home

Friday Open Thread

Thread.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Saturday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hateful Eight (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    Just saw it. Really liked it a lot. I guess the Oscar folks aren't Tarantino fans. I thought it would at least have gotten a nod for the fantastic sound mixing or editing, keeping very realistic winter blizzard sounds in the background when the beautiful Morricone score was not playing.

    Glad Jennifer Jason Leigh got a nomination -she was so good, really went for it. As did the entire cast - Walton Goggins had a bigger role than I expected, and I enjoyed seeing him work with the Tarantino dialogue. I like dialogue heavy films, but I guess this is not for everyone if you don't like talk just for the sake of it.

    It was bloody when it was bloody, but not a constant thing. I expected worse.

    I give it 4 of 5 stars. I'd see it again.

    I liked it too (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    But Mr T has never been an academy fav.   Personally I think the idea it was ignored and Fury Road (seen that?) was nominated for picture and director pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the academy and it voters.

    I also think Trumbo was screwed.  I hate to go on about FR but freaking seriously.  It was an interesting franchise movie.   It was a 2 hour car chase with great makeup.  There was so many better movies this year.

    End of rant.

    Parent

    No, FR didn't appeal to me at all so I have not (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:24:19 PM EST
    seen it. I really want to see Trumbo - have not seen it come here yet though.

    Really liked the camera work in Hateful Eight too....the indoor shots of Minnie's with characters in the background scattered around that marvelous set. It was always just so interesting to look at and listen to. I can understand the critiques that it was somewhat soulless and non emotional but that was ok with me in this case.

    Parent

    I really liked Fury Road. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:25:50 PM EST
    I am not a Mad Max fan. I only saw the first one many years ago. I decided to see FR because I like Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy, but especially because the men's rights groups were foaming at the mouth over the movie's alleged feminist tone and message.

    I figured if the men's rights groups hated it there was a good chance I would not hate it. And I liked it.

    Both Theron and Hardy were excellent, as was the supporting cast. Is it Best Picture worth Your? Probably not, but it is hardly the worst film ever nominated in that category.

    And it is a very entertaining movie.

    Parent

    Mens rights (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 06:38:29 AM EST
    After seeing the movie I didn't get what the fuss was about.
    Max did what he always did, and in this case , he helped save some women. If I remember correctly, many were complaining that Hardys role (Max) played second fiddle to Therons character, which I admit would have bothered me, after all, it was a Mad Max film.
    I didn't find that to be the case, and thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    I liked it too.  A lot.  But I like a lot of stuff I would nominate for best picture.  
    I agree with DfromH below.

    Parent
    I also saw Trumbo. (none / 0) (#108)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:28:09 PM EST
    An excellent movie. Bryan Cranston does a great job, carries the movie. And I always like seeing Diane Lane in a movie. I wish she got more work than she does.

    Parent
    I liked "Mad Max: Fury Road." (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:28:45 PM EST
    But I certainly wouldn't have bestowed upon it an Oscar nomination for Best Picture or Best Director, never mind the other eight nominations it received. I mean, I was definitely entertained, but it wasn't any more special than the other "Mad Max" films in the past. Really hard to tell what Academy old white male voters were thinking here, except perhaps that Charlize Theron looked awesome with her buzz cut and biker threads.

    Parent
    Do people still watch debates and stuff live? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    There's been this persistent criticism about scheduling debates during weekends and against stuff like football games, but I just realized of the republican debates airing on weekdays I never watched any of them live either?  Not one.

    It's doesn't matter to me when THE WALKING DEAD airs I try to watch it pretty soon to avoid spoilers from social media but I've never actually watched it live either.

    So really this criticism about the debate schedules does it hold up?  Isn't it true that anyone and everyone who truly wanted to watch a debate had an opportunity to do so without changing their holiday schedule and other viewing habits?  Pretty sure that's true.

    The whole (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    debate stuff is a bunch of nonsense IMO. If you catch one you have seen them all because they go over the same issues pretty much.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:32:44 PM EST
    Speaking of nonsense...

    Parent
    Well (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:41:14 PM EST
    how many would you think would be a good number?

    Parent
    You are (1.00 / 1) (#87)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    so gifted at asking exactly the wrong question. The misinformation campaign continues.

    Parent
    I have issues (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 11:55:42 PM EST
    Odd preoccupations that sometimes manifest in horribly anti social ways but it looks like you just want to pick a fight.

    Parent
    I have those too! (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:03:06 AM EST
    Stupid Preoccupations (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kmkmiller on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 02:34:59 AM EST
    Is a cool tune by Vic Chesnutt sure it's on youtube somewhere.

    Parent
    I don't mind more (none / 0) (#80)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:37:10 PM EST
    But yeah we are also forgetting if a media dude at a cable network is arguing for more debates that's mostly cause it means more attention for their show and network.

    Giving thumbs ups and thumbs downs from the bleachers of the coliseum is more fun for them/better ratings than following a candidate on the trail through Iowa.

    Parent

    As a fellow (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:28:10 PM EST
    WALKING DEAD fan boy let me say I also think the teeth gnashing over the days of the week was a bit out of date.    While I'm sure there are lots of people out n Petticoat Junction that don't have DVRs I suspect most of them have an Internet connection or a smart phone these days.

    That said, I'm a bit more sympathetic to the complaints that there are too few debates.   Which is not to say I personally believe there have been to few debates only that IMO that is a more cogent complaint.

    Parent

    Friday News Dump (none / 0) (#128)
    by pitachips on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:31:42 AM EST
    When you have too many candidates on the stage then every debate becomes more and more meaningless. But in our case, where presumably we have two candidates, then more debates would allow you to really delve into the issues.

    There is a reason that many organizations, even during this era of 24/7 news cycles and the internet, still release potentially embarrassing information late on Friday night. Yes you could argue that it doesn't really matter when you divulge this information since presumably it will be available online, on 24/7 cable news shows etc - BUT everyone knows there are clear advantages to being able to control when information is available to the public.  

    Parent

    Lady Gaga is a goddess (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:14:59 AM EST
    I only just learned she won a golden globe for American Horror Story.  I could not be happier.  I didn't see the globes and I have no idea who else was nominated but it was totally deserved.  She was stunning and amazing.

    And I just learned she is nominated for a Oscar for the song till it happens to you from the movie Hunting Ground.  The video is grim.  It's about rape.  But the song is stunning and amazing

    I will be very surprised if she doesn't win again.  I hope she does.

    Was she really better than Kirsten Dunst (none / 0) (#153)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:47:20 PM EST
    in Fargo? I was bummed KD did not win.

    Parent
    She was (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:21:43 PM EST
    She absolutely was.   The series was not better.  But she was.  She was mesmerizing.  This one is special.

    Parent
    WaPo reporter three others freed in Iran (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:01:14 AM EST
    lol - Catch and Release (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    Foreign Policy is just like fishing.

    Parent
    I wonder if this is part of a deal to release (none / 0) (#152)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    any of the Iranians and Iranian-Americans imprisoned in the U.S. for violating the sanctions that are now being lifted?

    Parent
    Yikes!! (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:19:36 AM EST
    (CNN)A former district attorney in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, claims he agreed more than a decade ago that his office wouldn't use a civil deposition given by Bill Cosby in any criminal matters, an email obtained by CNN shows -- a revelation that could call into question the viability of the criminal case against the comedian.

    The 2015 email -- sent by former District Attorney Bruce Castor to successor Risa Vetri Ferman -- details an apparent verbal agreement the prosecutor had a decade earlier with Cosby's attorneys for Cosby to testify in a civil sexual assault case brought against him in 2005. In the email, Castor writes that his intent in making the deal was to create an atmosphere in which Cosby accuser Andrea Constand would have the best chance of prevailing in her civil suit against the 78-year-old comedian by removing the prospect of Cosby invoking his 5th Amendment right.

    The email was sent three months before criminal charges were filed against Cosby in Montgomery County in December, and could call into question the viability of the case, CNN has learned.

    In it, Castor writes to Ferman: "I can see no possibility that Cosby's deposition could be used in a state criminal case, because I would have to testify as to what happened, and the deposition would be subject to suppression.

    "I cannot believe any state court judge would allow that deposition into evidence. .... Knowing this, unless you can make out a case without that deposition and without anything the deposition led you to, I think Cosby would have an action against the County and maybe even against you personally."

    Do you find it odd, as I do, (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    that there does not appear to be any contemporaneous written evidence of the immunity deal that Castor said, ten years later, he had made? Even if the prosecutor (Castor)'s commitment had been made orally in 2005, what sort of defense lawyer would not have confirmed such an important point in writing?

    Parent
    Odd perhaps (none / 0) (#156)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:07:46 PM EST
    But if he testifies to such before a judge,

    Can the deposition still be used as evidence???

    Parent

    The depo can't be used if the judge credits (none / 0) (#158)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:21:05 PM EST
    Castor's testimony, but that is not to be assumed. The judge could find, for lack of contemporaneous written corroboration, passage of time, political antipathy between Castor and the current prosecutor, or other reasons that Castor's present asserted recollection is inaccurate or even untruthful.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:34:42 AM EST
    it seems the whole case is falling apart.

    Parent
    Whether or not (none / 0) (#131)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:41:44 AM EST
    Cosby goes to the can, thanks to the creepy deposition, at least we know the truth.

