home

Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

thread.

Update [Jeralyn]: I have no interest in watching the Republican debate, but if you're watching, you can put your thoughts here.

< El Chapo's Crush | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Alan Rickman (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:14:53 PM EST
    Favorite: Truly, Madly, Deeply. (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    Hard to pick one... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    but if forced, it's gotta be Hans Gruber.

    Parent
    yipee kai yay (none / 0) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    motherfock!

    Parent
    My favorite as well (none / 0) (#3)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    That's when I first fell for him.

    Parent
    Me too.. the Sense and Sensibility (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:53:39 PM EST
    the perfect Brandon.

    Everything he did was exceptional.

    Really sad to lose him.

    Parent

    Very sad (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:51:27 PM EST
    For our resident mountain biker... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    Thought you might find this of interest.

    Bones found may be those of mountain biking pioneer.

    I knew the guy (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    Had photos of him in my archive.

    Parent
    Planned Parenthood Suing Major Jerks (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:06:27 PM EST
    Planned Parenthood Sues Anti-Abortion Group Behind Undercover Videos

    Planned Parenthood filed a federal lawsuit in San Francisco on Thursday against the anti-abortion activists that produced a series of heavily edited, secretly recorded videos of the family planning provider's staffers talking about fetal tissue donations.

    The civil suit accuses the defendants -- the anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress and a fake fetal tissue procurement company called "BioMax"-- of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and committing fraud, invasion of privacy, illegal secret recording and trespassing. The accused conspirators, David Daleiden, Troy Newman and four other activists, used fake government IDs to gain entry into private medical conferences, secretly taped conversations with Planned Parenthood staffers, and sliced up those interviews into a series of inflammatory videos that accuse the family planning provider of selling fetal tissue for profit.



    I read (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:14:07 PM EST
    about this a while back and apparently the defendants tried to stop it because they don't want discovery to happen.

    Parent
    I watched the debate until 9:06 (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    and Ted Cruz put me to sleep. I take pride in lasting 6 minutes.

    I'm still watching, but I don't (none / 0) (#76)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:20:03 PM EST
    know how much longer I can do that.

    Parent
    I'm enjoying it (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:22:27 PM EST
    They are a frightened and frightening bunch.  Carson got EMPs Cyber Attacks and Dirty Bombs in the same hysterical paragraph.

    For the cold open of SNL they can just replay this.

    They just asked Ted about the loan and he attacked her for parroting left wing hit pieces.  Currently dissembling .....

    Parent

    Twitter is (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:25:49 PM EST
    fact checking everything they are saying and they are getting killed on it.

    Parent
    Its getting really good (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:33:35 PM EST
    Right now

    Parent
    I have no idea how anyone could vote for (none / 0) (#81)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:39:27 PM EST
    any of these people; they are living in an alternate universe.

    I don't think Marco Rubio is human; someone needs to adjust his computer so he doesn't sound so robotic.


    Parent

    He's like a cartoon character (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:41:34 PM EST
    They all are.

    Parent
    Speaking of cartoon characters (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:43:16 PM EST
    CARSON!

    Could he be more apocalyptic ya think?

    Parent

    Cavuto and Bartiromo are pretty cartoonish (none / 0) (#85)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:44:30 PM EST
    too; this isn't even softball - it's T-ball.

    Parent
    Carson (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:47:19 PM EST
    BLOG COMMENTS?!?! OH THE HIMANITY!!!!

    Parent
    Somebody (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:50:51 PM EST
    on twitter said that the questions sound like they came out of the breitbart comments section. I mean is even Fox trying to kill off the GOP or what?

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:53:01 PM EST
    Can stupidity be fatal?

    Parent
    Wish Republicans would defend my (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:57:44 PM EST
    constitutional rights as a woman as strenuously as they defend the 2nd Amendment.

    Parent
    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:03:19 PM EST
    I liked it when Donald was saying "we have a serious mental illness problem in this country"

    No one watching this would disagree.

    I think Donald is about to skillfully step on Ted about New York values.

    Parent

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:04:36 PM EST
    SQUISH

    Parent
    Uses (none / 0) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:06:15 PM EST
    the 9/11 card pulled a brilliant Guliani gambit, Kudos.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:09:44 PM EST
    But Ted just backed up and bent over for that one.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    BAHA (none / 0) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:17:37 PM EST
    Doctor Carson do you think the air strikes against ISIS in their 16th month have been effective.

    Suprised, cupping hand to ear
    "Who in their 16th month?"

    Parent

    Silly Carson (none / 0) (#102)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:20:34 PM EST
    they don't get the easy chair and cigars until they get to paradise.

    Parent
    They will (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:23:34 AM EST
    If you worked at Planned Parenthood and carried a gun. Maybe even a tiny fetus-sized one.

    Parent
    Baa waa waa (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:56:51 PM EST
    yes in certain cases it can be.

    Parent
    This (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:40:24 PM EST
    Is the best one so far.

    Parent
    Trump (none / 0) (#86)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:46:40 PM EST
    vs Cruz in the birther battle. I thought Cruz did well, pretty much same argument I cited earlier, accused Trump of flip flopping on the issue because of the poll numbers seemed to sting him a little. Some booing for Trump and the usual bluster about the "questions" regarding citizenship. Weirdly they ended up smiling and offering each other the VP slot.

    Rubio butting in with his court tv jibe, then it was back to the same old programming of Jingoistic rhetoric and Hillary and Obama bashing.

    Parent

    Trump handles booing (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:49:53 PM EST
    Better than anyone.  If Ted thanks it's over he's wrong.

    Parent
    Rubio (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:56:13 PM EST
    is getting killed on twitter in this debate. Of course it sounds like he's gone down the rabbit hole and is saying stuff that is loudly crazy.

    Parent
    The crowd seems to like it (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:00:29 PM EST
    And I don't pretend to understand them but he sounds completely unhinged to me.  Seriously.  As I said he's is downright cartoonish.  More than the others even.  
    IMO this has been bad for him.  Everyone else is doing pretty well.  Well, except Jeb!  And Carson.  But other than that...

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:20:11 PM EST
    I mean Rubio is so bad he's like the butt of jokes. Trump is getting accolades for squishing that bug Ted Cruz on the NY values thing. Carson is adjudged he needs to be committed right away. Heck, no wonder Trump is running away with it.  

    Parent
    I would agree (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:21:57 PM EST
    Donald is walking away with it.

    Parent
    ;-D

    Parent
    Not Much Talk about Maddow interview (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:31:04 AM EST
    I just want to say something. a lot was said about how the attacks going back and forth are not personal, and the truth is all attacks are personal on some level.  

    lets boil the attacks down to their most undiluted essence.

    it's not like it's a mystery...

    Clinton is charging Sanders with a zealotry that will cause more harm than good now what is that?

    that is a charge of incompetence.

    Sanders is charging Clinton with being corrupted by moneyed interests. now what is that?

    That is an attack on integrity.

    i'll let anyone who reads this decide which is the more personal attack.  my (just one) opinion... Personally i think the attack on integrity is more personal because, well, you can forgive well intentioned zealotry even if it fails (we all still love love love Jimmy Carter), you can't forgive a calculated cave in to the evil overlords.

    just one opinion.

    to follow up, what Clinton is doing, and it's framed as giving Obama a big hug -- and thus by implication Clinton is putting Sanders in the position of smearing Obama's legacy, with southern primary states looming....  but it's more than that, Clinton is pulling in the entire Democratic party.   it's not just Obama that received money from banks, is it a stretch to consider that Elizabeth Warren herself receives money from securities and investment firms?  looks like she does but i'm no expert.  but wait, that's ok and she's not the one being corrupted cause she supports Bernie.

    Paul Kirk? i understand he is (i'm having fun with this, the adverbs are always so much fun when breathlessly intoned) .... shhhh.... intimately tied to lobbyists.  But Sanders isn't attacking Paul Kirk in his ad that attacks Clinton's integrity?  of course not...

    but he is actually... that's Clinton's argument, and even if she loses, which i believe she will, she's exactly right.

