home

Wednesday Open Thread

Thread.

< Assuming the worst: Clinton on Lincoln and Reconstruction | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Think Chris Matthews may have topped Trump (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:15:16 PM EST
    for best soundbite about Trump skipping the debate:

    "Who's going to watch a debate between the two Cuban guys?...Who cares?"


    It sounds sick (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    But I kinda hope MORE people watch just to take the air out of Trump's argument.

    Parent
    It won't happen (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    The viewers tune in to see what Trump might say. No one cares if anyone tries to attack Cruz and care even less how he responds.

    The funniest thing here is the GOP mouthpiece that is FOX is getting torched by a Republican candidate.


    Parent

    Funny also (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:37:07 PM EST
    That Cruz helped make this possible by whining for months that FOX was not treating him fairly and was fluffing everyone in the "establishment" lane and are really part of the "Washington cartel".

    Parent
    Have you (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:38:40 PM EST
    seen all the stuff that has been shooting around the internet like tapes of Cruz when he was 18 and him confusing RFK and JFK?

    Parent
    Hard for us to grasp (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    but he wasn't yet born when either of the two were alive.

    Parent
    Yep, definitely one part (none / 0) (#22)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:02:18 PM EST
    top-notch political strategist.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    I haven't watched any of the prior debates; they were just too predictable, and, anyway, the only thing that matters, the sound-bites, were played over, and, over again afterwards.

    Parent
    Trump is going on OReilly (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    Tonight.  I bet that gets a bigger audience than the debate.

    Parent
    Now, it makes sense (none / 0) (#28)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    You remember how we discussed the fact that all those "money polls," those where the smart people, with skin in the game, consistently bet Trump would not be our next President, nor the Republican Candidate? And, those predictions never changed, even as Trump kept climbing in the polls.
    Well, I just read an explanation of why that is so. Trump's support is, primarily, from white, under-educated, blue collar, working people. And, that group is notorious for attending rallies, then staying home on election night. It seems they like to go to spectacles where they can hoot `n holler, fist-pump the sky, and jump up for standing ovations after each xenophobic tirade by the speaker. But, the more troublesome, civic act of washing, dressing, driving to a polling place, standing in lines, etc, etc. takes a more committed citizen. All that work vs. sitting home on your warm couch, sucking down a beer, and watching the results on TV..........well, you get the drift.

    The Pro's claim this is one of the most consistently accurate, and, stable results out of all the indicators they use in predicting outcomes.

    The difference between what they say, and, what they, actually do is the thing we'll be most looking for in the first election.


    Parent

    And the "pros" (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:31:13 PM EST
    Have been right so often in this cycle.

    ?

    Look, that's true as far as it goes.  My opinion,  that I have been harping on for over a year now, is that times have changed.  People are pissed in a way they have never been pissed before and Donald is made for the moment.

    You are right, we will know soon enough and there is hardly a better test of that the the pain in the ass Iowa caucus.


    Parent

    I was reading (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:29:28 PM EST
    about the Iowa caucuses and you have to be there at 6:30 and the doors close at 7:00. So if Trump has not been registering any of these people I have to wonder how many of them are actually going to show up and register (assuming his voters are the ones that are not registered) and get in there and how many are going to actually stand around for 2 hours caucusing? I don't know. Can you leave a caucus in the middle of it?

    Parent
    They have been registering people (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:34:08 PM EST
    At every rally.   And they will stand in the rain for 8 hours to see him but will not show up to caucus.   Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

    Parent
    Okay. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:41:10 PM EST
    Didn't know he was registering people at the rallies.

    Parent
    According (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:03:22 AM EST
    to the Iowa SOS less people are registered for 2016 than were registered in 2012. So it sounds like they are making it up that they are registering people. I guess they are expecting people to come out and register the day of the caucus.

    Parent
    I'm sure you are right (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:39:23 AM EST
    I'm sure they are "just making it it" and he is just paying hundreds of people with clipboards and voter registration info to walk around his events to "fool" us.

    €-/

    Parent

    Why (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:41:28 AM EST
    aren't they registered with the SOS then?

    Parent
    According to the SOS site (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:59:16 AM EST
    There are 22,000 fewer out of over 2,000,000.

    LINK

    they could probably register that many by Tuesday.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:03:09 AM EST
    The Feb numbers for 2016 are not listed yet.  So how about we check after the election.

    Parent
    They probably (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:05:09 AM EST
    could however that gets back to my point about last minute registration.

    Parent
    You are probably right (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:14:02 AM EST
    But, is this

    he is just paying hundreds of people with clipboards and voter registration info to walk around his events to "fool" us.

    Out of the realm of possibilities?  Look who we're talking about? PT Barnum of the 21st century!

    Parent

    And don't forget (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:20:50 AM EST
    He's going to drop out and make a reality show any day now.

    Parent
    I didn't forget (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:30:00 AM EST
    I still think it'should going to happen.

    Parent
    Sad thing is (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:45:34 PM EST
    ...white, under-educated, blue collar, working people

    Used to be the Democratic base, until they felt abandoned.

    Parent

    And before the party (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:51:09 PM EST
    Was about civil rights.  I'm surrounded by those "democrats".   Ones who still vote straight democrat locally but have not voted for a democrat at the state or federal level in decades.

    Parent
    Abandoned? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:59:11 PM EST
    Used to be the Democratic base, until they felt abandoned.

    They felt "abandoned" when the Civil Rights Act outlawed the horror they had inflicted for a century on black citizens. The Democratic base then added Southern blacks who were not previously permitted to vote.  No loss to the party.

    Nixon's "Southern Strategy" legitimized the bigotry and hatred of their country of the poor whites and gave them a political voice.  I don't want them back.  Do you?


    Parent

    There's (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:01:54 PM EST
    more to it than that but who are you talking about is the Democratic party losing the south and that is correct.  

    Parent
    Um, (none / 0) (#41)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:05:38 PM EST
    I'm from Macomb County, Michigan.  The home of the Reagan Democrats - remember them? Blue collar, mostly union workers  (remember when Democrats did things like drive American cars and supported union labor).   Those people were the party's base.  

    Yeah, I'd like those voters back.  

    Parent

    So does Bernie (none / 0) (#111)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:10:30 AM EST
    His revolution depends on it

    When discussing how he'll make his revolution happen, one thing Sanders often talks about is mobilizing people who don't tend to turn out to vote. "Sixty percent of the American people are not likely to vote in the coming [midterm] election," he told a crowd in Waterloo, Iowa, back when he was considering whether to run. "You think you can bring around change with that dynamic? You can have the best human being in the world in the White House fighting all the right fights, and he or she will fail."

    But beyond these vague and theoretical nonvoters -- whom politicians of all stripes frequently claim they'll be able to conjure-- Sanders has a very specific idea about just which demographic Democrats need to improve among: white people, especially older ones living in rural areas.



    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:49:23 AM EST
    article. I have been hearing about "nonvoters" for almost three decades and they never materialize.

    Parent
    I'm with you (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:37:11 PM EST
    but I don't think it is going to happen. I guess a good guide would be how many people actually watched the GOP debates in 2012.

    Parent
    Chris Matthews? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:24:31 PM EST
    Who is going to watch a principle-free shill who sucks up to whomever is currently in power?  I love me some Rachel Maddow, I like me some Chris Hayes, me no likey Matthews.  He got a tingle in his leg listening to an Obama speech.  But he also loved Bush, the complete opposite of Obama.  If you are not already disgusted with Matthews, here's what he said when he saw G.W. Bush doing his "mission accomplished" act.

    We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like [former President Bill] Clinton or even like [former Democratic presidential candidates Michael] Dukakis or [Walter] Mondale, all those guys, [George] McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits. We don't want an indoor prime minister type, or the Danes or the Dutch or the Italians, or a [Russian Federation President Vladimir] Putin. Can you imagine Putin getting elected here? We want a guy as president.

    George. W. Bush, the "hero."  I just threw up a little in my mouth.

    After saying that, he now loves the erudite, complicated, indoor sport (basketball), non-posing, non tough-talking Obama.  Dude has issues.  Why does MSNBC pay him to make them public?

    Parent

    The Science (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    of internet trolls


    A lot of the points made in this amusing video are pretty obvious, but it's always a good idea to remind ourselves that trolls want you to get upset and angry at them.

    I'm not sure I agree that ignoring trolls is the best tactic in all cases, though; usually it is, but sometimes it's better to respond in ways that subvert their sadistic intentions -- with facts and mockery, refusing to take their outrage bait and ignoring their transparent leading questions



    You should (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:27:16 PM EST
    start stalking our trolls with that paragraph.

    Parent
    For all the good it did (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:36:13 PM EST
    I've trolled (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:51:43 PM EST
    By that I mean I'm not a big fan of the Avengers movies and I went to forums for those fans to spoil their fun.  Of course, It's a dumb waste of time.