    Parent
    New Obama plan (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:24:52 AM EST
    Obama unveils plan to reform unemployment insurance

    President Obama on Saturday unveiled an unemployment insurance plan that he says will provide stability and opportunity to workers in a rapidly changing economy.

    The president's three-pronged plan includes wage insurance of up to $10,000 over two years, expanded unemployment insurance coverage and more opportunities for laid off workers to retrain and reenter the workforce.

    link

    I think it was CST that said she liked Lame Duck Obama the best. I have to agree that I like more of his policies now as well.

    Me too, (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:25:13 PM EST
    And on Friday, the Obama Administration announced that the Interior Department will halt new coal leases on public lands, along with steps to ease the economic harm to American miners and assist in the difficult transition.

     Al Gore, a guest on the Bill Maher show last night, applauded the move as part of Obama's legacy in tackling climate change, especially the burning of coal for electricity.

    New rules could freeze construction of new coal plants, shutter existing plants, limit US investment in foreign plants, and keep coal in the ground.

     Coal, except for Mitch McConnell (R.KY), is known as a dirty and dangerous source of energy; it adsorbs every thing (on an illustrative micro level, charcoal has been used in poisoning cases for years, since it adsorbs toxins on it surface. coal picks up almost everything).  When burning coal, what goes up in the air is bad (heat trapped gases) and what remains behind is bad--a sludge of heavy metals, such as arsenic,  stored in land fills and contaminated pools.

    A good part of his legacy. It took the president so long to understand that having a "brother in Christ" like former Senator Tom Coburn (R.OK) does not necessarily translate into forging policy.

    Parent

    Canadian Crime Wave Continues, (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:36:45 PM EST
    Unabated. Senator Ted Cruz (R.Alberta) already under scrutiny for not disclosing a Goldman Sachs loan he used for his 2012 senate campaign (in Texas), also failed to disclose a second loan from Citibank for the same race, according to a letter he sent to the federal election officials subsequent to the Republican debate.

    The newly reported Citibank loan for about $500,000 was a line of credit. It was not stated what the collateral was, if any was needed to obtain it.  A former election commission official, Kent Cooper, stated that the Cruz letter was "lacking critical information."  Another "paperwork error." apparently.

    Our hearts, thoughts and prayers are ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    ... with the 12 missing USMC personnel aboard two Marine Corps CH-53 helicopters that collided and crashed late last night in the waters off Haleiwa on Oahu's north shore. U.S. Coast Guard and Honolulu Fire Dept. personnel, along with members of the Haleiwa and Waialua communities, are presently searching the waters for survivors, a considerable task which has been made even more daunting by the fact that the surf on the north shore is expected to peak at 45 feet today.

    Really sad for those Marines and their families (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:06:34 PM EST
    i saw the footage of the seas, hard to hold out hope for survivors in those waters.

    Parent
    UPDATE: Officials for ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    ... the Quicksilver Big Wave Invitational in Memory of Eddie Aikau have postponed the event at Sunset Beach, due to the spreading debris field from last night's crash.

    As of this posting, USMC and Navy personnel, as well as Air /Sea Rescue elements of the Honolulu Fire Dept and Police Dept., have been searching the waters off the north shore, but to no avail. The 12 missing personnel were all stationed at Marine Corps Base Hawaii - Kaneohe Bay, on the windward side of Oahu.

    Per a few witnesses to last night's accident, they reported first hearing a loud explosion and then seeing a very large fireball in the sky off of Haleiwa, with debris raining into the ocean. Thus far, a single unmanned life raft that's believed to be from one of the two helicopters has been found, after it washed up on shore this morning.

    Unfortunately, given the thundering 45-foot swells pounding Oahu's north shore today, it appears unlikely that anyone could have survived the crash and the terribly rough seas.

    This is the third major accident in the last five years involving Marine Corps aircraft operating in Hawaiian skies.  Last May, two Marines were killed and another 20 injured when their MV-22 Osprey aircraft crashed during a training exercise at Bellows Field in Waimanalo on Oahu. And in March 2011, one Marine was killed and another three injured when their CH-53 helicopter - similar to the two aircraft involved in last night's collision -- crashed into Kaneohe Bay while attempting to return to MCBH in a driving rainstorm.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Oregon Militia... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:33:44 PM EST
    issued the call for provisions, and the people have answered the call in spades.  They'll have all the d*ldos & lube they could ever need to survive the cold and lonely Oregon winter nights till spring.  Good job America!

    I just hope somebody remembered to send the rubbers...nothing puts the kibosh on a kinky slumber party like STD's.

    I hope (none / 0) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    someone sent them a copy of Brokeback Mountain

    Parent
    And a ewe in estrus (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:40:38 PM EST
    So, in fact the Post Office is delivering (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    to them??!! And the FBI and Park Police (or whoever is the Forest Service police force) is letting them through? I'm actually surprised.

    Parent
    Through rain, snow, sleet... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    and federal agent perimeter...nothing keeps a letter carrier from their appointed rounds Pete!  

    I must say I'm pretty proud of the feds for learning from past mistakes, and not taking the heavy-handed approach with this batch of loons.  Kill 'em with kindness and pleasure aids;)

    Parent

    The have been doing (2.00 / 1) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:51:04 PM EST
    Media interviews.  Even coming and going I think.  Right?

    Parent
    It the 2016... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:37:02 PM EST
    ...version of blankets with chicken pox.

    I wonder if the fed installed listening devices.

    I will say this, you have got to be bored out your mind if you have a box of sex toys sitting around, or worse, went out and purchased them just to be an ahole and ship them across the country.

    I might have to get me di1do stocks, from Texas using them as guns to shipping boxes of them to the militia...

    Parent

    The horror..FLUFFY UNICORN arrested (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:25 AM EST
    Bundy Bodyguard 'Fluffy Unicorn' Arrested in Arizona

    Ammon Bundy's bodyguard from the early days of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge standoff has been arrested for an outstanding warrant in Maricopa County, Arizona, according to a report from E and E Publishing.
    ...
    ...During his time in Oregon, Cavalier went by the code name "Fluffy Unicorn" at the refuge.

    Link

    Seems "Fluffy" openly boasted that he was a retired Marine.
    But according to the Daily Mail, US Marine Corps records prove he never served and is in fact a tattoo artist with a long rap sheet for DUI.

    Parent

    Oregon..First Militarianman Arrested (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 07:54:07 AM EST
    First Militiaman Arrested In Connection With Oregon Standoff

    Police arrested one of the Oregon militiamen Friday for driving a refuge truck -which was the property of the federal government - into town.

    According to the Oregonian, 62-year-old Kenneth Medenbach was arrested in a Safeway parking lot for "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle."

    He was already on probation, according to the paper for his ties to an earlier anti-government standoff elsewhere in the state.

    Link




    Parent
    I would be very surprised if there were not (none / 0) (#155)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    already a sealed federal criminal complaint and warrants against the Oregon "militia" conspirators, in the hands of the FBI and ready to be executed at the first suitable opportunity.

    Parent
    Yes, that might be the case (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:11:16 PM EST
    athough I wonder if the Feds might prefer local or state police to arrest many of the "militia" conspirators instead. This is the first arrested in Oregon but a Bundy body guard who had been part of the occupation, was arrested on an outstanding warrant in Arizona.

    I still can't help comparing the treatment of these yahoos to even how The Occupy Groups were treated let alone how PoC are treated.

    Equal justice under the law...not so much.

    Parent

    Some difference (none / 0) (#160)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:27:33 PM EST
    General public of a large city were affected by the Occupy crowd

    WABC report

    Alleged sexual assaults at Occupy Wall Street camps have raised concerns about security in a handful of cities, including reports of rape and groping in tents at New York's Zuccotti Park and a sex offender in Dallas having sex with an underage runaway.

    "These protests have a history of welcoming everyone and just assuming they're on your side," said David Meyer, a professor of sociology at the University of California at Irvine, who studies protest movements.

    The recent reports of assaults have created a problem the "Occupy" movement is being challenged to address head-on.

    "We always encourage victims to go through the proper channels and contact police," said Brendan Burke, 41, who helps run the security team in Zuccotti Park.

    But that's not always the case. Burke admitted there have been times when members of the community have taken it upon themselves to chase off men who exposed themselves in the park.

    "If there is a consensus that someone is bothering another person, the community will take care of it," he said. "Still, we always notify victims to contact police."

    New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- addressing the allegations of sexual assault today -- said the reported practice of chasing perpetrators, rather than reporting them to police, is "despicable." If the reports are true, he said, the protesters have made the city less safe.

    Parent

    You do realize that the (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    Occupy movement was not just in the city of New York, right. Police more often than not used force and destroyed their property when evacuating them from their sites in various cities across the country.

    There is one diffence that you failed to mention, people in the Occupy movement did not carry high powered weapons or threaten violence if interfered with.

    Parent

    You mean the police destroyed (none / 0) (#163)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:30:16 PM EST
    property illegally placed on someone else's property  in which various crimes against persons and property, as TB pointed out, occurred.

    Parent
    Let's see (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 05:20:37 PM EST
    Situation in Oregon

    Occupying property that does not belong to them.- check

    Destroying government property - check

    Stealing government vehicles - check

    Unlawful use of government computers - check

    The only thing missing in this is the police destroying the property of the men occupying the government buildings in Oregon and making them leave the premises.