    What a bunch of tripe (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:39:07 AM EST
    Accusing Sanders of incompetence is A-Okay and not a personal attack? Who do you think you're kidding with this nonsense?

    We get it. You hate Sanders and you are angry. You've already decided he's going to win the nomination (what a crystal ball you've got there!) and you have vowed to stay home and not vote, in that case. I guess you must really like the GOP traveling band of racists, misogynists, homophobes, and fascists.

    Let me clue you in to something very basic, though you don't want to face it: If HRC wins the nomination, Sanders supporters are going to end up voting for her in the general election. Really. And, while there is rancor between the two camps now (gee, where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, in 2008) Dem voters will rally around whoever the candidate is. Sure, there will be a vocal minority who will b*tch and moan--just like the Clinton PUMAs did in 2008--but the vast majority will get off their butts and support the Democratic candidate.

    I'm a Sanders supporter who will most certainly support the eventual nominee, whoever it is--just as I did for Obama in 2008, despite the fact that he was not my first choice and I did not caucus for him.

    So, be the b*tching and moaning PUMA if you like, but you are not helping anyone--least of all, Hillary Clinton--with your attitude.

    And frankly, your posts all day have been the same post, repeated numerous times, So, try to find something new to say on the subject. Otherwise, you're just coming off like a whiny, cranky bore.

    Parent

    woah (none / 0) (#121)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:44:58 AM EST
    an attack on integrity is more personal than an attack on competence, yes.

    Parent
    I'm afraid (none / 0) (#136)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:42:46 AM EST
    that Clinton's integrity is an issue.

    A miniature example is her saying in September that she "pleads guilty" to being a "moderate", and then a month later declares herself a "progressive".

    That is a microcosm, but despite the fact that I am wired to want to be in her corner, she inevitably bobs and weaves and makes it impossible for me to keep listening.

    I, am "leftist", am not among those to whom she is gearing her campaign.

    So, I cannot respond to her.

    Parent

    Moderates can't be progressives? (none / 0) (#178)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:28:51 AM EST
    I hope they can be.

    Parent
    You know what? This is politics (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:21:22 AM EST
    They are going to attack each other. Some of the attacks on both sides are misleading and unfair- shocking! I am not going to even try to keep score. And the press has favorites, even if it is only to ensure a good story. And they can also be misleading and unfair, when they are not downright incompetent. Also not new.

    Yes I get someplace on the scale of annoyed to angry when I see it in action...but that is why I am not a candidate. I believe the candidates accept it for what it is, see for example the post 2008 Clinton-Obama relationship.

    We're gonna get through this with a decent candidate that  can win in November. I am not worried (much) about that.

    Parent

    Honest (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:56:47 AM EST
    it is. I just don't get the well you can't attack one when the other has been attacking.

    I will say the only irony to come out of it is Bernie said he doesn't run negative campaigns.

    Parent

    It was only a matter of time (none / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:12:42 AM EST
    It is with great regret that  I am forced try my scurrilous opponent to run a negative campaign

    Pols are pols

    Parent

    As far as I can tell, ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:19:02 AM EST
    ... Elizabeth Warren has yet to endorse anybody.

    Parent
    Facts will not distract from (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:47:02 AM EST
    the story board in this supporters head. He/she has a theme, high on victimhood, going and will not be distracted with something as inconsequential as facts.

    Parent
    victimhood? (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:11:27 AM EST
    i call it acceptance.  am i supposed to fight campaign style like i actually believe Clinton has a chance?? ... when even the nice people interviewing her last night framed her responses as having her "HAIR ON FIRE," lol thanks a bunch Rachel!

    in contrast, Rachel then said Bernie wasn't really making much of an attack at all?

    and thats the media, both Rachel and Chris Hayes being in the tank for Bernie.  sorry.  but it is.

    anyway i call it acceptance.  no one at all can win if that's what they are up against.  it's not personal.  and it is what it is.

    Parent

    Acceptance? Naaah. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:56:15 AM EST
    It's victimhood, the kind that makes me want to find your inner child, knock him to the ground and take his lunch money. For heaven's sake, not a single vote's been cast yet. Do get a grip.

    Parent
    woah (none / 0) (#125)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:15:05 AM EST
    if referees on a football field took one team's bump and called it "unnecessary roughness" and the other team's targeting hit and called it "just a bump" then I'm going to just accept what the outcome of the game is going to be.  eventually you just lose interest.

    i know Clinton answered all Rachel's questions just fine, as best she can but she can't win if those are the questions... the interview opens with Rachel saying something like this...  LOL you freaked out again with your hair on fire isn't Bernie just making an ad that very politely talks about an important issue?

    she can't win that way, it won't happen.

    now lets look at how she can win... she can win if Rachel opened the interview with something like this:  "why do you think Sanders is angrily smearing the Obama legacy in his ad attacking all democrats who accept donations from the banking industry?"

    that's actually an equally valid question Rachel could ask and then Clinton would have a chance of winning the primary.

    in fact if Rachel asked that particular question then I'd make the same observation in reverse.  Bernie wouldn't be able to win if that's how the media frames the issue.  we know this.

    Parent

    Do you ever even bother to read what you (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:06:16 AM EST
    write prior to hitting post.

    You are not proposing a fair playing field. You are demanding that people like Rachel frame their questions to guarantee a win for your candidate.

    You want reporters and interviewers to parrot the Clinton talking points against her opponent to guarantee a win for Hillary.

    You do not want democracy with the voters deciding who best represents them. You want to "fix" the system so your candidate, Hillary Clinton, will win.

    When all else fails, you resort to playing the victim accompanied by endless whining.

    As Donald, who BTW is a HRC supporter, has said get a grip. All this "the sky if falling" hysteria in no way helps your candidate.

    Parent

    Read the post again (2.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:25:20 AM EST
    i will sum up for you...

    in order to show how Rachel used the Bernie talking point i showed a compare contrast example as to what it would be like if Rachel actually did use the Clinton talking point.

    was that too complex for you?  hmmm maybe.

    well that's on me i guess using examples like that in confusing ways.

    lets just say this instead of using a talking point that does help Bernie (making it impossible for her to win) referring to Clinton's "hair on fire" response, and also instead of adopting the hypothetical talking point i referenced above that would help Clinton (making it impossible for Bernie to win)....

    how about this?

    "Welcome Sec. Clinton, Sen. Sanders released an ad today, would you like to respond to it?"

    just that and that's it.  no talking points that help anyone at all.

    that ok?

    Parent

    Too complex, no (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:04:11 AM EST
    I find your comments overly simplistic and rather in the style of Chicken Little's "Sky is falling" rants.

    You once again trying to structure interviews so they deal only with Sanders actions and ignore actions by HRC.

    Chelsea and Hillary's attacks on Sanders were in the news because they chose to make them the news. They placed these accusations out there for them to be part of the news cycle. Under your scenario, if a reporter gives Hillary the opportunity to critize Sanders or agrees with their distorted claims, they are doing their job - helping Hillary win. If they, question the validity of HRC's actions, Hillary is a victim because they are not helping her to win.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#131)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:20:14 AM EST
    no.  Bernie is the default winner cause they are helping him to win.

    lets sum up... i suggested this:

    "Welcome Sec. Clinton, Sen. Sanders released an ad today, would you like to respond to it?"

    but now you're saying that's helping Clinton because they're not helping Bernie make the point that attacks from two days prior, on him, were, unfair.

    that about sums it up.

    again, my compare contrast example was a bad idea but this works just fine:  "Welcome Sec. Clinton, Sen. Sanders released an ad today, would you like to respond to it?"

    but all this hair on fire framing stuff, blah blah Clinton has no chance.  it is what it is.

    Parent

    Perhaps Hillary (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:35:26 AM EST
    Would help herself

    If she made herself as available as the other candidates, instead of insulating herself.

    The press may just be saying, we finally got her for a interview, do not let this opportunity pass.