    But truth is I don't hate those movies, I'm just not their number one fan.

    Point is I have a pretty, I think, humanist view on the issue, it's extremely rare for someone to disrupt for absolutely no reason at all. I hope.

    Basically in retrospect if I understand the definition of trolling I wasnt trolling avengers fans cause I actually dont really think those movies are so great, i was speaking a sincere opinion.  

    But i was being a dick. Like a vegetarian giving everyone a lecture during thanksgiving dinner.

    In contrast I do think trump is trolling republicans and our democracy at large.

    Parent

    Too Easy... (none / 0) (#139)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:32:34 AM EST
    ...but we knew that already.

    Parent
    Stop trolling (none / 0) (#153)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:31:09 PM EST
    My comment.  LOL.

    Parent
    This we know (none / 0) (#170)
    by sj on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    I've trolled (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:51:43 PM MDT
    So what did you learn from that experience?

    Parent
    That I should hang out (none / 0) (#184)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:21:21 PM EST
    With democrats who support democrats.

    Parent
    Very intuitive (none / 0) (#197)
    by sj on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    to learn that lesson from trolling movie forums.

    What do you consider "hanging out"?

    Parent

    I admit it (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:09:33 PM EST
    I watched OReilly.  Just the Donald part.  I can't even believe it myself.  It was fun to watch someone who OReilly could not shout down.    

    It took two joints to get through it.

    Bill spent the entire time (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:20:24 PM EST
    Wheedling, begging, cajoling, whining to get him to participate in the debate.  
    Even tho he told Trump he would not before the interview which Trump said on the air and OReilly admitted and then kept doing it.

    Awsum.

    Parent

    I caught a radio interview Trump did (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    with Michael Weiner Savage in which The Weiner practically beseeched Trump NOT to participate, because all his supporters knew how unfairly he'd been treated, and he didn't have anything at all to prove to them.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#84)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:10:44 PM EST
    blame Trump for choosing to skip this one.

    When all is said and done, this is purely a commercial enterprise by Fox. It is a moneymaker for them. They use the candidates to create a spectacle in order to sell us sh-t.

    Trump must figure that he has little or nothing to gain by yet another appearance in which most of his time is spent just standing there.

    Personally, I glad that he will be raising money for our veterans rather than helping to fill the coffers of the bloated imbeciles at FOX. Our government has been shamefully neglecting our veterans. So good luck to Trump in this endeavor.

    These debates are presented in such a way that we are made to feel that the moderators are at least as important, and sometimes much moreso, than the candidates.

    The news-people think that they are the stars. And when they see many millions are watching, they get all puffed up and self-satisfied.

    Having them get millions of viewers less because Trump isn't there might give their fat egos a little hit. And I wouldn't mind if their advertisers were to lose a chunk of change either.

    Who's gonna tune in to see Crazy-eyes Cruz or somnambulating Carson or Florina the Nasty, or poor befuddled Paul, or pancake-brain Jeb?

    Not I.

    Parent

    Trump is willing to debate Ted Cruz... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by desertswine on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:57:47 PM EST
    in Canada...
    Even though I beat him in the first six debates, especially the last one, Ted Cruz wants to debate me again. Can we do it in Canada?

    These are not mature adult human beings.  These are seriously damaged people.

    Parent
    I put Trump's name in one of those (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:58:18 PM EST
    anagrammer things, and my favorites that it came up with are:

    Lord Damp Nut
    Lord Dump Tan
    Old Damp Runt

    The things we do for entertainment, huh?

    Let's see what else we can have fun with...

    Hillary Clinton

    Chilly Rant Lion
    Thrill Only Can I

    Bernie Sanders:

    Brained Sneers
    Benders Arisen
    Benders In Ears
    Sabered Sinner
    Brains Ends Ere

    Parent

    More of this, please (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:28:53 AM EST
    Post-blizzard, Sen. Murkowski notes that only women turned up to run the Senate

    Something was a little different in the Senate on Tuesday morning. And Sen. Lisa Murkowski noticed it.

    The Alaska Republican was one of only a few lawmakers in the Capitol building following the weekend blizzard, and it was her job to handle the formalities of delaying Senate business until her colleagues could get back to work. After finishing a bit of parliamentary business, she described what she saw in the ornate chamber.

    "As we convene this morning, you look around the chamber, the presiding officer is female. All of our parliamentarians are female. Our floor managers are female. All of our pages are female."

    The icing on the cake will be a woman as president too.  :)

    I Find the Argument... (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 04:03:44 PM EST
    ...that voting for Obama was for the slogan, like voting for Bernie would be, while simultaneously supporting Obama 3 & 4.

    I would argue the people that voted for Obama made the best decision, and if they are gonna vote for Bernie, they have a proven record of voting for the best decision.

    I am not locked in on Bernie at all, but GD that rationalization and pretzel twisting as to why he is a poor, poor, choice leads me to believe that if that is all they have, 'voting for a slogan' Bernie must be doing something right.

    Still trying to process how one spends a lot of energy tearing down Obamacare, then all of a sudden, it's not so bad, and the better alternative, gets no support because it can't possibly work.  It's going to really be something over the next 8 years when Obamacare costs really increase and what the nay sayers are going to say when after 8 years of the same, HRC, their cost have doubled, at the very least.

    kdog, about the debate. (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    Clinton did not ask for another debate. MSNBC and the New Hampshire newspaper, cannot remember its name, wanted to host a debate between Iowa and New Hampshire. They asked the three Dem candidates to participate.

    What the Sanders staffer said is incorrect and misleading.

    Donald... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jan 29, 2016 at 12:20:18 PM EST
    ...you changed your argument from people going left to right as they grow older to being more temperamental.  OK, that sounds about right.

    But considering you went from Reagan to Clinton and Clinton went from Goldwater to Clinton, the whole Churchill bit doesn't jive with that, nor does your original comment.  Many D's have never been R's, including me, and many of us have moved further left.

    For the record, if a I ran into a younger me, he would not call me a sellout like your younger version would.  I would imagine he would ask for some cash, to borrow my car, and if my GF was around he probably ask where she can be found in his time continuum.

    I would slap him, give him a couple bucks and tell him to get lost, but that is me and even at as a youth I disliked Reagan probably more than GWB in that I was experimenting with the things he was telling parents and kids to call the cops and report their loved ones over.  He effected my youth greatly and ensure everyone that age and younger who experimented, would have to deal with years of the police state.  

    You found that appealing, OK.  My parents loved Reagan and I don't have the stones to ask about GWB because I fear I know the answer.

    Maybe you are wrong about Sanders, you know, like how you were wrong about Reagan.  Joking, but you clearly don't get Sanders, and I would argue it's because you are the very word you said younger Donald would call you.  If you want to call that temperamental or age educing wisdom, so be it, but to insist that only the foolish would vote for Sanders because you were foolish and voted for Reagan, is without a doubt, projecting.  Maybe some of those people are leaps and bound ahead of a younger you or even current you in their believes and their convictions.

    I will probably vote for HRC, but I don't know, what I do know is I am sick of everyone acting like only a fool would vote for Sanders.  No one is calling his ideas bad, no it's that somehow a Clinton is going to get more cooperation in Congress than Sanders because her legislation is more moderate.  I would argue who is the real fool?  Clinton could push legislation declaring 'puppies are cute' and it would not pass the House.

    NO DOG IN FIGHT (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    Seriously.  I don't.  But I am enjoying the HELL out of it.

    Maybe my favorite part is seeing "liberal lions". Rush to the barricades to defend a hack like Megyn Kelly and her foul employer FOX news because it serves their purpose of the day.

    Let's be honest about that first GOP debate hosted by Brett Baier and Megyn Kelly: we were all impressed that Megyn asked Donald Trump some substantive questions. Of course, the backlash from Trump and his sycophants somehow made the man even more popular, contrary to what usually happens to candidates when they appear so defensive. The yammerers at Morning Joe were discussing this latest kerfuffle between Fox News and the Donald, as expected

    LINK

    Or would it be (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:09:31 PM EST
    FAUX NEWS waxing rhapsodic about "journalistic standards"

    Capitulating to politicians' ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats, including the one leveled by Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski toward Megyn Kelly.

    I JUST don't know.

    LINK

    Parent

    The good (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    thing about all this is the fact that Fox News has been turned into a laughingstock of news. they are proving what we already knew. I wonder what CNN or any somewhat credible news service would have done? I would guess they would have gone ahead and had the debate without Trump. I know he tried it with CNN but I don't recall it working.

    And that response from Fox News to the whole dust up is just juvenile.