    But you know that.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#166)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    The idiots with the firearms are isolated and away from the general public, The Occupy movement occupied public land in cities, inconveniencing many, disrupting local small business, in addition to the the criminal element they attracted as hanger ons to the movement.

    Sorry, but I am most familiar with the events in NY

    Parent

    Criminal elements "alleged" and (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    and "reported" by who exactly?

    I can't help but think immediately of the late reich-wing dirty trickster Andrew Breitbart, who stood on the perimeter of the Occupy encampment yelling "rape!", in an attempt to incite the cops to wade into and disperse the crowd.

    Parent

    "Alleged" and unconfirmed (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    "reports of"..

    Real cute.

    Like the alleged, unconfirmed Bloomberg ties to the kiddie p#rn industry..

    Anyone can play that game..

    All you have to do is preface the smear with "alleged" and "reports of" and you're more-or-less in the clear.

    Parent

    Kdog, I'm confused (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    I thought you were anti-police and government in general.

    Why is this different?

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure that Kdog has never suggested (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    that he was anti-police "in general." I have found his comments to be quite clear and consistent that he is unashamedly anti-police-abuse.

    Parent
    Looking back over the years and years that (none / 0) (#165)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:33:21 PM EST
    I've read his comments I remain convinced that he is anti-police.

    That they seem to be driven by our drug polices and what he sees as abuse is my understanding.

    Of course he can show up and correct me.

    Parent

    Of course, you may not (probably do not) (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 08:11:17 PM EST
    agree on what constitutes "police abuse" or how common it is.

    Parent
    And the basis of your comment is??? (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 10:57:13 AM EST
    e.g. In the Freddie Gray case I wrote:

    I don't think he got up and into the van with a severely injured spinal cord.

    Did it happen in side? Yes. How? We don't know but I have problems thinking he did it himself.

    To me it is obvious that if it happened inside then the police have some responsibility.

    OTOH I criticized the mayor and the prosecutor and the rioters.

    In the Garner case I pointed out that he died while resisting arrest. Said attempt resulted from shop owners calling the police because he was selling, according to reports, loose cigarettes.
    Seems kind of silly but shop owners don't want the sidewalk in front of their shop blocked.

    I also noted that the police supervisor on the scene was a black female so it wasn't racial.

    And I suggested several times that the police needed more training.

    I also noted that we need to teach our children to not resist arrest.

    I see my positions as balanced.

    My question to kdog was based on his positions re the police and drug laws. Both of which he finds wrong. (I do too but not to the extent he apparently does.)

    OTOH he seems to support the Feds and what they are doing re the Bundy's and others taking over government land in Oregon which follows their dust up last summer with the BLM. Based on what have read I found the BLM to be wrong.I also found Bundy to be wrong but I see no other way they could have effectively made their point.

    So that was my question to kdog. His positions seem to conflict.

    As does the positions of many on the Left.

    On one hand they oppose the police for enforcing various laws they see as unjust.

    OTOH the cheer the Feds for gobbling up thousands of acres of ranch lands.

    Reminds me of opposing the Sheriff's men while cheering on the King's Foresters .

    Parent

    "I see my positions as balanced." (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 11:08:30 AM EST
    BAHAHAHAhahaha ha ha.....

    Ohhhh man.

    Thanks for that.

    Parent

    So am I to understand (none / 0) (#193)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:19:59 PM EST
    that pointing out the problems of the police...while noting that the mayor let the rioters operate unchallenged on Sunday and condemning the rioters...

    is unbalanced?

    Really???

    Is noting that Garner died after resisting arrest and calling for more police training because the grand jury didn't indict so what happened was seen as legal?

    What would be your solution regarding how to arrest a person who is physical refusing to be arrested?

    Do you think that creating a culture in which children see resisting an arrest is the thing to do?

    Do you remember I fought the law and the law won??

    So do you have anything to add that would support your obvious personal attack claims??

    Parent

    The Pentagon and innumerable military (none / 0) (#194)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    bases and weapons depots represent a rapacious gobbling up of land as well.

    Do you support First Nation people and private citizens occupying them?

    Of course you don't.

    Parent

    Because kdog's also anti-deadbeat. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 04:10:04 PM EST
    And quite frankly, these militia yahoos and anti-"guvmint" wingbats -- folks like Cliven Bundy and his family and supporters -- are some of the biggest deadbeats in the country today.

    Parent
    What is the difference (none / 0) (#195)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    between Black Lives Matter, Occupy Now, and Bundy??

    All three are "anti."

    Oh. Wait! I know!

    You support the first two but don't the last.

    Now that is "unbalanced."

    Parent

    So, what are saying? (none / 0) (#197)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    that there are no important, essential differences between those movements, so that if you support one, you have to support and refrain from criticizing any of the others?

    Some people vote Democrat and refuse to vote Republican.

    Now that is UNBALANCED! and downright hypocritcal.

    lol. Wtf?

    Parent

    Nothing's changed... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:06:55 AM EST
    I said I was glad the state was letting the boys play revolution.

    I just think these militia guys are clowns. I love me some civil disobedience, but it's best served with a point. And I can't figure these guys point really outside white rage, and the guns make it uncivil disobedience. Occupy Wall St. they are not my brother.

    That's why I like the counter-protest of shipping them gag gifts...non-violent and entertaining.

    Parent

    Perhaps (2.00 / 1) (#184)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 07:32:30 AM EST
    The point , what they are upset about is not getting properly spotlighted. The whole guns n stuff is overpowering the real crux of what they feel is Federal Government control of the Western States. And they do have a point there.But out west, the government lays claim to huge, state-sized swaths of land--more than 630 million acres, greater than the landmass of Texas, California, Florida and New York combined in Nevada, 80 percent of land is federally owned.

    And the government has acted like a large jack booted thug, in changing grazing rights and land usage, what they perceive is detrimental to those that live in those states. Many states are now in the process of trying to regain control of these lands.

    Parent

    Who (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:26:45 AM EST
    the heck should own this land then? Ranchers, loggers, miners all who want to use the land as they see fit to line their own pockets, or we the people who democratically elect our leaders as stewards?

    Only one of those choices is truly American, there are no shades of gray on this one.

    Parent

    I believe (2.00 / 1) (#186)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 08:47:10 AM EST
    They remedy they are asking for is to give their state control of the public lands.
    People in the state might have a better knowledge and temperament for use of public lands where they reside.
    Basically, reduce the footprint and authority of the Federal Government and relinquish governing authority to the states themselves.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 10:48:38 AM EST
    google governors gone wild some time, yeah they have the knowledge(of which hands to grease) and the temperament(of Al Capone).

     I'll take a pass on handing the keys to the vault to any crook,charlatan or corporate puppet that happens to buy/lie/prostitute themselves into a Governor's mansion. State legislatures can be even worse.

    For all intents and purposes(in the present context at least) the Federal government owned all this land long before the states even existed. They have more or less given away the majority of it to the States or private ownership. With decidedly mixed results on the "wise use" front, and many of the bad results were truly ugly.

    This precious land belongs to we the people, there is no logical reason to give any more of it away to the fools and crooks who will almost inevitably get a shot it.

    Parent

    Government crooks (1.50 / 2) (#190)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    Are government crooks, either state or federal.

    I still feel local government is best for guidance for public land use in a state.

    It is also easier to punish local government crooks than Federal

    The VA is a prime example.


    Parent

    Government crooks (none / 0) (#191)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 12:09:37 PM EST
    Are government crooks, either state or federal.

    I still feel local government is best for guidance for public land use in a state.

    It is also easier to punish local government crooks than Federal

    The VA is a prime example.


    Parent

    If you want to go into previous (none / 0) (#196)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 02:47:46 PM EST
    ownership we can not forget the Native Americans.

    Of course they opted for open borders and unlimited immigration and look what happened to them.

    Parent

    that's (none / 0) (#200)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    why I used the qualifier.  For better or worse this country stole, bought and forced our way into owning  the land. The idea that a lot of these Bundy types hold, that the States somehow has some kind of inherent rights of ownership over the lands is just plain wrong.

    But congratulations you have won the internet today (non-sequitur division.) Immigration, WTF?

    Parent

    They opted for Open Borders and unlimited (none / 0) (#201)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:16:05 PM EST
    immigration..

    So you're claiming that they had some sort of meaningful choice?

    It's been estimated that the native population had been reduced by 80% by disease by 1700..

    Parent

    TB nailed their point (2.00 / 1) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:00:34 PM EST
    And the government has acted like a large jack booted thug, in changing grazing rights and land usage, what they perceive is detrimental to those that live in those states.

    And it isn't just out west. Many land owners have seen mud puddles declared waterways and told what they can or cannot do with property they have owned for years.

    The whole BLM and EPA structure is seen as government ran wild.

    Parent

    Is seen by who specifically? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by jondee on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    Does this mean they're going to give back all their subsidity money and special tax breaks in protest over the government doling out all that dirty money?

    Parent
    Jack (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by FlJoe on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 03:20:38 PM EST
    booted thugs and mud puddles, oh my! There must be some kind of Freudian message here.

    Parent
    Choosing Hillary... (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:17:49 PM EST
    My impression is that here, on a "leftist" website, the majority of people posting here are uncomfortable with leftist positions.

    They prefer "moderation".

    People say that they are hoping for HRC because the polls say that she is one who will beat Trump or Cruz or whomever.