    Parent

    LOL (none / 0) (#137)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:42:54 AM EST
    you just said it perfectly and point well taken...

    she says nothing??  "she's in the bubble!!"

    she says something??  "hairs on fire!!!"

    she ain't winning.


    Parent

    Where did (none / 0) (#139)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:50:01 AM EST
    I say that?

    Every other candidate, especially the one she is currently running against, make themselves available to all media, all the time.

    Are you contesting that?

    She has tried to run a I will not lose the primary, as opposed to winning over the voters primary.

    Yes, she is insulated, and hair on fire is only appropriate, depending upon what she says.

    Now she if came out in public more often, it wouldn't be an event.


    Parent

    but if she went in public more often (none / 0) (#142)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:58:30 AM EST
    that'd be wrong too somehow?  i'm pretty certain it would... what would they say... "SHE LOOKS DESPERATE!"

    when so inclined, and they are inclined, they'll always say something no matter what she does, i thought your comment sort of proved that point.


    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#143)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:04:05 AM EST
    She should just throw in the towel now.

    A real fighter would go out there every day,

    And prove all the naysayers wrong

    Parent

    The media would attack her for doing (none / 0) (#144)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:05:51 AM EST
    so somehow.  you know it.


    Parent
    You are too funny (none / 0) (#145)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:10:47 AM EST
    But at least you go down fighting

    Putting your message out there as often and strait forward as possible

    Instead of letting your message get framed by others.

    I would hope the candidate I support , despite seeing the uphill battle ahead, just doubles down on getting out their message, and let the chips fall where they may.

    Parent

    i get that, but that's not really the dynamic (none / 0) (#147)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:22:49 AM EST
    this is a extremely poor analogy, it's actually a little creepy but if you look at the way it's intended it might be more clear where i'm coming from and how i (just one person, btw, probably really stupid) arrived at this conclusion...

    i know a guy.  a guy from college, he fell in love with a girl.  they went out a couple times... she didn't really like him, but he's in love....  you know the story, years go by sad sack can't move on and his life is passing him by as he keeps telling himself over and over again one day she'll change her mind...

    so...

    i'm really just concluding the media is just this thing that will never love Clinton back no matter what she does... she could stand outside the media's window holding a boombox over her head playing "In your eyes".... everyday... and unfortunately there's no happy ending, the girl in the window just shakes her head sadly and says "you know i never liked Peter Gabriel that much anyway."

    lol.

    anyway, it's not something you can fight for once the media turns against you... i suppose you can run out the string cause you can't just quit, but you do gotta let it go.  i think that's where were at in the hillary clinton story.

    that probably makes no sense.

    oh well, best i could do.

    Parent

    Where did (none / 0) (#140)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:50:01 AM EST
    I say that?

    Every other candidate, especially the one she is currently running against, make themselves available to all media, all the time.

    Are you contesting that?

    She has tried to run a I will not lose the primary, as opposed to winning over the voters primary.

    Yes, she is insulated, and hair on fire is only appropriate, depending upon what she says.

    Now she if came out in public more often, it wouldn't be an event.


    Parent

    As a Sanders supporter, I'm happy to (none / 0) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:44:53 AM EST
    hear that he will win.

    I'm all for you promoting the idea that Sanders is the winning candidate. You may be the only HRC supporter on this site who believes it but maybe your repetition that Sanders is going to be the Democratic nominee will convince someone on the fense to vote for Sanders.

    You portraying HRC as a victim unable to survive the primary will probably be beneficial to Sanders as well.

    I personally think HRC is strong enough to survive the press. Whether she is strong enough to overcome the disadvantages of some of her advisors and supporters, is still up for debate.

    Parent

    again, victimhood vs acceptance (none / 0) (#141)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:56:16 AM EST
    Was Dean a victim when they played his scream over and over again?

    i don't think so, i think the media was wrong.

    but he did have to accept it and move on.
     

    Parent

    which makes "why not Clinton yet?" (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:29:05 AM EST
    the news story as far as that's concerned, and i'm assuming Sen. Warren knows how that plays out.

    Parent
    Although never a New Yorker (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:24:06 AM EST
    I still get a kick out of the New York Daily News now and then.

    Take that Ted Cruz

    The Canuck loves... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    that dirty Wall St. money though, don't he?

    Clinton/Cruz...the Goldman Sachs Dream Ticket! lol

    Parent

    Don't waste your vote (none / 0) (#194)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:02:23 PM EST
    Vote Jill Stein.

    Parent
    A great front page... (none / 0) (#134)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:36:32 AM EST
    I am in favor of real anger.

    And we have every right to be angry.

    Parent

    Live Streamed ISS Spacewalk (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:47:00 AM EST
    here from Tim Peake's cam.  They are replacing a broken voltage regulator on a solar panel.

    Some more thoughts (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    about the cost of Bernie Sanders health plan

    And to address some concerns that have been bandied about my bold:

    It's unclear whether Sanders would eliminate deductibles and co-pays. These costs currently exist under Medicare, and his 2013 bill makes no mention of changing the system. But the breakdown from his campaign lists both as $0.

    The 6.7 percent payroll tax should also be counted as a worker cost, since it most likely would come out of wages rather than employers' pockets, experts said. That's because the sticker price of employer-based insurance isn't what employers are actually spending.

    Employers "pay nothing for insurance in reality," as health care is a fringe benefit of a total compensation package, said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. So when employers stop providing insurance and are required to pay into single-payer, less money will be available for paychecks.

    With this adjustment, the average family would save $505 to $1,823 a year.

    Like a free lunch, of course, there ain't no such thing as free health care. So where is the money to provide universal coverage coming from?

    SNIP

    A national single-payer system would require a payroll tax of 11.7 percent, according to the National Institute for Health Care Reform.

    SNIP

    But beyond a 6-percent income tax and a sliding payroll tax of 3 to 6 percent, that would require a financial transaction tax (Sanders included this in his 2013 bill but has since committed the tax to free college tuition) as well an estate tax, a capital gains tax and a cap on high-income tax deductions. (Sanders has proposed these but hasn't said they'll be used to pay for health care.)

    SNIP

    First, it's not guaranteed that workers will have the same quality or amount of care under a Medicare-for-all system.

    Most employer-based health insurance policies currently have more comprehensive coverage than traditional Medicare, pointed out William Hsiao, a leading health economist at Harvard University who designed universal coverage systems for Vermont, China, Sweden, and South Africa, to name a few.

    SNIP

    Second, reduced costs could also create issues with access. Lower drug prices limit funding for research and development, lower physicians' salaries disincentivize people going into medicine, lower fees could bankrupt hospitals, and people would have less choice in health plans, listed Hussey.

    And finally, experts expressed skepticism that lawmakers would ever pass Sanders' single-payer system, which would require a tax increase of hundreds of billions.



    Here's some more (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:59:36 PM EST
    Politifact for you to chew on (that bone you've been gnawing at needs a break):

    It sounds like Clinton is saying that millions would be left totally uninsured as a result of Sanders' plan giving more authority to governors, which isn't the case.

    "Her claim is analogous to saying that Medicare dismantled private insurance for the elderly," said David Himmelstein, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program and an advocate for a national health insurance system. "It replaced defective private coverage with something better."

    [...]

    Our ruling

    Chelsea Clinton said Sanders' health care plan would "empower" governors "to take away health insurance for low-income and middle-income working Americans."

    Under Sanders' plan, Americans would lose their current health insurance. However, his proposal would replace their health insurance and cover the currently uninsured. The program would auto-enroll every citizen and legal resident, all of whom would be entitled to benefits. While the plan would give governors authority to administer health insurance within their states, it includes provisions to allow federal authorities to take over if the governors refuse to implement it.

    It's impossible to predict with certainty how Sanders' plan would play out in real life. But Clinton's statement makes it sound like Sanders' plan would leave many people uninsured, which is antithetical to the goal of Sanders' proposal: universal health care.

    We rate her claim Mostly False.