    Parent

    Good article (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    from Joan Walsh here

    Thank you for posting that. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:07:33 PM EST
    I loved how Joan Walsh noted how "horrified" she was at her qualified endorsement of Hillary Clinton last year, and quoted herself from that endorsement in almost self-deprecating fashion:

    "My willingness to accept Clinton as a Democratic presidential nominee doesn't stem from any great passion for Hillary herself -- though I respect her -- but from my aversion to the impotent game of 'Let's find an insurgent candidate who will topple a centrist front-runner!' played by the left every four to eight years."

    In that regard, Walsh was where Paul Krugman seems to be today, in cautioning the Democratic left, "Don't let idealism veer into destructive self-indulgence."

    Speaking for myself only, I support Mrs. Clinton not only because I feel that she's the best and most qualified candidate for the job, but because for the country's sake and given the nutballs in the GOP, we really need to win this one. While I like Bernie Sanders, were he to somehow become our party's nominee, our chances of retaining the White House in November will likely be rendered very problematic.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It set (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:31:54 PM EST
    off a whole hastag on twitter pretty quick after WeWontBeErased. I think between the media and others Hillary supporters are just frustrated and Walsh put into words what they are all feeling especially about that "entitled guy".

    Parent
    Yeah, but when you're as young as ... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:53:04 PM EST
    ... that young man who posed that question to Mrs. Clinton, you tend to think you know it all, even though you really don't.

    When you're older, as both of us are, you tend to resent the perceived impertinence underscoring such a question posed by that little smarta$$.

    But if you're as smart as Hillary Clinton, you recognize that such moments provide you with an opportunity to make your case to everyone who's watching. And she handled that moment very well indeed.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    She did (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:12:09 PM EST
    and while I think he meant to "hurt" Hillary with that question the only person he seemed to "hurt" was himself.

    Parent
    Proof That Fox News... (none / 0) (#4)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:17:58 PM EST
    ...will label anything as terror.

    Fox News accuses Donald Trump of 'terrorizing' network after debate exit

    "We can't give in to terrorizations of any of our employees," said a company spokesman. "Capitulating to politicians' ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards, as do threats including the one leveled by Trump's campaign manager ... toward Megyn Kelly."

    To be clear, this is what started all of it:

    You've called women you don't like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals, does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president? And how do you answer the charge from Hillary Clinton - that you are part of the war on women?

    I do like Cruz's new pitch, 'Ducking Donald' followed with this lameness:

    the Texas conservative joked that Trump was "a fragile soul [whose] hair might stand" if hit with tough questions.


    A panel on CNN (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    With a democratic strategist who can't get the stupid grin off her face and a republican strategist who looks like he has impacted constipation.

    Parent
    I Am So Tired... (none / 0) (#7)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    ...of discussing Trump, but GD I can't stop it or even stop clicking on every story. He is the car crash that that we are practically breaking our necks to view.

    Parent
    I think you captured the phenom (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 04:50:56 PM EST
    In one sentence.

    So, ok.

    Let's talk about FOX.  I love that you posted that quote.  I only linked to it and considered posting a quote but it would have required replying to my own comment.  You know.
    That statement is mind boggling.  It really is.   From a major news organization about a major political candidate.  Boggling.

    It was like "MOOOOOOOM........did you hear what he said?!!?!?  He threatened me!!!!  MOOOOOOOOOM!!!!"

    I literally spit up when I read that.

    Parent

    "All's Well That Ends Well" etc. (none / 0) (#20)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:58:15 PM EST
    Like you Capt., I've been fascinated by Donald Trump for some time ... mostly, fascinated by his numerous attempts at pushing limits of acceptable & traditional behavior AND not only escaping unscathed, but also enhancing his position.  The fact that his escapades, gambles, bullying tactics, loud bravado has worked for him so far in the party that has been going-off-the-rails for awhile only furthers my theory that many in his party who cave or cower in front of him are examples of wannabes--losers & wannabes--who have been immersed in a panoply of victimhood.  

    I truly hope the show never gets anywhere near the WH, of course ... because, while it is funny (verging on a kind of hysteria now), we might not be prepared for the economic loss that so many would really endure and--certainly--we could not anticipate the effects wrought by his authoritarian personality.

    Parent

    Fascinated, yes (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:10:44 PM EST
    But I have not thought it was funny for a long while.   I am the one who has been sounding a little like a crazy J the B preaching in the wilderness that we damn well better start taking him seriously.

    I can laugh as he incinerates the Republican Party but I have a very bad feeling that he knows exactly what he is doing and it just might work on a larger audience.

    Not funny.  No sir.

    Parent

    I believe Clinton would destroy him in the GE (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:13:00 PM EST
    Of course I also believe (none / 0) (#26)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:14:32 PM EST
    more than half the country has half a brain. Something I should realize may be false after the election of GWB.

    Parent
    USNews (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:36:58 AM EST

    So if Donald Trump proved the political universe wrong and won the Republican presidential nomination, he would be creamed by Hillary Clinton, correct?

    A new survey of likely voters might at least raise momentary dyspepsia for Democrats since it suggests why it wouldn't be a cakewalk.

    The survey by Washington-based Mercury Analytics is a combination online questionnaire and "dial-test" of Trump's first big campaign ad among 916 self-proclaimed "likely voters" (this video shows the ad and the dial test results). It took place primarily Wednesday and Thursday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

    Nearly 20 percent of likely Democratic voters say they'd cross sides and vote for Trump, while a small number, or 14 percent, of Republicans claim they'd vote for Clinton. When those groups were further broken down, a far higher percentage of the crossover Democrats contend they are "100 percent sure" of switching than the Republicans.

    LINK



    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:19:23 PM EST
    I once did as well.  I hope you are right.  

    He has been already making some very moderate and sensible sounding noises.  Working across the aisle.  Having the government control prescription drug prices.  Donald is not a conservative.  They are right about that.  When and if he gets the nomination..........

    Just don't underestimate him.  S'all I'm sayin.  Look where that got the Republican Party.

    I would also say don't underestimate the resistance to Hillary or his ability to exploit it.

    Parent

    He should not be underestimated (none / 0) (#81)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:00:19 PM EST
    In fact, that is how he got this far ... everyone, including & especially his own party who appeared to think they were using him when it was the other way around, underestimated his technique, approach, skilled use of demagogic communication.  

    Should he reach the general election, I doubt that he will enjoy a repeat benefit born of underestimation.  IMO, Hillary Clinton knows exactly how to deal with his persona.

    Parent

    Really (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:09:00 PM EST
    You mean like when she called him sexist and he knocked her and Bubba both back on their heels and shut them up with a couple of tweets.  So that the following day neither of them would even say his name?   Like that?

    I see absolutely no evidence that the underestimation would be any less in a general election.  In fact exactly the opposite with your comment as exhibit A.

    I see nothing but sneering dismissal of him in a general election.   Not unlike the sneering dismissal of his chances in a republican primary until the noticed they were up to their ass in alligators.

    Parent

    You might (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:49:25 AM EST
    see a "sneering dismissal" of him on blogs but in the real world Hispanics and other ethnic groups are organizing like crazy against him.

    Parent
    Trump (none / 0) (#114)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    would be a much lesser light with out his media enablers. You assert
    he knocked her and Bubba both back on their heels and shut them up with a couple of tweets
    .

    The story was that Trump has a proven history of making sexist statements, even Hillary's calling him sexist was not really a story as very many journalists, pundits and politicians(even many Republicans) had said or at least strongly inferred it.
    "
    Suddenly Trump throws a "couple of tweets" out and the media allows that to become the story. Instead of focusing on the here and now, reporting on Trumps very public and blatant rude and crude statement, they choose to rehash ancient(politically speaking)history, it wasn't even a shiny object, yet once again they became obsessed with it.

    Instead of using this as a platform to actually discuss the very real gender issues that face this country the media chose  to be distracted by a "couple of tweets".

    There are three main reasons for the rise of Trump: His appeal to the knuckle draggers of the GOP base, the total fecklessness of the Republican party and probably most importantly the abject failure of the press.

    For sure, politics ain't beanbag, and a little chin music is expected, but when the umps are consistently calling the high and tight ones as strikes anybody can be a HOF pitcher.

    Parent

    You keep making this point (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:33:45 AM EST
    Which I do not disagree with, as if it makes any difference.

    The media hates Hillary.  Newsflash.

    They seem to love Donald.   Whatever.

    These are the way of the world.   Is it fair? No.   Is it right?  No,
    Does that change anything?  No.

    This is the world we live in.  It's time we started factoring it into thoughts about a general election.

    Parent

    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:40:34 AM EST
    I saw that USNews thing I linked to upthread a while back and it made my teeth hurt because it absolutely matches my own anecdotal experience that I have related here more than once.   Longtime former democrats will vote for Donald.  Some frequent republican voters, like my conservative brother, might vote for Hillary but I get the feeling when the rubber hits the road he won't do it.   Not at all with the democrats

    Parent
    There's (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 08:52:12 AM EST
    going to be some definite switching around if it ends up being Hillary vs. Trump. Yes, some of them will vote for Trump for sure but there's also some Republicans who absolutely will not vote for Trump.