    But in reading the posts, it becomes more and more apparent to me that most people posting here are, in fact, more comfortable her stances on war and peace, and on the economy, than the views articulated by Sanders.

    Not that there's anything wrong with that...

    Or maybe (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by CST on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    It's because we think Hillary will be more effective at implementing a more liberal agenda on the national stage than Sanders will.

    Parent
    I'm not sure as many people believe that now, (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    as may have believed it say, 6 months ago; I think the more exposure people have to Sanders - who is unabashedly and openly and loudly liberal - the harder it is for some of us to see an avowed moderate/centrist like Clinton being a better standard-bearer of liberal causes, on any stage.

    It's not that I hate Hillary - I don't.  

    I really don't see any Democrat being able to steamroll the GOP in the area of legislating; whatever brick walls were put up for Obama are just going to go higher and deeper for Clinton or Sanders.

    So, what does that mean for the liberal agenda?  It means being louder, it means fighting harder, it means going to the people.  It's not that I don't think Clinton can do that, it's just that I don't know that she will do that.

    Parent

    Sanders, Clinton, (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    it does not matter which is president. Neither will get anything through the GOP controlled Congress during their first term. What no one talks about are the possibilities for the second term.

    Most of a Clinton or Sanders second term will take place after to the 2020 election and census and redistricting. If we put the effort and cash into down-ticket races, we could, over the next two election cycles, take control of a fair number of state houses and, thus, control Redistricting, which could break the GOP stranglehold on the House of Representatives.

    This is a very close second, in terms of importantance, to winning the White House. Clinton has vocally and forcefully committed to rebuilding the Democratic Party and winning down ticket. She has raised money for that effort. Has Sanders done the same? I do not know if he has or not. If he has, well, I wish I could find some info on that, but I have not been able to.

    Is Bernie, who is not a member of the Democratic Party, committed to the rebuilding of the Party's control of Congress?

    A Democratically controlled Congress will give a President Sanders or a President Clinton a much better chance of enacting liberal or progressive or whatever you want call it, legislation.

    The second term could really be something.

    Parent

    Many think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:14:45 PM EST
    Democrats will take the senate this year.

    On the rest I agree.

    Parent

    Bernie,,, (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:25:55 PM EST
    doesn't call it rebuilding the Democratic Party's control of congress, he calls it rebuilding the people of the United States of America's control of congress, and control of their government.

    It's the entire basis of his campaign...taking it back from the special interests, the corporations, the banks, the financiers...and the Democrats and Republicans who sold it out from under us.

    I'm not convinced Democratic control of congress is enough...depends on who the Democrats are and what their agenda is and who they owe favors too.

    Case in point, one of my Democrat senators is Chuck Schumer...his arse got to go just the same as the Republican senators.  Otherwise, this presidential election, like the dozens before it, don't mean much.

    Parent

    Bernie can call it whatever (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    he wants, but for the foreseeable future he has just two choices- Democrats controlling Congress or Republicans controlling Congress.

    And, of course it matters which Democrats fill those Congressional seats. That does not change the fact that we must win the down-ticket races in 2016, 2018 and 2020.

    Parent

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    Bernie might be better equipped to do that than Hillary...not by party-building so much as electorate-building.  

    Obviously to win he needs to bring a massive number of disillusioned citizens to the polls who usually don't see the point...should he accomplish that, I think those voters will realize the heavy lifting comes after a Sanders victory.  

    Parent

    There is no (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:56:17 PM EST
    electorate building without party building. Obama was supposed to produce a bottom up type thing that never came to be. The kind of thing Bernie is doing takes decades to come to fruition.

    Parent
    The Democrats took (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    control of both Houses of Congress in 2006.
    The issue was Iraq.

    The American people voted them in to end the war and get us home.

    Instead, they kissed W.'s keister and send thousands more American souls into the death-pit.
    A pit from which we have yet to emerge.

    It is also worth remembering that the Democrats had control of both houses of congress and also the presidency in 2008. Along with that they had the good will of the world.

    We're in more wars than we were then.
    And Obama, the Democrat is eerily asking for another AUMF.

    So, ultimately, if things are going that way, who cares what party these people belong to?

    Parent

    In 2006 the Repub base (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:45:53 AM EST
    stayed home over the immigration bill that the Repub leadership was pushing.

    Plus the Demos promised to bring back cheap gasoline. (hehe)

    Some anti-war/pacifists may have voted because of the war. But in reality the war was important but not a burning issue in fly over country.

    The result was Demo control that was anti oil that spurred the speculators to believe that there would be shortage due to reduced drilling. Oil spiked to around $145/barrel mid July '08. Bush finally issued an EO that opened up new drilling areas..around 8/1...and the bubble burst.

    But it was too late. McCain was destroyed by the economy, not the war.

    Obama won and despite the warnings of the military implemented Bush's terms and ISIS was birthed.

    So you're right. We are much worse off.

    Parent

    Honestly (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    I'm worried he will be Carter 2.0, and that sometimes the optics matter more than they should.

    I don't want a 1-termer.  I want someone who can slog it out.  I think Hillary is more likely to win the optics fight.

    For that matter - what would Sanders do with a Democratic senate and congress that Hillary wouldn't?  That didn't exactly work smoothly for Obama and he was even more of a moderate than Hillary.

    Parent

    One thing it could do (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:39:38 PM EST
    Is make the court less of a worry.  
    The republicans are supposedly having meetings discussing getting rid of the filibuster.  Some are preaching caution exactly because the winds are against the republicans in November in the senate.

    Parent
    Imo, (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:40:38 PM EST
    there is no similarity between Carter and Sanders.

    Carter, first of all, was in office during the spectacular rise in the cost of oil. There were gas lines. People couldn't get to work.

    And here comes Carter, telling Americans to turn down their thermostats while he was dressed in a sweater sitting in front of a roaring fireplace.

    He deserved to be thrown out.

    My point is that Carter's being a one-termer had nothing to do with optics.

    And, in my opinion, for the things I am interested in fighting for, Sanders is much more determined, energetic and persuasive than Carter ever was.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:23:49 PM EST
    I see great differences between Carter and Sanders.  However, I believe you are being unfair and uninformed in your assessment of his presidency.  He deserved to be thrown out?  Yes, to be replaced by Reagan, which spawned the Bush and fils contributions.  Carter was nothing if not energetic, determined and persuasive.   We would have been much better off today if he had not been thrown out.  

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#47)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:19:19 PM EST
    disagree that we would be better off if Carter had not lost to Reagan. But I believe the loss was a result of his own doing. People got fed up and turned to someone else.

    The American people were sickened by Nixon - and then Ford who pardoned Nixon and left the stench of his presidency with us.

    People welcomed Carter - an outsider.

    But I was around in those days, and remember growing weary of him quite quickly - and the American people, not having accomplished what they had hoped for in throwing out Ford, went about throwing out Carter as well.

    If he was, as you say, energetic, determined and persuasive, I did not feel it at the time.

    I will not argue that Reagan was a horrible president with a horrible legacy.

    But I also cannot feel that Carter deserved another four years. I remember the gas lines, the skyrocking prices of heating fuel. Interest rates going through the roof... What a mess.

    And, as I wrote above, that little show in which he dressed up in front of a fireplace was offensive to everyone's intelligence.

    (imo)

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:29:35 PM EST
    Just

    Wow

    Parent

    If that is your takeaway (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:44:44 PM EST
    from the Carter administration, you really missed a lot. And you have very little understanding of the goe-politics of that time.

    Carter did not cause the gas crisis and its attendant long lines, as well as high heating oil costs. That was OPEC's doing. And while there are those who think the U.S. should just go and grab whatever we want from other nations, in this case  oil from OPEC, that is not how it works.

    High interest rates? You do remember the Nixon and Ford administrations don't you? Do you recall Greald Ford's oh so clever WIN buttons, the "Whip Inflation Now!" Publicity stunt with which he planned to corral high interest rates? That had nothing to do with Carter.

    Or maybe it was the solar panels Carter installed on the White House roof, or his very visible insistence on elevating the stature of human rights in our diplomatic efforts to that you don't like. Perhaps you opposed his push for some amount of peace in the Middle East, the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Or perhaps you just did not like his belief that our response to every troublesome situation should not be a military one.

    There is no pleasing you.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:49:11 PM EST
    with you. If the main concern is wars none of which Carter got the country involved in then you should be lauding Carter but instead it's not happening in that comment. Strange for sure.

    Parent
    If you want (none / 0) (#121)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 06:16:00 AM EST
    to know what affected me, read the "Malaise Speech" posted by TrevorBolder above.

    Parent
    I have to agree with (none / 0) (#63)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:01:19 PM EST
    what you wrote.

    And yet, I cannot find fault with the American people for denying him another term.

    What you say is true, about the peace talks with Begin and Anouar el-Sadate at Camp David, about OPEC...

    But I felt what I felt at that time.
    Misery.
    A sense of going nowhere.
    Even a sense of chaos.

    So we wound up with Reagan.

    You have written persuasively, so I would ask you...
    To what do you attribute Carter's defeat?


    Parent

    Teddy Kennedy. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:07:51 PM EST
    Also the quite possibly treasonous deal the Reagan campaign made with the Ayatollah to delay release of the American hostages until after the election.

