chargers plan. Looks like the Rams may not want to share. Of course, in this case no sharing likely means you stay where you are. If that's the case then you'd be looking at Chargers/Raiders in Carson, CA.

    Given the fact that (none / 0) (#126)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:25:49 PM EST
    Kroenke also recently dissed St. Louis by saying that it was "struggling" and was not "capable of hosting three professional sports teams" (see my previous link), Kroenke needs to think about what he really wants.  Stay in St. Louis, where he's making plenty of money, or move to LA (where he could deginitely make more) but share a stadium {gasp!} with another team.

    NFL votes to let Rams move to LA tonight (none / 0) (#197)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:22:41 PM EST
    Gives the Chargers the option to join them.

    It will be interesting to see (none / 0) (#201)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    what cranky Kroenke's reaction will be.
    I suspect he would rather move to a bigger market, even if it involves sharing a stadium.

    Clayton Bennett also promised ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    ... to keep the NBA SuperSonics in Seattle, were he to be rewarded with ownership of that team. The ink wasn't even dry on the transfer documents before he started demanding a new arena and threatening to move the franchise to his hometown of Oklahoma City.

    They do all promise (none / 0) (#129)
    by Zorba on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:30:40 PM EST
    All kinds of things, don't they?
    Gazillionaires holding up the taxpayers of the various cities.
    And I'm sick and tired of it.

    ... is rejecting such talk, and is standing by the partnership he formed with Raiders owner Mark Davis to co-relocate to Carson, CA.

    Of course, if I had my way, the Raiders, Chargers and Rams would all be allowed to relocate to Stockton, Fresno and Bakersfield, respectively.



    It's official: After a 21-year hiatus ... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:31:31 PM EST
    ... in St. Louis, the Rams will be returning to Los Angeles for the 2016 season.

    NFL owners voted today to support Rams owner Stan Kroenke's plans for the 298-acre site of the former Hollywood Park in Inglewood, and have further given the Chargers the option to join them.

    Until their new stadium is complete, the Rams will likely play in the L.A. Coliseum -- pending, of course, upon reaching an agreement with USC, which now owns that facility.



    by the way (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    It's worth mentioning that one of the largest muslim communities in the country is black - and that in general I'd say black people are "friendlier" with Muslims than the gen pop.

    Blacks are Muslim. (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by NycNate on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    But they seem to practice a different version of Islam. Many convert in prison. The guy accused of shooting the cop is a black Muslim that pledged allegiance to Isis. So there may be some overlap.

    You know that not all (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by CST on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    non-black muslims are pledged to ISIS...

    And that there are many - many different branches of Islam.  I don't think Trump really seems to care though.  And more to my point, I don't think the voters think that Trump really seems to care.  They can see that rhetoric for what it is.


    Should have said some black people are Muslim. (none / 0) (#34)
    by NycNate on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:24:28 PM EST

    I would advise shedding all qualifiers (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:21:11 PM EST
    Where race and religion might meet

    Bahahaha (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 03:17:26 PM EST
    Most in the US are Christian. Better Christians than white Christans. More likely to DWJWD

    Supreme Court Strikes Down Florida Death Penalty (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 12:49:16 PM EST
    Say What ?

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Florida's death penalty law unconstitutional because it requires the trial judge and not the jury to make the critical findings necessary to impose capital punishment.

    "The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury's mere recommendation is not enough," wrote Sonia Sotomayor for the court's 8-1 majority.

    It's not yet clear how many other cases -- including the 400 inmates on the state's death row -- could be affected, experts said.

    "The substance of the ruling would affect the vast majority of Florida's death row inmates," said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment.


    I wonder how many other states a judge makes the call rather than a jury.

    See scotusblog. The (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    writer states FL's statute is the last state law to be challenged re whether it is unconstitutional after a jury verdict of "guilty" for the judge to determine whether to impose death after weighing mitigating and aggravating circmstances.  

    Clerk Kim Davis, of Rowan County (none / 0) (#132)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    KY, will be a guest of Congressman Jim Jordan (R.OH) at the state of the union.   Jordan, a former wrestling coach, Evangelical, anti-gay, opponent of Planned Parenthood, and leader of the House Freedom Caucus, has invited Kim and her attorney, Mat Staver.

     It is not known if Kim's husband will accompany this duo.  This should make for a good SNL sketch.

       President Obama has invited Jim Obergefell.  Hope the president does not include in his address the fact that this is his last SOTU.  Would not like to see the Republicans embarrass the country by applauding that comment.  Alito may have something to snicker about, but, perhaps, he will follow his colleague, Scalia, and play hooky.