    Parent
    Had a bet with myself (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:22:44 PM EST
    As to how long it would take for you to rush and post this. It took you longer than I thought.  You're slipping.  Maybe chewing on your own bone?  (Wanna talk co-pays and deductibles again?)

    She's still right about the fact that his plan would dismantle all other federal plans and create a whole new plan.  The article also says (something you conveniently left out)  that "Sanders' bill 'does make an effort' to establish measures to circumvent the states that try to undermine the law." What is that "effort?  "Please, please do this for us?" Of course, that doesn't mean it actually will be able to do that, but hey!  That's just a little inconvenient thing called "details".

    Fact is, his plan is good to dream about, but isn't realistic.  If it's so much better, his campaign needs to release the specific costs now (as he himself said they would) before people to start to vote.  If the numbers add up, and ir's something that is actually workabke, I will do a huge mea culpa.

    This is eerily reminiscent of "Hope and Change".

    Parent

    speaking for me only (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:23:46 PM EST
    "Hope and Change" turned into an alright president.  YMMV.

    Parent
    A billion here, a billion there... (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:35:32 PM EST
    Pretty soon you're talking about a real single payer insurance system.

    Parent
    Considering (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    all the stuff that has now been going on about this issue this might be interesting to see what the results are if any in the polling.

    Parent
    Elizabeth (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:57:48 PM EST
    Warren hedges on the issue too here

    Parent
    big local news (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:47:42 PM EST
    GE corporate is moving their corporate headquarters to town.  Link

    "The company moved to Fairfield in 1974, when many major companies were leaving New York City for suburbia with its lower taxes and living costs, and good public schools."

    "The intent, they say, is that it will be more like walking into a start-up in an urban setting than the remote suburban headquarters of the past."

    For how much longer will Boston (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    be that much of a lower tax city than Fairfield? These companies that move their HQ to escape paying taxes only engender a lot of animus. Corporate welfare always leaves a bit of a stink.

    At least they moved close by. (When Boeing moved its HQ to Chicago, but continued to threaten WA over taxes for still doing business in Everett and Renton, they got hit with monumental hostility from workers and citizens alike.)

    Parent

    I don't think anyone thinks they are moving (none / 0) (#13)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    because of lower taxes.

    Parent
    The tech attractiveness is touted (none / 0) (#14)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    as the #1 reason, and I don't doubt its importance. I went to school in Boston, and I know the academia and tech talent there is huge. But the $145 million in tax breaks GE got from Boston is being reported as the catalyst for the move, since CT raised corporate taxes last year.

    Parent
    the catalyst (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    was to an extent CT changing their tax code, but to the best of my knowledge, they also offered them a reprieve to stay.  Regarding the money from Boston - I think it is related more to this:

    "G.E. said that the financial incentives from state and city governments vying for its headquarters were competitive. In the financial negotiations, G.E. wanted incentives and grants to make the move itself essentially cost-free for the company, said a person involved in the talks who was not authorized to speak publicly. But G.E. did not seek tax deals that would continue year after year, he said."

    So not even GE expects the long-term taxes in Boston to be lower than CT (or wherever else).

    If they were looking just for the lowest cost place to do business, I don't think anyplace in the northeast would even be in the running.

    Parent

    It was reported that way (none / 0) (#40)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    Immediately after Ct raised taxes, and Immelt let them know it

    GE's decision caps a search that intensified last summer as Connecticut lawmakers passed a budget that increased taxes by $1.2 billion over two years, drawing protests from some of the state's biggest corporations.

    The same month, Immelt said in an email to employees that he asked a team to examine the company's options to relocate the headquarters to a state with a "more pro-business environment."

    But talent also was a draw. GE said on Wednesday it had been thinking about a new location for more than three years and considered 40 potential sites this year. Those included Atlanta; Austin, Texas, and Nashville, Tennessee, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Parent

    I get that (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:31:32 PM EST
    I see it more as they lost one of the only reasons to stay in Fairfield, CT.  If you are in a place because it's cheap, and it stops being cheap, you lose the reason to be there.  But cheap is not the only reason to be in a place.

    I guess I just don't buy that it was a tax/cost decision to go to Boston, despite the millions of dollars coming their way.  Because if that were the case, you would never pick Boston over Atlanta Austin Nashville, etc...  Pro-business can mean a lot of different things.

    For example "The total value of the incentives New York put on the table was larger than the $145 million offered by Massachusetts, according to people familiar with the discussions."

    Parent

    What has (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    happened to Jeb Bush? Honestly he's finally starting to fight back about Trump. The ad where he talks about Trump being a jerk is actually pretty good. And then there's the ad with Marco Rubio that is pretty hysterical.

    Republican debate tonight (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    Coukd be fun.   Along with proving he is a citizen Ted gets to explain the unreported million dollar loan from Goldman Sachs.
    Ted Cruz Didn't Report Goldman Sachs Loan in a Senate Race



    Yes, Trump (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    will wonder about Cruz being eligible--- just asking for a friend. Cruz will respond by singing the Star Spangled Banner, in the key of eh.  

    Jeb! will be prepared to attack Rubio's high-heeled shoes.  Maybe, Fiorina, since it would not be face to face. Carson needs a show stopper--but hard to top previous lulus, such as those stabbings of a cousin or hammer hittings of his mother. They can all focus on Nikki Haley...something for everyone there. Will Kim Davis be in the audience as a guest of some hate group?

    Parent

    It's Puckertime for Ted (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    This is becoming more than another Trumpism

    The Washington Post published an op-ed Tuesday by a constitutional law professor who asserts that due to his Canadian birth, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is not a natural born American citizen and thus is ineligible under the Constitution to be president.

    "Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian," Mary Brigid McManamon -- a constitutional law professor at Widener University's Delaware Law School -- wrote.

    She joins Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe in raising concerns that Cruz may not meet the "natural born citizen" requirement for presidency under the Constitution. She previously wrote a paper about the topic in 2014.

    LINK

    Parent

    Here's the thing (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    If we have multiple scholars, as we do, raising questions and democrats, as we do, pledging to take him to court, I really don't see how it does not become a serious issue.

    One thing everyone seems to agree on is that the courts, no court, has ruled on the issue.  And they probably should.  So in spite of Teds constant protestations it is not, in fact, settled law.

    Btw, there are others besides just the two mentioned there raising questions.  From all corners of politics.

    Parent

    Then there's (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:24:40 PM EST
    these other Harvard profs, with a different take
    All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.

    IANAL but this seems pretty clear cut to me(my bold)
    While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings.
    given that Cruz is a citizen and he was not naturalized.

    I think this does hurt Cruz in the short term, but in the long term he should be able to squash it. In any case Trump wins this round by putting him on the defensive and at least pausing his surge.

    I think the loan story will prove to be a much bigger problem for him in the long run. The optics of a million dollar loan does not play well with the tea party crowd.

    IMO

    Parent

    The essayists who are relying on (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:39:26 PM EST
    those 18th Century British statutes as part of the pre-Constitutional "common law" of the U.S. are overlooking that those laws only recognized as "natural born subjects" (translated to "citizens" in Article II) those born outside the borders of England to British-citizen fathers; those laws did not cover children, like Cruz, whose citizen-parent was the mother. The fact that distinctions like this, if contained in a statute, would not pass muster today on equal protection grounds is irrelevant, it seems to me. First, a constitutional provision cannot itself be held "unconstitutional" (which is what saying it violates equal protection would mean). Second, I cannot think of an example of a specific Constitutional provision being interpreted anew based on a later-adopted general constitutional amendment (such as the Due Process Clause, adopted in 1791 as part of the Fifth Amendment, which was much later interpreted by the Supreme Court to guarantee equal protection -- in the 1950's on racial grounds, and in the 1970s for gender). Reading these historical essays has made me think -- contrary to what I thought I understood previously -- that under the original meaning of the Article II "qualifications clause" Cruz is not eligible to be President, no matter how unreasonable or unfair the disqualifying distinction may seem to be.