    Parent
    Surprisingly true (none / 0) (#157)
    by kerril on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:06:41 PM EST
    I've been quite surprised by my very conservative friends and family's reactions to a Trump nomination. They say for the first time ever they wouldn't vote at all. I had no idea they disliked him that much or why they do.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:20:22 AM EST
    keep making the point that Donald is some kind of master politician when he is no such thing, he is merely a one eyed man the in land of the blind that is the current state of the Republican party.

    As to the general, his rabid base will contribute no more than it does in the primary, those people would never vote Dem in any case. The fecklessness of the Republican party can only hurt him with tepid support and the barely hidden loathing from many of the "intellectuals" the media can do no worse then it is currently doing and with just a modicum of sensibility(ie. actually focusing on the issues) it would probably hurt him.

    I am really hoping that Trump wins the nomination, he has many weaknesses that for various reasons have not been hit upon yet. If nothing else the American people are very liable to get bored with his shtick and if they don't and they are stupid enough to elect this clown than we were probably doomed in the first place.

    Parent

    I Agree Captain... (none / 0) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:32:22 AM EST
    ...to think he can mop up republicans and not democrats using a style that is more or less worked for republicans for along time against democrats, is not dealing with reality.  R's love the dirty fight, D's do well when it by the book politics.

    HRC is not ready for Trump in any way, her campaigns biggest flaw is not being nimble(your word) or even flexible.  Trump shut her sexism angle down with one tweet, and as far as I can tell, she hasn't mentioned it since.

    I do think Trump has a huge flaw, his answer to Megyn Kelly's question about him being at war with women is to start a war with a woman at Fox News.  I hope they are saving this for the general, and I hope they are going to push it day in and day out.

    Funny about the above comment in regards to Fox News reply, around 18 hours later, it's old news, we are already on to the O'Reilly bit.  I mean this election could not be covered in any other age but the digital one.  The nightly news and papers would have to report like 3 big Trump stories some days.

    No real point other than with Trump you can't really focus on one thing because before you know it, there is another.  None of this dissecting and experts and blah, blah, blah, because while the experts are dissecting Trump, he's created another story.

    Parent

    On the "on to the next story" thing (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    I was just thinking watching the morning shows on Mr Starimaster, everyone seems finally to have accepted that, no, Donald really really is not coming to the debate.  AND he wins the news cycle hands down.

    Fair enough

    What would happen if he walks onto the debate stage after its to late to put our a podium?  Or pulls some other stunt like flying in like Mary Poppins.
    Can you say it's impossible?  Point is, this could still go so many different ways.  Which is why the media and most of the country is transfixed.

    But, yeah, the guy is a crappy politician.  Just a boob who got lucky.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#141)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:40:50 AM EST
    I love the visual of Donald Trump "flying in like Mary Poppins".

    I am going to be laughing about this all day.

    Parent

    I am (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:52:10 AM EST
    more picturing Trump sneaking up behind Cruz and bashing him over the head with a metal chair.

    Or maybe just giving Jeb a wedgie, who knows with that rascal.

    Parent

    Oh, (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    giving Jeb a wedgie? I can completely see that happening. He's already given him mental wedgies.

    Parent
    Then the Horror That Would Follow... (none / 0) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    ...when we all realize Jeb goes commando or he's got skid marks like an 18 wheeler because mommy and daddy never showed how to properly use toilet paper.

    I can't help put picture the look of shock that would be on Trump's face and the first time he's ever been stunned to silence while staring at the tighty whities that aren't so white.

    Parent

    Yes, and some (none / 0) (#188)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    of those "establishment" conservatives see this as an opportunity for Jeb! to shine.  Or, Rubio to show his stuff (now that he is taller).  Fighting for scraps and delusional.

    Parent
    Perhaps, I wasn't clear, Capt. (none / 0) (#169)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:43:21 PM EST
    I have not underestimated him for a long time. And, in making some of the points that you make, my Democratic friends wondered aloud what I was saying.  IMO, it is always important to know your opposition.  Now ... what I also know is that the components, values, structure of the electoral college, demographics in the general election are very (as in very, very) different than in the world of Republican voters.

    So much is about timing and different arguments/responses for different election frames.  For example: It appears that Trump has near perfected the art of baiting his selected opponents/targets, and when they take the emotional bait ... he wins.  Clinton knows that too ... she saves her fire ... and has his lunch later.  IMO.

    Parent

    Sorry, Donald news (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    He has announced his competing event at Drake University in DesMoines same time as the debate to benefit veterans.

    LINK

    Parent

    where else but in America (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    A pampered draft dodger, serial bankrupter, crude, lewd misogynist, pathological xenophobe, and, all-around, international pariah.....

    will duck a debate, and preach to veterans,

    to non-stop standing ovations.

    Parent

    PT Barnum (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:36:04 PM EST
    has to be laughing from heaven at all this.

    Parent
    I can think of several dictatorships to start.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    OMG wasn't gonna say anything (none / 0) (#33)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    But it's five for five now over last two hours everytime i bump into a Bernie supporter on twitter I look at their profile and theres some weird scatalogical aggro tension coming from it, if it's not "my opinions are my own go f yourself" it's literally a middle finger on the profile pic.  Then it's the guy who calls himself "Bernie MF Sanders" and I'm pretty sure the MF isnt... Oh Nevermind.

    If issues didn't exist and it was strictly and ONLY a cultural thing, and it was Bloomberg vs Bernie vs Trump, I'd vote Bloomberg.

    The issues DO exist (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:49:21 PM EST
    If issues didn't exist and it was strictly and ONLY a cultural thing, and it was Bloomberg vs Bernie vs Trump, I'd vote Bloomberg.

    Since there are actual issues, and since Mr. Sanders is far ahead of either of those two rich, arrogant, bigoted fools in patriotism and political experience, your point is...?

    "If the sky was green instead of blue, I'd vote for..."


    Parent

    My point is (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:09:30 PM EST
    Ithe culture is not really my thing and as far as that hypothetical is concerned it is only cause I know a president Bernie will be nothing at all like candidate Bernie that I'd vote for Bernie.

    Parent
    I got a deal for ya Kmk.... (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:06:18 PM EST
    Don't hold me against my boy Bernie, and I won't hold you against Hillary;)

    Which horse you like may say something about you, but it says next to nothing about the horse.

    Parent

    I'm not your (none / 0) (#45)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:10:31 PM EST
    Avg Clinton supporter.

    Parent
    Find Me an Average One... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    ...and I will give you a gold star.

    Parent
    Bernie's (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 06:44:51 PM EST
    campaign manager came down on his supporters on twitter because there were so many people seeing what you were seeing and even Greg Sargent commented on it. However another person postulated that a lot of them might be teenage boys who are not even old enough to vote but are old enough to tweet.

    Parent
    So, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:21:22 PM EST
    Sanders voters are belittled as decrepit old-timers one day, and freaky teenagers the next.


    Parent
    As we get older, most of us tend to ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:40:11 PM EST
    ... become more pragmatic in our personal choices, based upon our prior experiences with previous choices. I think Winston Churchill described the phenomenon best, when he quipped, "If you're under 30 and not a liberal, then you have no heart; and if you're over 30 and not more conservative, then you have no head."

    I understand why millennials are attracted to Bernie Sanders. It's for the very same reasons why I was supporting the Rev. Jesse Jackson during the 1988 Democratic primaries, rather than eventual nominee Michael Dukakis. When you're younger, more often than not you're motivated by your passions for the immediate moment. As we age, those passions are often tempered by the wisdom we gain from both time and experience.

    The other day, I stopped and wondered that if I had possessed the knowledge and maturity in 1988 that I have today, would I still have supported Jackson. And I had to admit to myself, probably not.

    My younger self would have likely chastised the older me for selling out, while my elder alter ego would have observed that it is often better -- not always, but often -- to be pragmatic and ultimately successful, than to be defiant and eventually marginalized. As to who is right, well, they both are, each in his own inimitable way.

    The one good thing about Sanders' young supporters is that, say what one will about them, they certainly weren't raised by their parents to be doormats.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    That is You Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:02:39 AM EST
    ...please don't project how you feel onto anyone.

    I disagree that heading to the right is pragmatic just because you are getting older.  I would say I am more liberal than when I was younger for the very same reason, I understand more how the world works than as a younger me.  Positions in which I have have moved from left-center to way left, the poor, the military/foreign policy, prisons, inequality, and the rights of minorities including LBGT.

    As far as taking advise from someone I don't know who was born a hundred years before me, I will pass considering that conservatism in the British 40's was nothing like it is in modern day America and a quote that is as silly as 'A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet'.