    Parent
    There you go again... (none / 0) (#65)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:07:21 PM EST
    The Malaise Speech (none / 0) (#110)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:34:38 PM EST
    On the evening of July 15, 1979, millions of Americans tuned in to hear Jimmy Carter give the most important speech of his presidency. After sharing some of the criticism he had heard at Camp David -- including an unattributed quote from the young governor of Arkansas, Bill Clinton -- Carter put his own spin on Caddell's argument. "The solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country," the president said, asking Americans to join him in adapting to a new age of limits.

    But he also admonished them, "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns." Hendrik Hertzberg, who worked on the speech, admits that it "was more like a sermon than a political speech. It had the themes of confession, redemption, and sacrifice. He was bringing the American people into this spiritual process that he had been through, and presenting them with an opportunity for redemption as well as redeeming himself." Though he never used the word -- Caddell had in his memo -- it became known as Carter's "malaise" speech.

    Boomerang Reaction

    Perhaps appreciating the president's astonishing frankness, the public rewarded him with higher approval ratings in the days that followed. But then, as historian Douglas Brinkley notes, "it boomeranged on him. The op-ed pieces started spinning out, 'Why don't you fix something? There's nothing wrong with the American people. We're a great people. Maybe the problem's in the White House, maybe we need new leadership to guide us.'" Historian Roger Wilkins concurs: "When your leadership is demonstrably weaker than it should be, you don't then point at the people and say, 'It's your problem.' If you want the people to move, you move them the way Roosevelt moved them, or you exhort them the way Kennedy or Johnson exhorted them. You don't say, 'It's your fault.'"
    From PBS
    http://tinyurl.com/3b5qpmj

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#120)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 06:12:37 AM EST
    so much for digging this up.

    Reading it confirms my feeling at the time... and now.

    When I read,

    In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.

    it makes my flesh crawl. Extreme perhaps, but I bristle at this kind of lecturing to the people of this country.

    Like it's our fault.

    Obama was doing some of that in 2008 - especially, as I recall, aimed at Black people --- which is what led Jesse Jackson to remark that Obama was talking down to Black people --- and everybody turned on Jackson -

    Anyway...
    Thank you.

    Parent

    Here's why (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:51:55 AM EST
    Carter did not cause the gas crisis and its attendant long lines, as well as high heating oil costs.

    Carter lost when he came on TV in a sweater and told people to be cold.

    People kept on expecting him to do "something" to rein in OPEC and then the Iranians drove the nail in his coffin by seizing our embassy.

    He looked weak and was weak.

    Remind you of anyone??

    Parent

    No, he doesn't remind me of anyone. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    YOU, on the other hand, oddly remind me of "Fernando," Billy Crystal's ingratiating late-night talk show host character who used to sign off by telling everyone, "Remember, darlings, it's more important to look good, than to it is feel good."

    George W. Bush rode into office swinging his Schwantz and puffing his chest, strutting like a self-absorbed peacock across the world stage. How'd that ultimately turn out for everyone?

    The fact-free fairy tales you spin here are directly attributable to your obvious infatuation with the "Schwantz-swinging" superficiality of present-day GOP politics. In your world, it's more important to look and talk tough, than to actually BE tough.

    Well, as the late Hawaii Gov. John A. Burns once admonished a politic critic, "Any goddamned fool can draw a line in the sand." REAL tough guys neither fear nor regret that peace will somehow prevail over conflict, as you so often seem to do here in these threads. And they aren't afraid negotiate with their adversaries and risk failure in the pursuit of that peace.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Okay lentinel (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:01:08 PM EST
    I was never offended by Carter's intelligence, nor did I feel that he offended mine (unforged though it was). Actually he made me uncomfortable and nervous because I knew that, at the core, he was right.

    You completely lost me with this one. Better luck next time.

    Parent

    I'm (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:12:08 PM EST
    willing to admit that I may have undervalued Carter...

    But when you say,  

    Actually he made me uncomfortable and nervous because I knew that, at the core, he was right.

    could you tell me what made you uncomfortable and nervous - and what you are referring to as the "core" that you came to feel he was right about?

    I just remember the uncomfortable and nervous part. But not any core whatsoever...

    The "intelligence" matter I referred to was specifically that TV show during the oil crisis - the heating oil crisis - in which he told us to turn down our thermostats as he posed - a la FDR - in front of a fireplace. Like we all have fireplaces...

    Parent

    As an example, I was horrified by this: (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:30:46 PM EST
    All of us must learn to waste less energy. Simply by keeping our thermostats, for instance, at 65 degrees in the daytime and 55 degrees at night we could save half the current shortage of natural gas.
    What can I say? I was young and shallow and cold-blooded.

    I guess I still am. While I follow his advice to wear a sweater, I still don't have it in me to keep my house that cold in winter. Or summer. I still knew he was right.

    And frankly, until you mention it just now, I never gave the fireplace setting a single thought.

    Parent

    I don't think it's shallow to not want to be cold. (none / 0) (#100)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:03:30 PM EST
    I also find that I like to be comfortable.
    I do use heat, and in the summer I do use some air conditioning.

    I think what made me angry at the time, and still does, is my feeling that the oil companies were soaking us, and instead of confronting them as the greedy folks they are, Carter told us to use less heat.

    And the distinction between the OPEC and American Oil companies is, I believed then and I believe now, to be specious.

    Of course, I believe in the conservation of energy. But that is for environmental reasons - as well as economic ones. The electric bills are outrageous.

    But rightly or wrongly, I felt Carter's admonition as one that let the oil companies off the hook - and one of encouraging us to take it and like it.

    On top of it, I vividly remember being appalled by the "optics" of his presentation - the fireplace and all.

    Parent

    Carter (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    ran against the party much as Bernie is doing. So when he got to Washington a lot of people just sat on their hands.

    Parent
    Carter was the Governor of Georgia (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:21:35 PM EST
    Carter (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:50:51 PM MDT

    ran against the party much as Bernie is doing. So when he got to Washington a lot of people just sat on their hands.

    Sanders was a member of the House for 16 years, and a Senator for 10. Any more specious comparisons?

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:29:29 PM EST
    doesn't address the crux of my statement.

    Parent
    In searching your comment for (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:53:29 PM EST
    a crux, it appeared that you were casting Carter's outsider status to Sanders' outsider status as being the same. At least I assume that you are referring to a sort of outsider status when you say that they "ran against the party".

    Carter's "outsider" status was due to the fact that he was a Governor (of Georgia!!!) and had not the opportunity nor need to build alliances or accumulate favors within the beltway prior to his Presidency. So the beltway courtiers "sat on their hands".

    Sanders is no stranger to the beltway. And shocker!! He's a.... (gasp!) politician!!

    So, like I said, specious.

    Or was there a hidden crux in this particular lump of poo that you are throwing against the wall? Otherwise, prove your point about how they "ran against the party" with specifics.

    Parent

    MY point (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:04:18 PM EST
    was running against the party which Sanders is doing and which Carter did. Both were/are running as "outsider insurgent" candidates. What you seem to be saying is that Bernie is kind of silly for trying to run as an outsider insurgent since he's been in Washington so long.
    here one example.

    Parent
    I will decide (none / 0) (#70)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:16:19 PM EST
    for myself what I am saying, thank you very much. You, as usual, are completely wrong about it

    But please, continue. Explain how Carter "ran against the party". Then explain how Sanders "runs against the party". Then do an accurate comparison.

    Otherwise, I'm done following you into this rabbit hole. It stinks in here and has no light.

    Parent

    Most of the party gets donations from wall street (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    Why even Warren has 600k on the books from securities investment industry, Bernie is running against that.

    I don't know about Carter.  Just saying that's how I think Bernie runs against party.

    Parent

    Thank (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:33:24 PM EST
    you for making my point. For one thing Ted Kennedy came to speak in GA and Carter stomped all over him during the meeting. I'm sure that's one the things that led to Kennedy running against him in 1980.

    Parent
    In other words (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:44:15 PM EST
    you can't back up your statements so you will grasp at the straws provided by another. You didn't mention the Kennedy/Carter antipathy until casey brought it up. Kennedy deserved a little b!tch slapping, frankly.

    kmkmiller, thanks for your thoughts but I was hoping to narrow the focus of the discussion using her own words until Georgia could either put up or shut up. Unfortunately you inadvertently provided a way for to escape such a fate.

    GA, carry on with your misinformation campaign without me. Just don't put any more wrong words in my mouth.

    Parent

    Have you seen (2.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:45:46 PM EST
    the ad Bernie is running in Iowa attacking people who take money from Wall Street? Well, that's pretty much the entire party.

    here but you're going to have to read down to find the part about Kennedy.

    Parent

    Not sure you've seen the ad, though, (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:01:33 PM EST
    based on your interpretation; I get why the Clinton campaign is trying to frame it that way, and that explains why you're framing it that way.

    Here's a better description, and some analysis:

    Senator Bernie Sanders speaks directly to the camera as xylophone tones signal an explainer is about to come. "There are two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street," he says, as a camera pans across nondescript office buildings. "One says it's O.K. to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do."

    An animated informational graphic then takes over, as Mr. Sanders summarizes his plan: "Break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes, and make them pay their fair share," to fund "health care for all" and "universal college education." Animated pictograms show a faceless banker in a suit handing over a bag of cash to a couple with two children and a stroller. The close of the ad returns to Mr. Sanders: "Will they like me? No," he says. "Will they begin to play by the rules if I'm president? You better believe it."