    Parent
    Glad to hear it (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:01:20 AM EST
    That was my journey as well.   First thinking it was just more gass from Donald and the more I read the less it seems so.

    Parent
    Honestly (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:40:39 PM EST
    I think all that shows is that there is legitimate disagreement among serious people on the subject.  Which would seem to me to strengthen the argument that it should be addressed in a court.

    I heard a long discussion with Tribe the other day and his take was very interesting.  And unique having been Curzs professor at Harvard.  He said his own opinion was that it was likely not an issue but because Cruz is and has always professed to be a "strict constructionist" he should be forced to play by his own rules and not just trot them out when it helped his particular argument.

    That is not at all the point of the other person however.  The post OpEd takes a different angle.    But the point is they are serious people making a serious point.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    Tribe also discussed that paragraph you bolded and the fact that it is fairly recent and was the answer to a different question than the one here.

    It's not a simple issue solved by those words.

    Tribe has made more than one appearance on the Last Word on this subject.  Interpreting viewing for those interested.

    Parent

    OH, and not just a million dollar loan (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:18:26 PM EST
    An unreported million dollar loan from GOLDMAN SACHS

    Parent
    You'll have to let us know what his reply (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:20:00 PM EST
    is.

    Parent
    The authors of the Harvard essay supporting Cruz (none / 0) (#111)
    by Peter G on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 10:02:39 PM EST
    on the "natural-born citizen" issue are not "Harvard Law profs." They are former Solicitors General -- one for Bush (Clement), the other for Obama (Katyal). Very bright, well-educated, serious appellate lawyers, both of them, but not Constitutional scholars and not historians.

    Parent
    Anything, and I mean (ok almost) anything (none / 0) (#115)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:26:44 AM EST
    that takes Cruz out of the running is fine by me.

    This piece surfaced the other day, re Cruz's performance as Texas solicitor-general.

    The Brutalism of Ted Cruz

    It's the story of a Texan who shoplifted a Walmart calculator.  He was mistakenly charged as a habitual offender and sentenced to 16 years in the slammer.  When the mistake was noticed Cruz did his level best to keep the guy in prison for the full 16 years, finally losing in the U.S. Supreme Court (I think, it's not clear in the article.)

    But Cruz's speeches are marked by what you might call pagan brutalism. 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. When he is speaking in a church the contrast between the setting and the emotional tone he sets is jarring.

    Cruz lays down an atmosphere of apocalyptic fear. America is heading off "the cliff to oblivion." After one Democratic debate he said, "We're seeing our freedoms taken away every day, and last night was an audition for who would wear the jackboot most vigorously."



    Parent
    The 88th Academy Award nominations ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:03:43 PM EST
    ... were announced this morning, and "The Revenant" leads the way with 12 of them, followed by "Mad Max: Fury Road" with 10. The nominees for the popular major categories are as follows:

    BEST PICTURE:

    • "The Big Short"
    • "Bridge of Spies"
    • "Brooklyn"
    • "Mad Max: Fury Road"
    • "The Martian"
    • "The Revenant"
    • "Room"
    • "Spotlight"

    DIRECTOR:
    • Adam McKay, "The Big Short"
    • George Miller, "Mad Max: Fury Road"
    • Alejandro G. Iñárritu, "The Revenant"
    • Lenny Abrahamson, "Room"
    • Tom McCarthy, "Spotlight"

    ACTRESS:
    • Cate Blanchett, "Carol"
    • Brie Larson, "Room"
    • Jennifer Lawrence, "Joy"
    • Charlotte Rampling, "45 Years"
    • Saoirse Ronan, "Brooklyn"

    ACTOR:
    • Bryan Cranston, "Trumbo"
    • Matt Damon, "The Martian"
    • Leonardo DiCaprio, "The Revenant"
    • Michael Fassbender, "Steve Jobs"
    • Eddie Redmayne, "The Danish Girl"

    SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
    • Jennifer Jason Leigh, "The Hateful Eight"
    • Rooney Mara, "Carol"
    • Rachel McAdams, "Spotlight"
    • Alicia Vikander, "The Danish Girl"
    • Kate Winslet, "Steve Jobs"

    SUPPORTING ACTOR:
    • Christian Bale, "The Big Short"
    • Tom Hardy, "The Revenant"
    • Mark Ruffalo, "Spotlight"
    • Mark Rylance, "Bridge of Spies"
    • Sylvester Stallone, "Creed"

    FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
    • "Embrace of the Serpent" (Colombia)
    • "A War" (Denmark)
    • "Mustang" (France)
    • "Son Of Saul" (Hungary)
    • "Theeb" (Jordan)

    DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:
    • "Amy"
    • "Cartel Land"
    • "The Look of Silence"
    • "What Happened, Miss Simone?"
    • "Winter on Fire: Ukraine's Fight for Freedom"

    As always, there were surprises and snubs. Both Steven Spielberg (Bridge of Spies") and Ridley Scott ("The Martian") are missing in the Director category, as is Helen Mirren for Supporting Actress ("Trumbo"). And "Star Wars, Episode VII: The Force Awakens" received only nominations in the technical categories.

    And once again, with the exception of Alejandro G. Iñárritu in the Director category for "The Revenant," all the nominees in the major categories are white. You'd think that Academy voters would have heeded the criticism leveled at them last year over that very topic, but it looks as though they decided instead to double down.

    Case in point: Despite a pretty robust awards campaign mounted for Universal Studios' summer blockbuster "Straight Outta Compton," neither that film's director, F. Gary Gray, nor any of its black lead actors received nominations. However, its two white screenwriters were recognized in the Original Screenplay category.

    Aloha.

    The internet wants to know (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    If this is finally Leo's year.

    I haven't seen the Revenant, but I could see him winning just because it's his "turn", so to speak.

    Parent

    Cranston (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:18:49 PM EST
    Should win IMO because the whole project deserved more love than its getting.  Leo cam wait.

    Parent
    That said (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    If I was putting money on someone it might be Matt

    Parent
    I really enjoyed (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    The Martian, but it doesn't strike me as an "Academy" film.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:27:55 PM EST
    That's what I said about Fury Road.  I think his performance was pretty great.   And I don't even particularly like him.

    Parent
    I'm biased (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:40:41 PM EST
    Good Will Hunting cemented his reputation here forever.

    It's strange to me thinking back on it - at the time it was a spot-on representation of the city.  You make that same film today and it feels dated I think - like the Town, or the Departed, or all the other movies that take place in a city that no longer really exists.

    Parent

    I hope Leo wins (none / 0) (#60)
    by McBain on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:01:28 PM EST
    The Revenant was great and he was a big part of it.

    Parent
    Spielberg deserved to be snubbed (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:44:09 PM EST
    "Bridge of Spies" was the stupidest, most boring film I saw this year. Please, no more movies with Tom Hanks as self-effacing hero. Can't believe I didn't walk out (though I considered it).

    "Spotlight" is my choice, but, honestly, this was a dud year for movies, IMO.

    Parent

    Well, I liked "Bridge of Spies." (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:13:37 PM EST
    But I'll admit that I also found it to be somewhat formulaic, Spielberg at his cookie-cutter best, and not likely Best Picture material. And yeah, he'd have been better off casting someone other than Tom Hanks in the lead role.

    Both Spielberg and Hanks are so deft at what they do that there's probably a great temptation on their part to just phone it in -- and that's pretty much what they did here. "Bridge of Spies" was merely pretty good when it otherwise should've been great, given its caliber of talent.

    Did you see "The Revenant"? If not, please do. My Oscar money was heretofore on "Spotlight," until I saw "The Revenant" this past weekend. Now I've changed my mind.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I liked it too (none / 0) (#156)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:22:52 AM EST
    Not great, but good, and Mary Rylance was wonderful.

    Parent
    I am going to try to see something this rainy (none / 0) (#157)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:26:49 AM EST
    afternoon. I think I better try to see Spotlight first since it has been out longer and may leave town soon...maybe The Revenant tomorrow!