    My point, that is about the most ridiculous excuse for Sanders popularity I have read to date, Winston Churchill, Jesse Jackson, Michael Dukakis, I mean seriously.  Talk about three names I never thought I read in the same post, much less one explaining why the older guy thinks young people like Sanders.

    Also, you do realize you called yourself a sell-out, right ?  To which I would reply that might explain why you don't get Sanders more than what is wrong with today's youth.

    I believe I am around 5 years younger than you at 45.

    Parent

    There are a couple of observations that (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    I like:

    Robert Reich:

    In my view, she's [Clinton] the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.

    But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he's leading a political movement for change.

    And Charlie Pierce, responding to a Fred Hiatt editorial in the Washington Post:

    What Bernie Sanders proposes may be blue-sky stuff, but at least it's looking at the sky. It's not the shoe-gazing trudge toward oligarchy with which The Washington Post is comfortable.

    And this, from Salon:

    What Sanders supporters and Americans at large should really ask is, when has any truly significant political change come about without the people becoming politically active and demanding it? Did civil rights legislation make it through Congress because LBJ and other old white men thought it was the right thing to do, or because millions of people decided to stand up and resist? Did the political reforms of the Progressive Era happen because Theodore Roosevelt believed in the virtues of democracy, or because the agrarian populists, labor organizations, and radical movements threatened the status quo? Would the right to vote have finally been given to women if not for several decades of organizing and campaigning? As Noam Chomsky's favorite anarcho-syndicalist, Rudolf Rocker, wrote many years ago:

       "What is important is not that governments have decided to concede certain rights to the people, but the reason why they have had to do this."

    I don't expect the Clinton supporters to agree with any of this, but it does seem like food for thought.

    Parent

    I do agree with it (none / 0) (#186)
    by CST on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:31:02 PM EST
    And I would note that the rabble rousers - while critical and important - weren't actually the president.

    The president was impacted by the loud voices outside the establishment.  And in fact, the establishment president ultimately adopted and implemented those reforms.  If anything, it's a case to keep his loud voice outside the system to a point.

    There are some Clinton supporters who disagree with Sander's vision.  There are others of us who just don't think that he is the best person to implement that vision on a presidential level.  I wouldn't automatically assume we all fall into that first camp.

    Parent

    They're all right, of course. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:41:42 PM EST
    And as I've said before, Sanders' presence in the race has been very important in that respect.

    But you know, Anne, Sam Adams was arguably the principal protagonist who incited what became the American Revolution. But once events were set into motion and open hostilities with the mother country Great Britain commenced, people decided that this firebrand wasn't the guy who should necessarily lead the effort, and he was moved aside for good reason.

    And that's the way I feel about Bernie Sanders in the present. He's the guy who can strike the match and light the flame, but I don't think he's the right guy to be carrying the torch going forward.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Nobody is projecting, Scott. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:50:10 PM EST
    It's not a hard and fast rule, and there are exceptions. But studies have shown that as we age, we tend to temper our passions. It has nothing to do with becoming more conservative politically, but rather with being more pragmatic in your choices as you get older and survey the possibilities.

    Since I'll be 55 next month, I'm almost ten years older than you, and I can tell you that I'm a lot more tempered in my outlook now than I was ten years ago. It's not that I'm any less liberal, but rather that my own life's experiences, particularly in politics, has led me to alter my approach in attempting to accomplish my objectives.

    Hell, I grew up in a Republican-leaning family, and at age 19 the very first person I voted for president was Ronald Reagan in 1980, so it doesn't get more conservative than that. But within eight years, as I shook off my family's political identity and started to formulate one of my own, I came to profoundly regret that vote for Reagan and had become decidedly far-left liberal.

    As I got older, I learned that proactive change is very rarely (if ever) realized immediately, and that if you truly want to effect conditions as they are, you best adopt a long-term outlook and adapt your choices accordingly.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Cool here's a question (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    If social media existed back in the day when you were supporting rev. Jackson would you put the f-word in your social media profile?

    Parent
    And your point is -- what, exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:56:34 PM EST
    See comment #49 (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:03:36 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:36:51 AM EST
    Let's give the kid a break, Anne. He sounds like the ink hasn't quite dried on his college diploma yet.

    Parent
    oh (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:54:09 AM EST
    kids.  

    kids.

    Parent

    The wet ink (none / 0) (#163)
    by sj on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:25:52 PM EST
    would be on a forgery I think.

    Parent
    That there's something else (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:15:26 PM EST
    Here going on besides impassioned support of the overton window candidate. There's an aggression.

    Another profile I just saw the guy doesn't just say "Bernie 2016" it says "you angry and you need therapy" if you disagree.

    Oh and this wasn't a millennial, looks like a dude in his 50s.

    Anyway I don't get it.  I have confrontational opinions (my hot take about Coates criticism of clinton is even a tad embarrasing in retrospect) sure but I wouldn't put it on my profile in a way to convey a me vs you sorta paradigm.


    Parent

    I've been involved in electoral politics for nearly three decades, and you sound like the first timers I used to interview who were seeking jobs at the sState legislature, e.g., "I have a B.A. in political science." Good for you. That and $2 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    The first thing you can do here is stop speaking in jsrgon like you're somehow in the know. I mean, what's with this "overton window" crap? This isn't PoliSci 101, and this ain't our first time at the rodeo for most of us here. (And if you even dare to try and explain to me what the term means, I swear I'm going to hunt down your inner child and kick its little a$$.)

    As the late House Speaker Tip O'Neill used to quip, politics ain't beanbag. My advice to you is something I believe I said to you earlier -- grow a pair. You either need to develop a thicker hide and not take things so personally, or you better find something else to do that's more suitable to your sensitivities.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    ok (none / 0) (#95)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:51:12 AM EST
    you find nothing wrong with the aggro GRRRRR ragey  stuff.  i didn't think everyone would agree with my perspective.  but it's something that still creeps me out thin skin and all.

    Parent
    I don't engage it because I don't go there. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:00:39 PM EST
    Why would I let the folks at DKos or wherever aggravate me?

    There's an old Persian proverb that I often quote, "Dogs bark, and the caravan passes." Let the dogs bark, and move on.

    If you support Mrs. Clinton, then be proactive and volunteer for her campaign. But please dispel yourself of any illusions that you're likely to change a political partisan's mind in the midst of an election campaign, because you're not. So why bother, and incur only frustration for your efforts?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I have been slugging it out (none / 0) (#91)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:58:45 AM EST
    with the Bernistas on Big Orange.

    The Hillary folks there are outnumbered and getting hammered by a bunch of snotty punks.  They could use some help.

    And, check out this WaPo editorial from today entitled "Bernie Sanders Fiction Filled Campaign."

    Parent

    I forget...did you say that if (none / 0) (#99)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 06:39:08 AM EST
    Sanders is the nominee you will vote for him?  And if he is the nominee, and you intend to vote for him, how will you "slug it out" with those voting Republican?  Will you find positives, or will it just be a case of voting against the GOP?

    Not being snarky here, just so you know.  But I know from my own experience that in the process of defending someone you weren't particularly that enthused about as a candidate, you can actually find yourself becoming a convincing advocate - not just convincing others, but yourself in the process.

    Ask yourself this: if Clinton wasn't running, what would you be doing?  Who would you be supporting?

    Parent

    Yes, I would vote for Bernie (none / 0) (#158)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    but with a sense of dread.

    I would probably not campaign for Bernie but just watch with a bemused detachment as the Trump people dismantled him bit by bit.

    The phenomenon of advocating for someone previously opposed describes my current advocacy for Hillary.  I really, really opposed Hillary here on this blog in 2008.  I assume that is clear. I always liked her but just like Obama more.  I still think Obama is great but Hillary has won me over.

    She handled the defeat in 2008 with grace and grit.  She was a team player as Secretary of State, and I was amazed at her 11 hours of Benghazi testimony.  So, I am now fired up and ready to go for Hillary! (Get the Obama reference, ha, I amuse myself.)

    But that process took a matter of years and is based on actual events and things that she has done.

    Parent

    Deja vu (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:20:34 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton and the audacity of political realism

    In mid-2014, Noam Scheiber tracked down 10 former Iowa precinct captains for Barack Obama and asked whom they were supporting in 2016. The answer? Overwhelmingly, they were backing Hillary Clinton -- the very candidate they had worked so hard to beat in 2008. Seven of the 10 ex-Obama organizers told him they'd become "enthusiastic" Clinton supporters, and an eighth said she was "slowly coming around."

    The reassessment of Hillary Clinton was driven in part by the disillusionments of the Obama years. "Watching the system not change really made an impact on these people," Scheiber told me. "I don't think they want to get burned again."