    An obvious contrast with Mrs. Clinton without mentioning her by name. As the Clinton campaign criticizes Mr. Sanders's health care plan and his record on gun control, Mr. Sanders has been fighting back, saying Mrs. Clinton's campaign is attacking him from the right. This ad furthers that argument, painting Mrs. Clinton's promises to regulate Wall Street as disingenuous.

    [...]

    Mr. Sanders had promised to not run a negative ad in the campaign, even pulling a digital spot in December that he felt was in a "gray area." But as tensions rise in the Democratic primary, and as Mr. Sanders finds himself on the defensive on health care and guns, his campaign is retaliating in kind.

    More:

    In the pantheon of campaign attack ads, this one seemed gentle enough: Senator Bernie Sanders explains his intention to regulate the financial industry, including breaking up the big Wall Street banks.

    [...]

    Last month, the Sanders campaign promptly pulled a digital ad that referred to Mrs. Clinton as "bank funded," and his aides said the negative ad had been the result of a "miscommunication."

    The Sanders ad comes after Mrs. Clinton has intensified her attacks on his health care proposals and record on gun control legislation.

    In an ad, broadcast in Iowa and New Hampshire on Tuesday night during the State of the Union address, Mrs. Clinton seemed to draw a contrast with Mr. Sanders on gun control, without mentioning him.

    "It's time to pick a side," she said. "Either we stand with the gun lobby, or we join the president and stand up to them. I'm with him."

    Clinton's "outrage" is as disingenuous as the content of her latest salvos.

    Parent

    Look (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:04:43 PM EST
    I have no problem with Bernie running attack ads. It's politics and he's a politician.

    However it seems that many are seeing it as an attack on them not just Hillary. And then he says he wants a "course correction" from Obama which will be popular in some quarters however I have to wonder how that kind of thing is going to play out in the primary.  

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:50:08 PM EST
    It wasnt more than a straw.

    Parent
    I like (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    the word slog. Modern politics is nothing short of trench warfare. Any and all advances are going to be made inch by bloody inch for the foreseeable future.

    Parent
    Going to the people (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:57:55 PM EST
    ...to do what?

    Parent
    A very nice ad for Bernie (none / 0) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    An environmental advocacy group is throwing its weight behind Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, airing an ad in Iowa and New Hampshire that highlights his extensive record on climate change.

    link

    If you haven't seen it yet, take a look. It is very nice ad and IMO very well done.

    Parent

    Or, that Mrs. Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:15:21 PM EST
    can win.  Senator Sanders and Mrs. Clinton are likely to accomplish similar legislative results given the make-up of Congress.    Match-ups between Senator Sanders and Trump may even look competitive at this point, but Senator Sanders has not yet been subjected to the Republican onslaught and the full-court media press.

    And, Senator Sanders is untested in ability to defend, protect and advance in the face of a national campaign of opposition the likes of which he has never experienced.

     Maybe he can, but the stakes are too high and outcomes too risky to find out the hard way.  Not sure he would be able to sit before a Benghazi-like committee of hostiles for a full day and leave with their scalps nailed to the wall.

     As a citizen who worries that a Trump/Cruz administration would render the country unrecognizable within two years, and the fact that we have two otherwise good candidates in Sanders and Clinton, although I believe Mrs. Clinton is most presidential, I would look to the most electable.

    Just got a chance to see a recording of the Rachel Maddow interview with Mrs. Clinton.  I think she was excellent; this is a good forum for her and she needs to take greater advantage of such opportunities.  Look forward to the next debate.  

    Parent

    You may be right but.... (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 05:31:44 PM EST
    Hillary has been tested against a national campaign of opposition and she lost. That opposition was IMO much milder than what she can expect to receive if she becomes the Democratic nominee.


    Parent
    Yes, more effective (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:25:21 PM EST
    What will happen if either Bernie or Hillary is elected?

    Either one would face a Republican House and perhaps a Democratic Senate by a vote or two.  What is Bernie going to do in that environment?  I think he would be done....

    Hillary could fight it out with the GOP.....

    Bernie is just ideas....maybe good ideas....but he has no idea how to implement them.  

    Parent

    Golly, I can't imagine what a (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:53:44 PM EST
    President Sanders, who spent years in the Congress, would do; why, he'd just be totally lost, having no idea how things work there...

    Hillary, though...she could fight it out with the GOP, right?

    Bernie's just ideas?  Do you imagine that he just sprang, fully formed, from the head of Zeus?

    Here, read this; it's clear you need some enlightenment.

    Here are a few more things to ponder, from people who seem to know what Bernie's done with his ideas:

    Won a mayoral election by a hair, proved he could work successfully with the business community despite their initial resistance. Took a blighted, neglected waterfront, convinced the city to fund a renewal project when the business community would not, then turned around and presented them with a vibrant opportunity (which they eagerly took advantage of). A win-win that boosted the city's financial situation and ensured his subsequent electoral wins were, to understate, substantial.

    As a congressional candidate, managed to gather a widely diverse state behind him - Vermont, after all, is a very rural state whose rural citizens are rock-ribbed conservatives - and go on to serve his constituents so well that even the rock-ribbers have voted for him, and did so when he set his sights on the Senate.

    Has served admirably in the Senate, standing up for working Americans, veterans and others who have been political footballs/placeholders/choose your own descriptive - working across the aisle as needed to accomplish his goals.

    We have a very recent example from last year.

    Sen. Sanders drafted a monstrous piece of legislation to support and start repairing the Veterans Administration following the scandal that broke in Arizona.  The price tag on the bill was $2 billion!

    It failed in the first attempt, but Sen. Sanders went to the Republicans and negotiated a compromise and together they brought the bill to the House where it passed the House 420-5 and passed the Senate 91-3.  It was signed into law immediately by President Obama.

    I can assure all of Bernie Sanders' doubters that Hillary Clinton would not have been able to get a nearly unanimous passage on a $2 billion spending bill in 2014.  Not a chance in hell.

    Happy reading.
     

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:52:38 PM EST
    But he has not been a leader in the Senate or really won any big fights.  

    For as long as he has been there, he is known as a gadfly, not a leader.....

    And the naiveté of his campaign is unnerving.....

     

    Parent

    The emphasis on his never (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:55:31 PM EST
    having ran a negative ad is so utopian.....and out of touch....His campaign really touts that.  The perfect idealistic candidate....and it worries me greatly.....

    His going to out nice Trump?    

    Parent

    Trump (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:00:49 PM EST
    would spit him out and chew him up in short order I'm afraid.

    Parent
    So I fear (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:18:34 PM EST
    Trump hit him just once on BLM taking his microphone.....Bernie looked like confused roadkill.....I think Trump moved on knowing he could rattle Bernie at will.....

    Parent
    You may be correct (none / 0) (#112)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:37:12 PM EST
    in your assessment. But I also believe Trump will take it too far and thus there will be many "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" moments. And this will sour some on the idea of a Trump presidency. McCarthy was riding high but it Joseph Welch took him down in short order.

    Parent
    Joe McCarthy was already running into ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 01:32:03 AM EST
    ... difficulty by 1954, and he were facing increased hostility by Democrats and more than a few Republicans. In fact, on June 1, 1950, Sen. Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) publicly broke with McCarthy with her famous "Declaration of Conscience," in which she denounced the disreputable tactics he was deploying at the time against adversaries both real and perceived. In fact, current Republicans would do well to heed her warning, which resonates just as strongly today as it did 66 years ago:

    "Surely [there] are sufficient reasons to make it clear to the American people that it is time for a change and that a Republican victory is necessary to the security of this country. Surely it is clear that this nation will continue to suffer as long as it is governed by the present ineffective Democratic administration.

    "Yet to displace it with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to this Nation. The Nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don't want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the four horsemen of calumny -- fear, ignorance, bigotry and smear.

    "I doubt if the Republican Party could -- simply because I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest. Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory.

    "I don't want to see the Republican Party win that way. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I don't know about that.. (none / 0) (#164)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:32:02 PM EST
    intellectually-analytically Trump is pedestrian small potatoes.

    You shouldn't fall into the trap of associating wild-swinging bluster with "strength"..

    This isn't Gorillas In The Mist..and we haven't all gone silverback yet -- even if they already have in Fox-talk radio land..

    Sanders has consistently championed and defended the bravest, most radical positions of any mainstream
    pol in this country for years-- and he's been held up well under fire for years while remaining articulate and true to his core beliefs..

    You think this is the first Trump Bernie's had to deal with in all this time?

    Parent

    For a small potatoes guy (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    Trump has accumulated a lot of very large potatoes.

    Parent
    Much easier to do when (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    you inherit a big fertile potatoe field as your birthright.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#169)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 03:49:50 PM EST
    but, like Ted Turner, Trump took that big boost and used it well.

    OTOH "Short sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations" is a well known true statement.

    Parent

    Used it well.. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by jondee on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    is somewhat a matter of interpretation.

    You sound a little like a "the clothes make the man" kinda guy..

    Rather surprising for a professed devout christian..

    Parent

    He certainly used his creditors well (none / 0) (#179)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    It takes some kind of talent to declare bankruptcy four times. What a businessman. If he were to bankrupt the U.S the same way he's bankrupted himself, well...he'd guarantee himself a YUUUUUGE place in history.