    Parent
    himself white.

    Parent
    A big night for Spotlight (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:08:27 PM EST
    I expect.  And I repeat, I do not get Fury Road being nominated for Director and Picture and Trumbo, among others, not.

    Wev

    Parent

    I would not discount "The Revenant." (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    For sure, there are some who believe that because director Alejandro G. Iñárritu and his film "Birdman" were honored last year, Academy voters will likely look elsewhere this year.

    But honestly, "The Revenant" is an absolutely mesmerizing and spectacular film which deserves all of its many outstanding reviews, and I think Iñárritu actually finds himself in a very strong position to repeat last year's triumph.

    Certainly, Leonardo DeCaprio is probably the prohibitive favorite as Best Actor for his work in "The Revenant." If anyone can beat him out, it'll likely be Bryan Cranston, but "Trumbo" otherwise came up short with Academy voters for some reason, so I don't know how that will play out.

    Another nominee I'd like to see honored with the gold statuette is Charlotte Rampling, who's capped a lifetime of solid performances in both European and American cinema with an absolute tour de force in "45 Years." Alas, early money is apparently on Brie Larson as Best Actress for the melodramatic yet tedious "Room."

    "Carol" gets my vote for Most Overrated Film That's Undeserving of Its Many Accolades. Admittedly, Both Cate Blanchette and Rooney Mara do a marvelous job with what turned out to be rather thin material, because that movie's best scenes can be seen in the film's trailer.

    Further, I think Jennifer Lawrence's nomination as Best Actress for "Joy," a film which was way too busy and cluttered for its own good, shows a complete lack of imagination on the part of voters. She was good, of course, but then she most always is that anyway, even in forgettable movies like "Joy." And I think her performance really suffers in comparison to Lily Tomlin's in "Grandma," who took what was otherwise an acerbic, self-absorbed and generally unlikeable character and made her oddly endearing. Tomlin deserved that fifth slot over Lawrence.

    As far as the nominations for "Mad Max: Fury Road" are concerned, as much as I like that film, it doesn't deserve a Best Picture nomination over "Straight Outa Compton," which was unjustly snubbed by Academy members for reasons only they know for sure.

    The Los Angeles Times has a complete list of this year's nominees in all categories HERE.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Have not seen (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:14:17 PM EST
    The Revenant

    Parent
    As Some Post I Read... (none / 0) (#162)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    At least they have Chris Rock hosting so the diversity box can be checked.

    I am guessing some people are going to regret that decision.

    #OscarSoWhite

    The older, white, male votership doesn't hate women, gays, black people. They're just not as interested in their/our stories.


    Parent
    And therein lies the Academy's conundrum. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    Under its own terms of eligibility, which were first drafted and adopted in the early 1930s and only tweaked occasionally since, the electorate of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences skews 77% white male and is disproportionately older.

    That electorate reflects the Hollywood of an earlier generation, one that existed 50 years ago when its work force was overwhelmingly white male, and not today's increasing diversity found both in front of and behind the camera on location, and in the studio offices, soundstages and warehouses.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    To bad (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:14:17 PM EST
    I Have Read Serveral Versions... (none / 0) (#35)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    ...and not one of them mentioned the HGH story, which I think was the nail in the coffin as the claim has been discredited. LINK

    Parent
    Their underlying problem is the price of oil (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:41:10 PM EST
    Saudi Arabia is running on deficit spending.  Yeah, I know, cue the violins.

    Parent
    Come ooooon (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    I like the channel.  Liked, I guess.  I actually have it on quite a bit.   It's definitely less gameshowish than most cable news

    Parent
    I liked Al Jazeera too (none / 0) (#116)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:58:35 AM EST
    but I've gotta admit I always wonder if my IP address gets put on a U.S. government list when I read a story there.

    Saudi Life With $30 Oil

    This is Saudi Arabia in 2016. It may be a familiar story to austerity-hit Europeans and Americans, but in a nation synonymous with conspicuous consumption, the belt-tightening has been unsettling. Unprecedented cuts to fuel and energy subsidies are forcing the kind of rigor never seen during the era of petrodollar-fueled wealth that quadrupled per-capita income since the late 1980s.

    The Saudis are contemplating taking Aramco public

    As is the case with other major oil producers, Saudi Arabia's oil income, which furnishes about 90 percent of government revenue, has been slashed by the fall in oil prices -- about $30 a barrel now, down from $110 in early 2014. Although the Saudis still have about $630 billion in financial reserves, they are burning them at a rate of $5 billion to $6 billion a month, Ziemba estimates.

    The idea of listing Saudi Aramco was first made public by the king's 30-year-old son, Prince Mohammad bin Salman, in an interview published by The Economist last week.



    Parent
    David Bowie (none / 0) (#29)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:26:47 PM EST
    As mentioned in another post, XM is dedicating a station to him until Monday.

    Some cool songs I had not heard before.

    Truly a beautiful version:
    "Modern Love" by The Last Town Chorus  

    For the old Pink Floyd fans:
    David Bowie & David Gilmour - Arnold Layne
    David Bowie - See Emily Play

    Christa Päffgen:
    Nico - Heroes

    Some Beattles
    David Bowie Across The Universe

    Has anybody (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:52:50 PM EST
    seen the Donald Trump Freedom Dancers? Change the colors they are wearing and the language they are speaking and you would think you were in North Korea and people were singing the praises of Kim Jong.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 04:57:52 PM EST
    And I hope t god I never have to.  The very term "freedom dancers" makes me queasy.

    Holy hell

    Freedom dancers.  

    Parent

    Holly Crop (none / 0) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:12:42 PM EST
    It's infinitely worse that you think, but yes I would agree there is a N Korean feel to it.

    Need to find the humor, watch white folks try to clap their hands to the beat, funny as hell.

    The Official Donald Trump Jam

    Parent

    I will not click (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:31:01 PM EST
    I will not click

    I will not click

    I will not click

    I will not click

    Parent

    I probably won't click (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    But I'd bet $10 that you do :)

    Parent
    Sweet Jesus don't do it (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:37:19 PM EST
    You will never unsee it.

    Parent
    Ah-HAH! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:50:20 PM EST
    C'mon, Cap'n, admit it -- you clicked, didn't you? I figured that you would, so I wouldn't have to myself.

    Parent
    You will (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    Because you must

    Parent
    Actually, no, I don't, (none / 0) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 11:18:28 PM EST
    Because when it comes to any and all things Donald Trump, I have tremendous willpower. Of course, it helps that the man is totally repulsive to me, not unlike David Duke. He's really not worth my time.

    Parent
    You Both are Depriving Yourselves... (none / 0) (#164)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:19:58 AM EST
    ...of something truly nutty and pretty funny.

    It's better than liberals getting eaten by cannibals I would think, but not by much.

    Parent

    There is Only One Official... (none / 0) (#165)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:24:27 AM EST
    Oh (none / 0) (#167)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:30:02 AM EST
    I clicked.   I'm weak an backslidin

    I clicked.  God help me I did.

    And I would say it would only be better if the freedom dancers were eaten by cannibals.

    Parent

    What if the Freedom Dancers... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    ...were the cannibals, I think you would have a hit.

    Parent
    You ain't kidding... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    were I the dime dropping sort, I'd call child protective services on Trump. Those poor kids...

    Parent
    They remind me of the little girl (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:25:21 PM EST
    singing trio in Oh Brother Where Art Thou.

    Parent
    It's pretty exploitive (none / 0) (#206)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:09:00 PM EST
    of the girls, but I don't think it's quite up to calling CPS about it.
    ;-)
    If you did that, you would have to call CPS on all those misguided parents who put their little girls in those awful child "beauty pageants."  Not to mention many of the parents who drag their young kids around to endless auditions for acting or modeling jobs, and many of those parents who have their athletically gifted kids practicing hours a day, moving the kids to where the "best coaches" are (in hopes that the kids will someday win an Olympics medal or become professional athletes) and on and on and on.
    And a whole heck of a lot of this stuff goes on, not in the best interests of the children, but to feed the parents' ambitions and egos.
    Having said that, I will also say that many of these kids are very passionate about their particular talents.  Now, whether they are because they truly love what they are doing and feel fulfilled by it, or whether they are trying to please their folks, or a combination of the two, I couldn't begin to say.