    In 2008, Obama promised to transform American politics. By 2014, it was clear he had failed. Even Obama admits his presidency hasn't fulfilled the hopes raised by his campaign. "A singular regret for me is the fact that our body politic has become more polarized, the language, the spirit has become meaner than when I came in," he told Politico.

    If Obama was surprised by his presidency's failure to change the tenor of American politics, Clinton probably wasn't. She had always been clear that Obamaism was, in her view, shot through with naiveté about the nature of both American politics and Republican opposition.

    Many of us out here also saw the naivete, but were told by Obama supporters that "experience doesn't matter," and "Hope and Change" were going to win the day. They sound a lot like Sanders supporters who believe there is actually going to be a political revolution.

    Parent

    You know, I thought you might (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:54:54 PM EST
    do that.

    Just accept the current ally without trying to revisit old debates.  

    Suffice it to say I disagree.  There is a time and a season for all things. 2008 was Obama's time. I do not regret for a second voting for him and think he has been a good President.

    Parent

    interesting (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    So one weird thing that's happened this primary season is that almost my entire family agrees on who they support for the Dem. nomination (Clinton).  My Dad is maybe the lone Bernie holdout, but then he's probably to the left of Bernie politically.

    We were much more split over Obama/Hillary, probably leaning Obama if anything.

    That being said, the "change" is not disillusionment. If anything it's because as politicians Obama and Hillary are actually pretty close on most of the issues, certainly closer than Bernie.  Also, I think having gone through the 2008 primaries, even if you didn't vote for Clinton then you probably developed a kind of grudging respect for her at the very least, and many of us always liked her, we just liked Obama more.

    Say what you will about Obama, but he wasn't really advocating for a radical agenda.  He was advocating for working together, and bringing people together.  It may have been a bit optimistic, but it's also kind of the opposite of Bernie Sander's message.

    Anyway - just another point of view on why people would've made the switch.

    That being said, I don't really know why you're trying so hard to make Obama's presidency seem like a failure.  Not even Clinton is making that argument.  The 2008 primary is over, let it go.

    Parent

    I didn't say it was a failure (none / 0) (#173)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:52:07 PM EST
    I said he was selling the same naive slogans as Sanders, and both groups of supporters lapped it up at the same time condemning those of us who are more pragmatic and realistic.

    Yes, he's been a decent president. But it wasn't because of Hope and Change - it was because he put his big boy pants on and started living in reality.

    Parent

    maybe it was also because (none / 0) (#176)
    by CST on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:57:02 PM EST
    He had the background, intellect, and skill set to be a decent president - and maybe, just maybe, his supporters saw that too.

    He's wasn't selling the same slogans.  He was selling an entirely different slogan that appeals to a very different type of person, that was kind of my point.  It was the opposite of "let's pick a massive fight and radically transform everything now".  It was more about compromise.  Which, I dunno, sounds a lot more similar to what Hillary is saying.

    Parent

    And yet (2.00 / 1) (#181)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    Those who supported him were upset when he compromised.  That's why many of them are gravitating towards Bernie (to be ultimately disappointed, I guess, when he'd have to compromise).

    Interesting.  I guess they didn't get the message you got.

    The point was, many of us saw the political reality on 2008.  It'seems nice that others are finally getting on the train.  I guess we should ignore the fact that they're late to the party, and embrace the fact that they got here eventually.

    Parent

    god (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CST on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    You can't help yourself can you.  It's not enough to support your candidate you have to insult everyone who doesn't.

    Btw - I certainly wouldn't assume the Bernie supporters are the same people as the Obama '08 supporters.  It's 8 years later, I'm guessing a significant portion of his youth support were unable to vote at all in '08.  I don't see any evidence that they are flocking to Sanders.  Shoot, one huge demographic block that supported Obama seems to be firmly in Clinton's camp right now.  And it's also worth mentioning that Clinton beat Obama in New Hampshire - so it's pretty clear that the lines have changed.

    For that matter - just look at this blog.  Most of the Bernie supporters here were ardent Hillary supporters in '08.  I'm not saying there isn't any Bernie/Obama crossover support, but it certainly isn't the clear line that you are suggesting.

    Parent

    Shrug (2.00 / 1) (#193)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    I believe in process and I believe in learning from history. YMMV.

    And despite all the coverage, Bernie supporters aren't just "Young people who were too young to vote for Obama," (but keep believing the hype) - a lot of them are your age and older who were disappointed in what Obama couldn't achieve, but through magical thinking, they believe Bernie will be able to succeed where Obama couldn't.

    Parent

    and a lot of them (none / 0) (#194)
    by CST on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:08:31 PM EST
    are former Hillary supporters who prefer Bernie now.

    They are all over the place, that's my point, you can't just pick one group because it suits your narrative.

    Parent

    It's the attitude more than demographics (none / 0) (#198)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    Not sure why you can't see it.

    Support whatever candidate you want. But when presented with questions like, "What are the details to this and what is your plan for achieving this?" maybe it'seems better to have a less ethereal answer than, "We'll have a political revolution."  (What does that even mean in the real world? That we're suddenly going to have super majorities of liberal Democrats in both houses of Congress??)

    Parent

    because the attitude and agenda (none / 0) (#200)
    by CST on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:26:55 PM EST
    Are distinctly different.

    They have some minor superficial similarities, but that's it.  On policy, on approach, on style, on background, on everything else they are different.

    And Obama won voters 18-30 as well as 31-45.  The only age demographic Bernie is currently winning is 18-29, the vast majority of whom were not eligible to vote in 2008.

    Just because neither one of them appeals to you does not make their appeal the same.

    Parent

    Shrug... (none / 0) (#196)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    some Bernie supporters were Nader supporters in '08, and Jill Stein supporters in '12.

    More still supported no one in '08 or '12.

    Parent

    And a lot of them are people that just don't vote (none / 0) (#199)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:23:40 PM EST
    Like Nader supporters and Stein supporters

    Parent
    Nobody accused me... (none / 0) (#201)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:29:52 PM EST
    of not voting in Tallahassee in 2000! ;)

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    I just think people were not ready to hear Hillary's message back then for whatever reason or didn't want to listen or whatever.

    Parent
    As Mr Blake said.. (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    A man who never alters his opinions is like stagnant water and breeds reptiles of the mind.

    Parent
    You mean, tiger, tiger (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:00:21 PM EST
    burning bright Mr. Blake?

    From that era I tended to Wordsworth, but he was the genius of the group.....Wordsworth was soothing if somewhat simple.  Blake made my head hurt.

    Nice quote--especially the lizard part.  

    Parent

    Absolutely true (none / 0) (#165)
    by sj on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    But I know from my own experience that in the process of defending someone you weren't particularly that enthused about as a candidate, you can actually find yourself becoming a convincing advocate - not just convincing others, but yourself in the process.
    That's how I came to be a Clinton supporter in 2008. And a strong one at that.

    Also, that phenomenon played out here on TL for a brief period last year. If "brief" = a few months.

    Parent

    I gave (none / 0) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 06:58:40 AM EST
    up fighting that fight. Good for you that you have the stomach for it. Also realize though that I think a lot of them are Republicans pushing Bernie.

    Parent
    GOP trolls? (none / 0) (#159)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:09:50 PM EST
    I suppose that is certainly possible.  That intrigues me--how would you catch them?

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    I caught a few of them over there when I used to post there. Sooner or later they let something slip which reveals it because it's something that even a Bernie supporter over there would not hurl.

    Parent
    One giveaway (none / 0) (#180)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:06:01 PM EST
    is talking about the "Democrat" party.  They do not even realize it--so indoctrinated are they.

    Parent
    I never bought that most (none / 0) (#171)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:47:56 PM EST
    of the people posting over-the-top vile things about HRC in 08 were Obama supporters.

    Parent
    Sorry, not wasting my time with snotty (none / 0) (#120)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:05:12 AM EST
    punks. Hillary supporters are pragmatic, remember?

    Parent
    Like not be able to avert (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    your eyes from a train wreck, I suppose.

    Parent
    Ralph Nader today (none / 0) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    hints he'd vote Bloomberg.

    Parent
    Of course he would (none / 0) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:16:34 PM EST
    Are you still as confident of a Hillary victory if Bloomberg ran?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    because Bloomberg isn't going to run with Hillary in the race. He has no interest in losing.

    Parent
    I wish I had your certainty (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:39:11 PM EST
    Who's (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:34:56 PM EST
    he going to pick up with voters? He might even swing a state like GA to Hillary if he ran taking enough GOP voters.

    Parent
    And monkeys (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:40:42 PM EST
    Might fly out my butt.   Fact is no one has any idea what effect it would have.

    Parent
    Here you go (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:48:03 PM EST
    That's (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    just shows you where old Ralph is on things these days.

    Parent
    He is right... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:44:14 PM EST
    that a two party duopoly is a major factor in our corporate influence in government/corruption problem.