    Parent
    Yes. He was very adroit in following the law (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    Uh...it isn't that he took advantage of (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 17, 2016 at 01:33:39 PM EST
    the laws that is the problem, it is that he touts himself as such an uber-businessman, with unparalleled business acumen, so does he prefer to paint himself as a victim who couldn't overcome the problems that led to all these bankruptcies, or does he want to take responsibility for making bad decisions that weren't so smart that led to them?

    If he's a victim of problems and conditions he didn't create, how does that translate to the presidency, where quite a bit of the job is overcoming things you didn't create?

    If he made bad decisions, how can anyone trust that as president, he will make good decisions?

    Which is it, jim?

    Parent

    Unintentionally comical (none / 0) (#182)
    by shoephone on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:36:14 PM EST
    Thanks for the laugh.

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 07:35:42 PM EST
    you are talking about voter support Sanders has gathered a more potatoes than Trump.  Trump only looks big because he is standing on the stage with midgets.

    Parent
    Perhaps we should define (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:47:22 PM EST
    Our terms.  Along with "leftist" and "moderate" maybe "sane","pragmatic" and "barmy"

    Parent
    I do not prefer Bernie's moderation (3.50 / 2) (#40)
    by Kmkmiller on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:49:46 PM EST
    On gun manufacturer immunity and raising taxes on the middle class.

    Also think the assumption that an entity like Wall Street is top to bottom 100 percent pure evil, while its not a moderate position per se, I would not also classify it as very progressive because, in my opinion, investment (when done correctly) can have profoundly progressive results even sometimes more so that filtering the money through a beuracracy.  Indeed private enterprise may, no not just may, it is VERY LIKELY, private enterprise funded though Wall Street will be the agency that cures cancer.

    So I just don't think Bernie is very progressive.  Oh well, opinions.  Not that it will matter.

    Parent

    You are not a very good (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:58:08 PM EST
    mind-reader.

    Parent
    I've been (none / 0) (#133)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:43:53 AM EST
    reading text as it appears on these pages.

    Not minds.

    I don't do minds.

    Parent

    Spillover from Republican Debate (none / 0) (#8)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:25:30 PM EST
    I did not watch it but did see clips and blurbs on the internet.

    I thought Trump was correct in saying Cruz should have tried for a directed judgement about Cruz being natural born.  My opinion is Cruz is eligible for office, but having the courts agree would be good for Cruz.

    Cruz kinda laughed it off in the debate.  On the same day as the debate Schwartz v. Cruz, 4:16-cv-00106, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas (Houston) was filed.

    Seems like Trump gets the last laugh.

    Bloomberg link

    One of the questions I've heard (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    Asked about this is if whenever it was filed the person filing it would have "standing" to file it.

    Any lawyerly opinions on that?

    Parent

    This suit is not the only one (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    Grayson has made noise about it and I suspect until there is a court ruling there will be others.  This was Trump's point.

    As the great chess master Emanuel Lasker said "sometimes the threat is stronger than the execution".

    Parent

    Grayson (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    Was on Chrus Hayes show last night talking about it.  Hayes asked him about standing comparing it to the one aimed at Obama.   Dismissed I think for that reason.

    Grayson did a good enough job explaining that this case was not that case that Hayes admitted he had, at least in the moment, convinced him.

    Just curious what the legal eagles thought.

    Parent

    Standing beyond that of a mere voter (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:23:04 PM EST
    is necessary. Some ballot-controlling state official has to propose to exclude him from some primary ballot or caucus on the ground of ineligibility to hold the office, and then Cruz (or the official) can get a declaratory judgment.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#21)
    by ragebot on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    Cruz could get Kim Davis to say he should not be on the ballot and then sue her.

    Parent
    The Democratic candidate (none / 0) (#25)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    for president, or another qualified Independent candidate for president, is likely to have standing against a Republican candidate in litigation of eligibility to hold office.

    Parent
    It obviously has to be decided (none / 0) (#36)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:25:08 PM EST
    long before it would get to that point.

    Parent
    Yes, but too (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:56:44 PM EST
    many (other than Cruz, of course) are pooh poohing the issue.   Unsurprisingly, the media is giving the legal position, and debate point, to Cruz.  Because he said so, and he is a good debater having all that experience while in college 20 years ago. And, only gadflies, are taking it serious.  So, there may be a delay on this before it heats up enough to get to a standing decision.

    Parent
    The issue was presented quite well (none / 0) (#91)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:20:49 PM EST
    on this evening's BBC radio news ("The World") by a San Diego law professor, who stated his own opinion that Cruz was eligible, but presented the contrary argument articulately, respectfully and accurately.

    Parent
    The professor clerked for (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 10:11:12 PM EST
    Justice Scalia!

    Parent
    I really don't (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:34:00 PM EST
    understand the the whole question anyway. My understanding there are only two basic types of citizens those who are citizens at birth (natural) and those who weren't(naturalized) I was always confused by that term until now, but I digress.        

    According to the USCICS

    In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:​

    *The person has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen; and​

    *The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person's birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.​ [2] ​

    Cruz was a citizen at birth.(I think these standards are long standing, probably from long before day one).

    To me it comes down to an almost a ridiculous parsing of the words "natural born" with most of the neo-birthers insisting that the the framers ignored the long standing jus sanguinis concept of citizenship and meant only the jus soli concept (the concept that makes the anchor baby crowds head explode btw, irony is not dead). Just sounds ridiculous to me.

    By simple logic; Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen, ergo he must be natural. Am I missing something?

    Parent

    This I'm sorry to say (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:39:03 PM EST
    Entirely misses the point.  Understanding and interpreting the constitution is not "parsing of words".  If you actually read what people like Tribe and Mary Mc Manamon are saying maybe it will be more clear.

    Quite a few others, including or own Peter,  have been convinced it's not nonsense.  I honestly don't understand the problem.  Who gives a sh!t if this is a problem for Cruz?

    Parent

    I beg to differ (none / 0) (#69)
    by FlJoe on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:14:13 PM EST
    the point is understanding and interpreting the constitution is the parsing of words at the highest level.

    I have read Tribe and others and the argument always seem to boil down that the argument is "not settled" mostly because the issue has not been actually litigated, not on any real logical or historical reason to even ask the question. I don't pretend to know the legal issues but my gut feeling this whole thing is stupid.

    Really have no problem with the stupid(IHMO)besides the fact it's a hell of a way to run country.

    Hell yeah I give a sh!t I am a Cruz fanboy just as you are a Trump fanboy (in a WWE way) I want to see this battle royale continue and so do you, the closer the polls the better the action.


    Parent

    touché (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:32:07 PM EST
    That said.  I disagree that it is stupid.  I thought it was stupid until I began to understand the point they were trying to make and I now find it quite an interesting question.

    And not at all clear or cut and dried.

    Parent

    I'm sorry I used the word stupid too (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    I think 'petty' is more what I was going for. Even if there is a legal leg to stand on to stop Cruz in this way, it just seems wrong to me to try. The bringers of the suit would never bat an eyelash if it was someone on their side with this issue.

    Parent
    With the possible exception (none / 0) (#143)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:15:52 AM EST
    Of the TX lawyer who filed the suit (which would have absolutely eventually been filed by someone) I don't think the point of any of the people being quoted on this subject is to "stop Ted Cruz".  Both high profile law professors have said explicitly that is not their point and the person who first began to talk about it is a far right winger.

    That's is not the point.  The point is Cruz is saying over and over that it's "settled law".  That is simply not true.  You will not find anyone out side the Cruz campaign, with any knowledge of the law,  that will argue it is settled law.

    The point is perhaps it should be settled law.

    Parent

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:23:09 AM EST
    And there's a difference between an individual saying they have one opinion or another of which there has been no shortage and saying its "settled law"

    Parent
    The point is not whether Cruz is a US citizen (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Peter G on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:55:18 PM EST
    He is, without doubt. The question is whether he is the sort of citizen that the Framers said in Article II, section 1, clause 4, of the Constitution is the only kind of citizen who is eligible to be President, that is, a "natural born Citizen." The meaning of this term is unfortunately contested. It is reasonably claimed that it means "anyone who had U.S. citizenship at birth," as contrasted with someone who became a citizen later, ordinarily by choice, which is called a "naturalized citizen."  But it is also reasonably claimed that in 1787 this expression would have been understood to mean something narrower than that, namely, "anyone born within the territory of the United States (except the children of foreign ambassadors), plus -- at most -- anyone born abroad whose father was a U.S. citizen." Screwy though the second category sounds now, there is a good argument that that was the only kind of child born abroad who even might have been considered, in 1787, to be a "natural born citizen." All this is based on a concept in British citizenship law as it stood at that time, defining the category, "natural born subject."

    Parent
    I understand (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    that the meaning of the term is contested but I am not sure why.

    I understand the concept of defaulting to English common law to understand undefined terms as expounded by McManamon and the rest of the questioners.

    However those arguments seem to fall apart right here,

    Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power "[t]o establish an
    uniform Rule of Naturalization
    Which seems to my untrained eyes, to grant the power to determine the definition to congress. Which the very first congress promptly promptly did (my bold)
    Included in the first Act To Establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization was
    the following language:
    [T]he children of citizens of the United States, that may be born
    beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be
    considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of
    citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never
    been resident in the United States . . . .
    Given that this congress contained many of the framers it seems to me that this whole question was answered 230 years ago.