    Could be an (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 04:47:47 PM EST
    Interesting evening

    Yes, if for no other reason (none / 0) (#161)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:39:14 PM EST
    but for fashion.  Look forward to admiring Kim's freshly sewed, hot off the Singer, jumper.  And, of course, I always enjoy the Ray Bolger scarecrow costumed look-a-like husband.

    Hmm... (none / 0) (#164)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    My comment about her fashion sense got deleted. We'll see if yours escapes the knife.

    Laurence Tribe (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 05:22:18 PM EST
    Was on ODonnells show last night making some very interesting points about Cruz and citizenship.  I'm sure it's on the Last Word site.

    Link to Tribe

    Trouble with Iran (none / 0) (#167)
    by ragebot on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:10:13 PM EST
    CNN link reporting American sailors are in custody.  Still can't figure what is going on.  I do have a sail boat and don't rely on motors that much, but I do have twin motors on my catamaran and even when one malfunctions I have a backup.  Not why two boats would have problems at the same time.  Something does not add up.

    White House spokesman says Obama will not address it in SOU speech tonight, but Obama will talk about the deal he cut with Iran.  Even CNN is kinda griping about that.

    I still say some peeps have cards they are not showing.

    Imagine (none / 0) (#169)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:19:57 PM EST
    How much they will act out once they get the $150 billion

    Sailors and boats to be returned (none / 0) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 07:14:58 PM EST
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Iran was holding 10 U.S. Navy sailors and their two small Navy boats after the boats had mechanical problems and drifted into Iranian waters, but American officials have received assurances from Tehran that they will be returned safely and promptly.
    U.S. officials said that the incident happened near Farsi Island, situated in the Persian Gulf. They said that some type of mechanical trouble with one of the boats caused them to run aground and they were picked up by Iran. The sailors were in Iranian custody on Farsi Island at least for some time, but it's not certain where they are now.


    1968 (none / 0) (#171)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 06:37:59 PM EST
    Obviously Sanders is the Gene McCarthy of this year, trying to knock out Hillary who is the LBJ this year.  If Hillary is knocked out then other another democrat will finally step in to run, just ad RFK and Humphrey stepped in in 1968.

    The most obvious thing at tonight's SOTU (none / 0) (#192)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 12, 2016 at 08:10:54 PM EST
    No man in orange.

    Thankfully (none / 0) (#203)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    Rand Paul's "audit the Fed" bill [Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2015] (which Bernie Sanders originally sponsored in 2009 now supported and voted to move the bill forward) went down in defeat.  All this bill would have done would have been to make the Fed as toothless as the FEC.  The Fed is already audited several times a year - this was all about injecting politics into monetary policy decisions.

    No, we don't ever want Republicans in Congress ever to have a say in those decisions.  {Shudder}.

    We dodged a bullet on that one.

    Update in Oregon (none / 0) (#204)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 11:49:47 AM EST
    The militiamen occupying the Malheur national wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon said on Tuesday that they intended to tell the public soon "when we will be leaving", signalling that the takeover could be heading toward a resolution.

    The announcement is significant given that, if they follow through with the plan, the 7pm Friday event will mark the first time the occupiers enter Burns and formally communicate with local residents, who have increasingly called on the militia to end the siege and leave Oregon.


    I didn't realize the guys who want 'the federal government to give local ranchers control of public land in rural Oregon', we not from Oregon.

    Jerry DeLemus, a 61-year-old New Hampshire resident who was at the refuge until Monday and has helped Bundy coordinate meetings with nearby ranchers, said the occupation has made significant progress in recent days and could soon be ready to leave.

    Malheur occupiers and those govt computers (none / 0) (#205)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    Not only are they accessing the government computers, they are using them to build their own website for the occupation.

    And the guy who's in charge of it is a real winner.

    Fry didn't say when he arrived, but he's set up shop in a building the militants want to turn into a media center, according to Finicum. Fry said he knows "a little bit" about computers.

    Fry's Google+ account shows the Ohio man regularly posts anti-Semitic, homophobic, and pro-Nazi propaganda on social media.

    Fry also posts in support of ISIS.

     "ALL I WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS FOR ISIS TO NUKE ISRAELHELL!" he wrote on the site Nov. 30.

    When asked to explain his feelings about Israel and ISIS, Fry spoke at length of government conspiracies, plots against multiple countries, Sept. 11, court records, computer viruses on Japanese computers, Fukushima and a Jewish conspiracy against the free world that involves causing nuclear meltdowns.  

    "One week before Fukushima happened, an Israeli security team installing security equipment was there at Fukushima," Fry said.

    This guy is the perfect case study of who joins the white militias.

    That must be fairly novel security equipment (none / 0) (#206)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 13, 2016 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    if it can create an earthquake.