    I disagree that electing a corporate influence will alleviate the problem. It matters who the third party candidate is...Jill Stein or Ralph Nader yay...Bloombucks nay.

    Parent

    To me (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:52:33 PM EST
    it just shows he doesn't even believe what he says other than he doesn't like having two parties. Because it also seems to me that Bloomberg is against everything Ralph purports to be for or maybe Ralph has just really been fleecing people all these years.

    Parent
    Could you (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    please detail the manner in which you think Nader has been fleecing people?

    Parent
    If he's (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:34:08 PM EST
    supporting Bloomberg for president what does that mean to you? It means to me that apparently all the stuff he's been saying for years he didn't really mean.

    Parent
    Could you (none / 0) (#69)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    link to any article that discusses what you say is Nader supporting Bloomberg for president?

    Google has yielded me nothing on the subject.

    I think I much more more respect for Ralph Nader than you do, and so I would be most interested in his reasoning on that score.

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:26:39 PM EST
    link

    Ralph doesn't seem to understand the electoral college.

    Parent

    I read (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 10:16:43 PM EST
    the article.

    You have misrepresented it.

    It is not an endorsement of Bloomberg by Ralph Nader.

    Parent

    He thinks (2.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 07:01:08 AM EST
    Bloomberg running is a good idea does he not?

    This article points out what annoys me about Nader. The fact is if he thinks third parties are so good then the only way for them to get any traction is to change the electoral college system and have the country go to a popular vote system. I don't see him lifting one finger to change that.

    Parent

    That is a misrepresentation. (none / 0) (#88)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:00:00 PM EST
    Nader did not endorse Bloomberg.

    Parent
    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    I perceive thinly veiled contempt for Nader in your comment - which leads me to believe that you still blame him for Bush, rather than Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, or Gore himself who chose Lieberman as his running mate, was godawful in the debates, and couldn't even win Tennessee.

    I sincerely think that the right-wing scored a big victory by getting liberal democrats to despise Nader.

    If I misread the intent of your comment above, I apologize.

    Parent

    It's not (2.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:35:05 PM EST
    about Bush or anybody else. It's about him supporting Bloomberg for president.

    Parent
    Ralph has been off the rails for years (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:36:07 PM EST
    and it started before he even ran the first of his four presidential campaigns.

    Parent
    We're in (none / 0) (#48)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 07:17:01 PM EST
    three wars.

    Megyn Kelly.

    We're in three wars.

    Trump drops out of Fox News debate.

    We're in three wars.

    Will Sanders launch an attack ad?

    We're in three wars.

    Hillary loves Bernie loves Hillary loves Martin loves Hillary and Bernie.

    We're in three wars.

    Anybody got any ideas?

    Reading (none / 0) (#64)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 08:25:36 PM EST
    the article linked to by BTD in his post about Hillary Clinton's statements about Lincoln and Reconstruction... I was struck by this quote:

    I have spent the past two years somewhat concerned about the effects of national amnesia, largely because I believe that a problem can not be effectively treated without being effectively diagnosed.

    For me, "national amnesia" is a state that is deliberately encouraged by our national leadership, so that they can keep doing to us what they have been doing to us for generations.

    In recent, relatively recent, history, I think of the lessons not learned from our horrible involvement in Vietnam. Lied into war. Told of dire consequences if we were to leave. In fact, told that we were winning the war over and over again. For years and years. And that we couldn't just leave.

    So, with amnesia in full swing, Bush did unto us what Johnson et al did to us decades earlier.

    And now, a decade and a half later, we are being told that we are winning the war, that we can't just leave, that it is not our fight and that we must lead the fight.

    And it is not a subject of much discussion.

    Even here, when I mention these wars, I am usually greeted with either indifference or contempt. Like I'm Johnny One Note for focusing on an issue which has killed hundreds of thousands, maimed hundreds of thousands, has been the excuse for robbing us of our liberties, and ultimately threatens our lives.

    I do not wish to criticize anyone. And I don't actually feel critical of anyone. It's just the way it is.

    But I can't help but notice that I don't see much reporting from war zones. Or much if any reporting on the treatment of our returning veterans, or of any proposal that we extricate ourselves from these endless nightmares from any of the major candidates.

    I do wish there was more reporting about what is (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    really going on in the wars - what our role is, then I could have an informed discussion.  It might be out there, but you are right - it is certainly not rising to the top level of the headlines or 'click bait'.

    I haven't responded to your requests to talk about it because there are so many facets of our involvement in different locations and I'm not as knowledgeable as I should be. I don't know how many people we have in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, for example, or what exactly they are doing.

    Yes wars have killed hundreds of thousands... I always believed it was a mistake to start the whole mess in Iraq, and greeted the 'Arab Spring' with more worry than joy.

    Is our involvement level right now responsible for killing hundreds of thousands? Or would it save lives if we were even more involved? I believe no, and no. Does that mean we are doing the right thing? Probably not.

    Parent

    'Scuse the topic jump (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:56:21 AM EST
    But I need to tell you that if you ever get around to LOST (which you really really really should) there is a semi mythical character, Jacob, who is mentioned through the entire series but only appears in the final episode of season 5.

    You will laugh when you see who Jacob is.  Knowing your viewing history.   I did.

    I am now into the final season.  Omg omg omg.

    Parent

    You are working on me.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:19:54 PM EST
    What if I watched like 10 episodes out of every season? 3 at the start, 4 in the middle, 3 at the end.  Would that be enough to enjoy?

    You need to watch London Spy. Episode 2 tonight.

    Parent

    Nah (none / 0) (#192)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:02:46 PM EST
    Sorry.  Never work.    The story is way to convoluted and complicated for that.  The thing is it goes really fast once you are hooked.   Too fast.   I'm totally not ready for it to be over.

    I am recording LS for later.

    Parent

    However (none / 0) (#195)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    There is a cheat that I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND except to see if you want to go back and do the whole thing.

    At the beginning of seasons 4 and 5 there is a sort of 10 minute overview of the whole series to that point.   As I said, otally not recommended.   It leaves a LOT out.  But does tell you enough for the next season to make sense.

    Don't do it.    Start from the beginning.

    It an unbelievably complicated story that only gets more complicated as you go along.  For example, this mythical character, Jacob, who you only hear about for years finally appears in fashbacks of how he met and interacted with each main character in their past.   Most when they were children.
    The story is 70% flashback.


    Parent

    Hate to be the one to respond (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kmkmiller on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 09:15:49 PM EST
    Given that we probably dont agree but if we should have a discussion about that issue, that discussion is going to have a wide range of perspectives.  But it's also a very emotional issue, i mean if I say I don't have much hope that international conflict will decrease as resourses become even more scarce due to global warming, I'm just sounding glib.  Maybe even little heartless but .... its also what I think.   Poor countries with scarce resources are prone to religuous zealotry/sectarian violence, etc. among other things.  Ireland a perfect example up until tech went to Ireland and now they've even slid back into some old patterns due to a decade of ongoing hard times.

    And that violence is spilling over into our backyard not to put too fine a point onto it.

    So.... My opinion...

    Bosnia was important, on some level so are the wars being fought right now.  What I truly hope can be done is that while we should always make the goal be no war, we should also consider that lives are saved by executing wars competently.

    Maybe just ignore this.  Suffice to say there's disagreements here so if we want discussion....


    Parent

    Have (none / 0) (#90)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:16:58 PM EST
    you noticed that there is virtually no reporting on what is going on in these wars?

    Contrast that with the days of yore when there were daily reports from the front.

    Our government and our media, owned by the same conglomerates, have managed a way to keep us from experiencing what they are doing in our name.

    War is as remote as a video game - If we get to see anything, it is as puffs on a screen. We don't even get to see our returning veterans. And they are kept out of sight as long as possible.

    So these wars have become a permanent feature of our daily existence. We don't even notice that they are going on.

    And Sanders is yakked at - how's he going to pay for programs which most civilized countries have, but we have no right to expect? Listen, we got three wars and counting. We're working on a smaller more compact nuke. And that takes money. Spend it on tuition or medical care?

    You nuts?

    Parent

    can i agree (none / 0) (#92)
    by Kmkmiller on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 02:11:06 AM EST
    there should be more reporting about it, and also hope that i am not nuts?

    it's just i also consider the possibility that if there was more reporting about it, we might unearth some really amazing stories about US soldiers helping other people in other countries?

    i hope that too, though i'm extremely naive.

    and maybe nuts.

    Parent

    It's the new "Volunteer" Army, lentinel (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 04:50:12 AM EST
    Couch potato generals "volunteering" others to fight the war.

    ... I got this wound fallin' off my La-Z-Boy.  It's the Cheetos Star with a Six-Pack cluster.

    Parent

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    you can blame the lack of the draft on the lack of reportage.