    Parent
    It's strange (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    I was alternately horrified and laughing because it was so ridiculous.

    I swear he is going to turn his run as president into some sort of reality show or documentary and make a ton of money off of it.

    Parent

    It already is (none / 0) (#49)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:35:32 PM EST
    We will see the final product sometime soon

    Parent
    lol. His Presidency will be the real reality show (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:42:11 PM EST
    I can see The Freedom Dancers (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:44:30 PM EST
    At the State of the Union.

    Even if I try not to.

    Parent

    I can see it now: Cruz on the phone with (none / 0) (#56)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 05:46:52 PM EST
    James Franco and Seth Rogan.  "Remake?  Can you do a remake?"

    Parent
    The people behind the podium seem weirded out (none / 0) (#62)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 06:13:19 PM EST
    by the spectacle

    Parent
    Now the frontrunner and riding the tsunami (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:12:55 PM EST
    Im not certain smearing the legacy of our first African American president is the best way to go at this point.

    I'm not saying that's what's happening but if it is...

    It's (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:16:53 PM EST
    apparently being taken that way in many quarters.

    Parent
    It is an interesting way to look at it (none / 0) (#159)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:34:42 AM EST
    You can't really replace Obamacare without ...replacing Obamacare. So the battle in November would be he and Trump arguing about who's replacement of Obamacare is the best.  With the difference that the Republican could actually get something passed in congress as it is currently constituted.  If that horrible thing came to pass, the  bright side is that whatever the GOP does would really kill the system and single payer will be the only savior....in 2020 if we make it till then.

    Parent
    Wayne LaPierre (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:21:26 PM EST
    Has challenged the president to a debate on guns.  I think he should accept.

    LINK

    Presidents don't debate clowns (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    Fine (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:11:52 PM EST
    In a year he won't be president.  Schedule it now.

    Parent
    There is No Upside and a Too Much Downside... (none / 0) (#170)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:43:39 AM EST
    ...to debating a one issue expert.

    Parent
    Wayne is not (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:34 AM EST
    A one issue expert.  He is a vile craven liar.  He is a fountain of bullsh!t.  He is beneath contempt.   He is also the face of the gun rights movement.
    He does not have one single rational argument for the crap he sells.  Obama would kill him and eat him.  

    If the president, or the former president, wants to make some news and change some minds it's a pretty good place to start.

    IMO.  I understand the counter argument.  I just disagree.

    One thing is sure it would get an audience of 10s of millions.

    Parent

    You misspeak (none / 0) (#183)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    when suggesting LaPierre is an expert at anything.

    Parent
    This is Why Obama... (none / 0) (#187)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    ... should not debate him.

    He is clearly the winner of the gun debate in America, to date.  Whether it is by lying, cheating, or stealing, he has won in every conceivable way that one can win the public debate.

    I would call that an expert.

    Parent

    He is "winning" (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:43:48 AM EST
    Because his BS is never challenged.  He expects this to remain so.  He has no real desire t debate the president.  Or anyone else.  

    He has no real logical arguments.  He is the source of the most vile and disingenuous crap on this issue.  

    Hence, my opinion.

    Parent

    It's Challanged All the Time... (none / 0) (#205)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    ... day in and day out, including Obama in pivotal speeches, but it never sticks because the left has lost the gun debate.  When we can't even seriously discuss background checks after 20 kids are killed in a school with an assault rifle, we have lost and if I were to name a single person behind that, it would be Wayne LaPierre.

    I don't disagree with your comments about WL, at all, the problem is that you think this would be something different, that it would some how not be a political debate, that only facts would make it to the table, that logical and reason would save the day.

    Obama hasn't been able to change minds in 7+ years as POTUS and that is not for lack for trying.

    Parent

    They (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:48:23 AM EST
    Wayne and the NRA, ignored the invitation to participate in the recent CNN townhall on guns.  Which is worth watching btw.  They did that because they know better than anyone their arguments are insane.

    Parent
    Plus (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:53:34 AM EST
    they found out that the townhall was a gun free zone, they probably thought the risk to their lives was too great, they are cowards of the highest order.

    Parent
    Know why cannibals don't eat clowns? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:27:11 AM EST
    They taste funny.

    (ba-dum-dum!)

    Parent

    Mean Bozo is the Republican frontrunner (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 08:25:04 PM EST
    right now.

    The Democrats might as well study up.

    Parent

    Rubio (none / 0) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:02:40 PM EST
    insists that Obama is coming to take away the guns, absolutely cocksure about it. Now a whole round of NRA fluffing with Christie calling Obama a petulant child. Oy Vey.

    Christie calling (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Zorba on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    Obama petulant?  Now that's funny.  Especially given that Chris Christie is one of the most petulant politicians on the national stage.
    "Oy Vey" is right.


    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:32:33 PM EST
    I have this friend that hates the Donald. We can't even discuss him because she gets all enraged and thinks I'm trying to start an argument. She just freaks out. Her brother in law is a Trump fan and she just can't understand it. I'm like I understand it completely. I guess it must be living in the south. She can't believe that the GOP "let this happen". I'm like this is beyond their control. You can't tell these people who to vote for anymore.

    Donald may be a lunatic (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:39:32 PM EST
    But he is so much better at this than anyone else on that stage it's not even close.

    Parent
    I "get" (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:43:10 PM EST
    the whole Donald thing. I mean yeah, he's been on TV for years so he knows how to get his message across. The message might be crazy or insane but he manages to somehow make it look less so. If Cruz or Rubio said the same thing they would look like frothing idiots.

    Parent
    I heard a good commentary in which someone (none / 0) (#158)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:29:51 AM EST
    put him in context as a celebrity, and America's love of celebrities. I really had not looked at it that way, but it makes sense. A certain amount of people have learned to like having him in their 'living rooms' already, and are not thinking seriously about politics yet. We'll see how that holds up over time. Maybe it was what gave him a leg up at first, and now people are finding they really do like his politics, heaven forfend.

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    It's not just that, at least not to me.

    I wouldn't want him anywhere near the presidency and I find him more than a bit dangerous, but I love every second of him tearing into the rest of that party.  And he's good at it.

    Parent

    He is (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    And I think the republican establishment is beginning to agree with me that he would also be the strongest candidate in the general.   For the same reasons he has been the best in the primary.  
    Hillary is not a particularly nimble candidate whatever else you think of her.   IMO anyone who thinks a general election against Donald would be a cakewalk still does not fully inderstand the phenomenon.
    Not saying he would win.  Just saying underestimating him is a dangerous game.

    Parent
    While I Didn't Watch the Debate... (none / 0) (#171)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:51:18 AM EST
    ...the clips I saw clearly show he is evolving into a formidable debater.  HRC's biggest problem is going to be the blindsiding that will surely happen in a debate, she might more qualified, but that isn't going to help her when Trump blindsides her.

    She is not, as you mentioned, nimble and that is a problem if you are going to debate Donald Trump.

    Parent

    If you watch it (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    You will think so even more.  It was his best.  He effortlessly dominated it.

    Parent
    They Probably Showed 10 Clips... (none / 0) (#175)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    ...and it's the first time I realized this fool has got a real shot.  He looked ready and dropped the antics, and I can't imagine the GOP not getting behind him if he keeps this persona up.

    Godddd help us.

    Parent

    No the GOP establiushment does not think (none / 0) (#182)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    he is their strongest candidate. They absolutely and unequivocally don't agree with you.

    Parent
    I'm hearing this morning (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:13:51 AM EST
    That people like Lowry, Krauthammer and Poderitz are coming around.

    Others will.  

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    I think it's becoming increasingly clear that it hardly matters if they are on board or not.  Which no doubt is why they are beginning to consider getting on board.