    Parent
    It is not obvious -- or even likely -- that (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Peter G on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    the Constitutional authority granted to Congress to regulate immigration and naturalization impliedly granted to Congress the power to define who was eligible to become President. Ordinarily, unless the Constitution itself assigns the authority to Congress in a particular situation, it is for the Supreme Court, not the Legislature, to resolve disputes about the meaning of the terms used in the Constitution.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    for the enlightenment, to my simple mind Article 1 & 2 are two different ball games, as well they should be, makes perfect sense now.

    Parent
    My Opinion... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:57:26 PM EST
    ...we got too many problem to focus on 'naturalized' meaning one or both parents.  Cruz is an American and lived here his entire life and was only born in Canada because his parents were working there.

    The left needs to let this go and focus on Cruz's real problem, his policies.  I get the feeling people are just pushing this because he is an ahole and not cause they care about the actual definition of 'naturalized'.

    Let Trump chase the birther ghost.

    Parent

    Yes, I was really hoping Trump was talking (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    out his behind as usual and no liberal or Dem connected groups would stoop to such a lawsuit.

    Now they have both done something stupid for no good reason, and made Trump look smart. Thanks a lot dude.

    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:49:49 PM EST
    Yes, Bribe the Idiots... (none / 0) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    ...with a free movie.  GD.

    Parent
    Bay better hope (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:32:01 PM EST
    The right wingers like his movies cause he's going to have a problem with anyone else over 12 years old.  Which I gues is his target audience anyway.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    apparently it's not going well for conservatives because they've invested themselves in this narrative about Amb. Stevens that is not being shown in the movie. Trump may rue the day he opened the theaters for this movie.

    Parent
    Oh trust me (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:49:54 PM EST
    They are going to run with the "order to stand down" part

    Parent
    Facts (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    never were their strong point.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:45:43 PM EST
    I heard about that.

    Parent
    That film's reviews have been ... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:25:39 PM EST
    ... generally middling to terrible. Most critics appear to be in agreement that "13 Hours" clearly wears its politics on its sleeve, and that its characterization of those tragic events in Benghazi is simplistic, confused and inaccurate at best. Hands down, the most entertaining review is the acerbic take of The Guardian's Jordan Hoffman:

    "Midway through Michael Bay's 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, interrupting its bizarre mix of war pornography and dour isolationist posturing, there's a shoehorned moment of mawkishness. Jack (John Krasinski) is one of the ex-armed forces contractors taking a babysitting job as security to CIA specialists halfway around the world. He's Skyping with his wife and daughters, and if that doesn't telegraph what motivates him to stay alive, he learns he's going to be a father again. This most human moment in the 144-minute film raises the stakes, and does double duty as product placement, set as it is at a McDonald's drive-thru, Happy Meals references flavouring the wholesome family sentiment. 13 Hours is as American as microwaved apple pie.

    "Detailing the 2012 attack on a US diplomatic (and, later, espionage) compound in Benghazi, Libya, in all its thudding, bloody brutality, 13 Hours is an extraordinary artifact, a film that makes you long for the subtlety of something like Black Hawk Down. It stars a half dozen interchangeable bearded, buff men with names like Boon, Tig, Rone, Bub and Oz. One looks a bit more like Metallica's James Hetfield than the others and another is black, but the rest are a clone army. They are guns for hire for a secret CIA base run by pansy twerps from Harvard and Yale who barely know how to wipe their own asses without checking a rulebook. The nasally egghead chief (David Costabile) explains to newcomer Jack that flexing too much muscle where the natives can see isn't a good idea. But just outside the window, one of the boys is yawping and dragging enormous blocks of concrete around in his short shorts like this is some kind of Steve Reeves picture. Behind him, a bleating pen of sheep, defenceless to slaughter."

    So, if you cheered on Sylvester Stallone as he blew away the Commies in "Rambo: First Blood Part II," you'll probably love Michael Bay's "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    If I was Bay (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:39:08 PM EST
    I would try to avoid North Africa for a while.

    LINK

    Parent

    He might (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:12:44 PM EST
    want to avoid a lot of places considering that people are coming out of his movie threatening to kill Hillary.

    Parent
    Michael Bay epitomizes the type of guy ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 02:21:13 AM EST
    ... described by Sen. Bulworth (Warren Beatty) when he met with his Hollywood donors:

    "You know, the funny thing is how lousy most of your stuff is. You make violent films and you make dirty films and you make family films, but most of them aren't very good, are they? Funny, that so many smart people can work so hard on them and spend so much money on them and make so much money on them -- what do you think it is? It must be the money, it turns everything to crap."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#181)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    I have read some very good reviews,

    I guess it all depends upon the registered political party of the reviewer

    Which ultimately hurt American Sniper during awards time.

    But this isn't in American Sniper class,

    But seems like a well done movie of American heroism under fire.

    Parent

    Friday... Finally... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 05:08:10 PM EST
    ...it's been one of those weeks.

    While I don't think they have a chance, Go Pack Go.  Arizona beat the pack 38-8 three weeks ago, but hot damn if the Pack didn't look good on Sunday.

    I am calling a red & white superbowl, KC & Arizona.

    Peace out and have a good weekend.

    Obama's request (none / 0) (#54)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 06:36:54 PM EST
    for an AUMF brought to mind two former ones.
    One by Bush the father, and the other by Bush the son.

    The first one has been hailed as having led to the "good war". We sent our soldiers to "liberate Kuwait". And then we let them suffer Gulf War Syndrome untreated.

    Great.
    We liberated Kuwait and they have prospered.
    Us, not so much.

    Then comes the son.
    More liberation. This time Iraq.

    Now comes the sometime spiritual grandson - in 2015. The one who thanks W. "for his service".
    Who are we liberating this time?
    The Syrians? The Iraqis? The Afghans? The Pakistanis? Everybody? The Ukraine?

    Is this all to protect us from them?
    I don't believe it for a minute.
    Some agenda with these oil-rich M.E. countries got started decades ago, and we're still living it.

    How about liberating Baltimore or Chicago?

    Well (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:36:03 PM EST
    Howdy you were on it. Costas is reporting that the GOP elite are resigning themselves to a Trump or Cruz nomination and donors are reaching out to them.

    WaPo (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 08:44:27 AM EST
    Republicans now see a Trump-Cruz race, with time for a shift running out

    Spencer Zwick, the national finance chairman for Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign, said power brokers and financiers are now trying to cozy up to Trump in various ways, such as reaching out through mutual friends in New York's business community.
    --
    "A lot of donors are trying to figure their way into Trump's orbit. There is a growing feeling among many that he may be the guy, so people are certainly seeing if they can find a home over there," he said.

    In another sign of acceptance of the front-runner, Brett O'Donnell, a longtime debate coach for GOP presidential candidates, said Trump's performance skills have improved notably and have enhanced his reputation among the political class.
    --
    It's a two-person race," Cruz spokesman Rick Tyler said. "There is no one in the moderate lane who seems to be emerging. The party doesn't seem to want to elect a moderate. Our argument is, there is only one conservative who has a path."

    Some outside strategists are less bullish on Cruz, however. Eric Fehrnstrom, a former Romney adviser, said Trump remains in "total command of the field."

    I said a while back if it came down to Trump/Cruz, which I thought it would, my money is on Trump.

    It still is.

    Parent

    Surprisingly (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:33:00 AM EST
    polling showed that if it came down to Cruz and Trump, Cruz would best Trump but not by much.

    Now you and I might think that statement about NY was stupid but I have to wonder how that kind of thing plays in the old confederacy. I have seen that kind of thing work before.

    Parent

    It won't be Cruz (none / 0) (#137)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    I don't know. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:22:44 AM EST
    There might be some voters that will go for Cruz over Trump simply because he's been in the senate. I guess we shall see what happens. Iowa will be the first test of what happens. Cruz could also work on getting a lot of delegates from caucuses.

    Parent
    I didn't make it up (none / 0) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:41:45 PM EST
    Those tweets and stuff were on the internet machine this morning.

    Rich Lowery- fear and loathing is becoming resignation and rationalization.

    That was my favorite.

    Parent

    There (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:44:17 PM EST
    is a new Gallup out that shows that Trump is the most loathed of all the Republicans. I mean the guy is universally loathed if you believe Gallup.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 07:58:14 PM EST
    But 67% say they would vote for him.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 08:16:06 PM EST
    they would. Just saying when it moves across the board it gets a lot worse for him.

    Parent
    Ha! maher just introduced Al Gore as the 43rd (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 15, 2016 at 09:08:41 PM EST
    POTUS . If only....

    If only (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    he hadn't chosen Holy Joe Lieberman as his running mate...

    Parent
    Yes, that was a big mistake (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Zorba on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    But one could also argue that, despite Florida and despite the (IMO) wrongly decided Supreme Court decision, Gore would have won anyway if he had been able to carry his own home state of Tennessee.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    survey on the economy here

    New SciFi (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Jan 16, 2016 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    I just saw the premier of COLONY the new USA series on Thursday.   Really really good.   Lori from WALKING DEAD and Sawyer from LOST.  Life in an alien occupied LA.

    Also THE EXPANSE on SYFY on Tuesday.  Also very good.   A space opera described as Game of Thrones in space.  The EXPANSE had more buzz but I like COLONY more.  Better cast for one thing.

    Both worth the time.