    Just my opinion.

    Parent

    The Republccan debate (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    was like an episode of the Sopranos.  The godfather, Tony (played by Trump), presided over a meeting of the minor capos. Tony permitted the capos to carry-on, even fight a bit with each other, but all waited in fear when Tony might step in and call them to order, or worse.

     The capos Cruz and Rubio acted as if they were the Property Brothers revisiting the schoolyard of their childhood, but differing in that their antics were to destroy rather than construct.

    Rubio tried to stand tall, with the help of the high heels he was wearing (thanks to a camera shot we got a good glimpse)but his machine gun trash talk unsettled the don, but he remained silent, as he is wont, unless necessary.

     When the young usurper, Cruz, tested Tony, he got smacked down, twice. Once on mouthing off on the NY business, another that Canada shipment--Cruz taking the point, but knowing he is still in trouble in the match.  Not good to just wound the godfather. His applause for Trump on NY is not enough for forgiveness.

    The capo from Brainsurge was no threat to Tony and left alone; Jeb the same, left to savor the coveted endorsement of the Southern belle. Ohio was noisy but happy not to be sat on by Tony, and his agreement with Tony on the China gang, as always, was welcomed as a friendly gesture by Tony. He might even be made vice godfather.

     The guy camping under the GW bridge was bullying, but the target was not Tony, so that was acceptable, but to be watched. And, those two persons who wandered into the meeting and started asking questions learned quickly to not mess around with Tony, or the little capos, unless they wanted to share their beds with a horse head.

     

    Parent

    Kasich is for the PTT (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:36:43 PM EST
    Jeb reminds me of the nerdy kid in gym class expecting a wedgie.

    Who replaces Rubio (none / 0) (#108)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:48:21 PM EST
    as the top establishment candidate moving forward? From the analysis I'm seeing tonight, only Carson has put on a worse performance...Jeb being average Jeb is bad but that gets him a pass from here on out because average Jeb is the norm.

    Agree (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:49:59 PM EST
    Could be Christie.  

    Parent
    Cruz (none / 0) (#110)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 14, 2016 at 09:55:35 PM EST
    Trumpets the endorsement of Art Laffer the father of supply side economics.

    Republican Debate (none / 0) (#129)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:45:17 AM EST
    It appears that this is the 1st one Trump won,

    He is getting better at this, He made being angry a positive, drawing smiles and laughs from Nikki Haley.
    Everyone else parred the debate, no one moves anywhere.
    No votes have been cast yet.....didn't Santorum win when he was polling terribly?
    When the field slims down, Trump will encounter more difficulty, issues and policy prescription may matter more than anger. And I still feel Trump has a ceiling.
    If the Bush, Kasich, Christie supporters lose their candidate shortly, they will gravitate to Rubio. Carsons will split among the top 3, mostly going to the top 2. Currently Rubio is best suited to be the third man in , but that is not set in stone.


    The problem (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:23:30 AM EST
    is the so called establishment candidates outside of Ted Cruz don't break 50%. The polls don't back you up on that. And after that hideous debate performance Rubio had I would not put any money on him. I mean he was the butt of jokes all over the place.

    Parent
    The Nation endorses Sanders. (none / 0) (#132)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:32:13 AM EST
    The Nation has endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary.

    "He has summoned the people to a "political revolution," arguing that the changes our country so desperately needs can only happen when we wrest our democracy from the corrupt grip of Wall Street bankers and billionaires," the publication's editors said. "We believe such a revolution is not only possible but necessary."

    I would phrase that slightly differently in that I think that this revolution is not only necessary, but possible.

    Apparently, the more Clinton goes into attack mode, the more people rally to Sanders.

    I am rooting for him in Iowa and N.H.

    I think he would win the the general election, and I think that Clinton would be a disaster for the party.

    Revolution (none / 0) (#135)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:41:03 AM EST
    Is the flying spaghetti monster of American politics.  people want to believe in it and i get why they believe in it, why they need to believe in it and i also get why it sells magazines.  i ALSO get why it's extremely good politics, why it gets kids out to vote.  it's sexy.  it's bigger than the vote itself!

    la resistance, who wants to be just a voter when they can be Rey, Han, Chewy, Finn and Po Damaeron taking down The First Order??

    i get it.

    but it's a tripartite government system with checks and balances.  When our fathers sat down and designed all this up, they were actually saying to themselves "revolutions aren't really actually fun, let's figure out a way to avoid them in the future."

    Parent

    Let me quote one of the masters (none / 0) (#163)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:16:39 AM EST
    You say you want a revolution
     Well, you know
     We all want to change the world
     You tell me that it's evolution
     Well, you know
     We all want to change the world  
     ........
     You say you got a real solution
     Well, you know
     We'd all love to see the plan

    Anybody who thinks that revolution is not an extremely dangerous thing is delusional. Even successful ones are extremely bloody on some level and are fraught with unintended consequences.

    IMO opinion a failed revolution at this moment in our history would be an unmitigated disaster.(the founding fathers had very little to lose, except their own necks.

    Hillary, and frankly every single person on this side of the aisle, should be demanding to see the "plans" for a sure and safe way to prosecute this revolution.

    My mantra has become "evolution not revolution". Safe, slow and steady progress doesn't sound to sexy but in the long run I believe it to be the best course.

     

    Parent

    Besides (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:42:21 AM EST
    it scares people mostly because revolution means you could be on the losing end big time.

    Parent
    Seven on the stage (none / 0) (#146)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:19:08 AM EST
    and the biggest news from the GOP candidates: Cruz birtherism and New York values.

    Doesn't say much for the remaining seven (remaining 6 if you consider Carson wasn't really there).

    Even (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:43:16 AM EST
    worse what does it say about our press in this country?

    Parent
    It doesn't say anything about the press (none / 0) (#153)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:03:20 AM EST
    other than reporting what people are talking about. You had your eye on Twitter. Those were the 2 main topics discussed among everyone. You could surmise it says something about the current voting public if you'd like.

    Parent
    I would say (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:14:05 AM EST
    It says those were the two most interesting moments.

    And I would add Donald cheerfully claiming the mantle of anger.

    Parent

    Starting (none / 0) (#177)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    Season 5 of LOST this afternoon.  So good.  Just better and better.

    When it's over I'm going to be LOST.

    Or (none / 0) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    I might just start over once I get streaming next month.


    Parent
    What if? Trump vs. Sanders in general? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Coral on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    What does that look like? Who wins?


    Ask the same question in the middle of March (none / 0) (#192)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    and it will be a little like asking if the Dolphins will win the Super Bowl.

    Parent
    What I'd pay money to see... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:01:11 PM EST
    is a 4 way race...Clinton, Sanders, Trump, and a representative from the establishment section of the GOP Clown Car.  That would be a helluva general election...legit choices for all stripes of voter.

    Parent
    The GOP clown car wins that matchup easily (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    You do realize (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:06:55 PM EST
    A person can become oresident with a plurality so your thing would almost certainly elect Trump.

    You do realize that?

    Parent

    Ha (none / 0) (#197)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:08:53 PM EST
    Please

    I do not need to be proven right.

    I really don't.

    Parent

    Trump has zero chance in that matchup (none / 0) (#198)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:11:03 PM EST
    ZERO!

    Parent
    A plurality gets you nothing (none / 0) (#199)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    You need 270.

    Parent
    A plurality (none / 0) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    Can get you 270.

    Ask Bill Clinton.

    Twice.

    Parent

    No one would get 270 (none / 0) (#201)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:18:30 PM EST
    And Trump would then finish 3rd in the House vote with the clown car winning and Clinton 2nd. Sanders wouldn't make the final cut to three.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:19:48 PM EST
    I guess you've got this figured out.

    Parent
    I just think... (none / 0) (#204)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 12:27:49 PM EST
    it would serve as an interesting indicator of where the country is at...when everyone has someone to vote for, instead of one person they are voting against.

    Parent