    It is to the interest of the government to keep these atrocities out of sight.

    Naturally, the media go along.

    So it isn't even a topic of conversation among progressives, or anybody.

    The wars just are now firmly implanted in our daily lives.

    The last time the wars were an issue was in 2006.
    We voted in a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, and Pelosi and Reid proceeded to sell us out and went along with Bush to send thousands of more troops to Iraq - instead of respecting the mandate that the people had given them.

    So, now, it isn't an issue.
    Because no one is government is listening.
    And no one cares.

    Parent

    The Diagnosis is Flawed (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    I think it has more to do with the polarization of politics.  I would call it National Burn Out Syndrome, because when it's happening, we are inundated with it all day, every day, and it always presented as us/them.

    It's why I try my best to avoid the news on the weekends, that is my time to not be force fed the horse race politics, even for things that shouldn't be political, like bombings and shootings.

    I'll buy amnesia for a 40+ year old war, some like me weren't old enough to even develop memories/amnesia, probably more of us than people who lived through it.  But not for Iraq, Afghanistan, school shootings, and the government spying/torturing/lying us into wars, etc.

    Rehashing those arguments just depletes the human soul IMO.

    Parent

    Trump (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 27, 2016 at 11:05:26 PM EST
    has been characterized as a carnival barker.

    That is someone who gets people to come into the tent in order to make money for the circus.

    So, it is a good thing that he will be using his talents to raise money for our veterans, rather than raising money to fill the coffers of the likes of Roger Ailes and his band of evildoers.

    Trump (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 04:57:02 AM EST
    It is right up his alley (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:09:52 AM EST
    Maybe they have had some of there events in his facilities. He probably supports any group that spends a lot of money in resort hotels.

    I was really glad to see them called out. I have some local experience with them, and I can tell you I would never give them a cent. There are plenty of more worthy veteran groups.

    Parent

    To give (none / 0) (#129)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    Trump his due, he is the only candidate who, to the best of my knowledge, when announcing his candidacy made specific reference to the ill-treatment suffered by our veterans.

    It was a scandal under GW Bush, and it remains a scandal under Obama.

    So, in this instance, I say bravo.

    Once again, it is surprising to me that this issue has little or no traction in this country which sends ever increasing numbers of its young people into unending wars to be killed or maimed or suffer unbelievable psychic trauma.

    And then to be forgotten in a manner similar only to the way we treat people in our prisons.

    Parent

    Oh, I think it's more likely that he's just (none / 0) (#135)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    playing politics, glomming onto the conservative crowd's worship of anything in a uniform; it's probably a mile long and millimeters deep.  I mean, this is the same Donald Trump who, when asked about the large incidence of sexual assault in the military, asked what did people expect when you put men and women together?  Can't speak for him, but I don't think most people expect rape to be one of those things.

    Please don't be fooled; it's not that our veterans don't deserve support - and not just the emotional kind - but what Trump's doing is in the same category with flag pins, and every other symbol that's supposed to identify someone as a "real" American, or a "real" patriot.

    Parent

    That's right (none / 0) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:18:19 AM EST
    He has been talking about the treatment of veterans from day one of his campaign.  Whether or not he really cares or sees it as a subject he can get mileage out of, I have no idea.

    But he is not new to this issue.    

    I will also say every time I hear Hillary talk about this it goes to, well, yes,  there are problems but the vast majority of blah blah.

    Which is probably true but it, IMO, entirely misses the point.  

    Parent

    gotta say (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by CST on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:33:19 AM EST
    I find the timing of that story highly convenient.

    Not that it's not true, just... It makes you wonder if (and how long) they were sitting on it.

    Parent

    The More Important Story... (none / 0) (#148)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 11:31:30 AM EST
    ...why is a wounded veterans organization siding up with a draft dodger* and a POW criticizer ?  LINK

    Although, the two stories are probably one is the same, $$$$.

    * Trump had 4 college deferments and once he became available for service:
    But Trump had a physical exam in September 1968. He had taken one less than two years earlier that did not disqualify him for service as we can tell from his 1-A classification in July 1968. However, his second physical was followed in October with a new classification, 1-Y. That designation put him near the bottom of any call-up list. It meant he would only be drafted if there were a national emergency.

    Until recently, the only detail on record about that shift was it was medically related. After his comments about McCain, Trump said it had to do with bone spurs in his heels. Trump reportedly was active in college sports, playing baseball, tennis and squash.

    I would call that dodging service and if I were a wounded veteran, especially from Vietnam, I would not want to be associated with any of the men who decided someone else should take their place on the battlefield.  Some did, and some got wounded, some died.

    Also, how can any Veteran group associate with a guy who went after McCain for getting captured.

    He's a war hero because he was captured, I like people who weren't captured.


    Parent
    Martin O'Malley (none / 0) (#123)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    Trying to get back in someone's good graces?

    Martin O'Malley is pissed at Bernie Sanders. With the Democrats on track to add a new debate for their presidential candidates between Iowa and New Hampshire, the long-shot candidate ripped into Sanders (who has yet to agree to this debate, while Hillary Clinton has) with an odd charge. He claimed that Sanders' public calls over the summer for additional debates had been "totally disingenuous" and that Sanders had privately worked against more face-offs being added to the lineup. "Bernie Sanders didn't want any more debates, from the beginning," O'Malley said following an event in Grinnell, Iowa, on Wednesday night.

    Speaking with reporters from Mother Jones and MSNBC, O'Malley seemed to fault Sanders more than Clinton for the limited number of debates on the Democratic side. The number of debates was set by the Democratic Party, and the rules it established prohibited candidates from participating in debates that were not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee. O'Malley claims that, once these rules were announced, his campaign reached out to the Sanders camp seeking their support in pushing for more debates. But, O'Malley says, Sanders declined. "We knew as soon as those rigged rules came down, we knew that if [Sanders] would agree to do more debates, we would have more debates, but he would never agree," O'Malley said. "He didn't want more debates." O'Malley's charge, however, is a bit hard to square with Sanders' actions at the time. The Vermont senator was in fact sending letters to the DNC and posting petitions to his website rallying supporters behind more debates.

    If he's saying this stuff now, could it mean that when he doesn't make the 15% threshold in precincts, he will encourage his supporters to go to HRC?  Is this a signal?

    O'Malley (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:50:25 AM EST
    actually has said this in regards to the debates a while back. He had said something about over the summer he talked to Bernie about getting more debates and Bernie whiffed on it.

    Frankly I thought O'Malley did a pretty good job at the debate in Charleston. So I'm not surprised that he wants more. They can only help him.

    Parent

    They can't hurt him that's true (none / 0) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    but nothing can help O'Malley at this point. Even Rick Santorum would top 5% in a 3 person field.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    true but still...

    Parent
    Hard to say...I think what he's saying now (none / 0) (#130)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 09:58:14 AM EST
    is coming from the deathbed of his campaign - this possible debate probably represents his last shot at a national audience, because I really don't see him lasting beyond Iowa and NH.

    I think O'Malley got into this race as a foil/alternative to Clinton, and Sanders' entrance pretty much ate his lunch - so the question is, does he really align more to a Sanders view or a Clinton one?  Much of his record in MD would suggest he might be closer to Sanders than Clinton, but not by so much that he couldn't easily throw his support to her.  Which, given how hard he's dinged her in debates, may not be entirely credible.

    But then, this is politics, where truth often takes a vacation.

    My sense about Sanders is that this is such a critical time in the process that he doesn't want to give DWS and the DNC even the slightest reason/excuse to punish him in some way.  That's not cowardice, it's politics.

    There's no question in my mind that O'Malley wants to be part of a Democratic administration, so it wouldn't surprise me if he threw his support behind the person he thinks has the best chance to make that happen.  But realistically, we aren't talking about a lot of voters, are we?  Would it be enough to make a difference?  I don't know - maybe the difference is in the optics more than the actual numbers.

    My head hurts.

    Parent

    If all three Democratic (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:58:10 PM EST
    candidates agreed to the debate what would the DNC do? Ban all three from future debates? That is ridiculous. If all three agree to debate then the DNC folds. They have no choice.

    So, I disagree that Sanders is not on board because of some fear of DNC reprisals. It seems likelier that he sees no advantage, and perhaps potential harm, to his campaign from a debate at this time.

    And it totally undercuts his complaints about the dearth of debates.

    Parent

    Saw one of his staffers... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    on a talking head show, his explanation made sense to me...when Sanders wanted more debates scheduled months ago, Clinton objected and the current schedule was settled.  Now that Sanders is gaining in the polls, Clinton wants to add another debate last minute.  That's not exactly fair.

    That being said, I think Bernie should do it anyway...the more debates the better imo.  Well at least Democrat debates, those Republican ones are more like Piper's Pit than a debate...we need no more of those!

     

    Parent

    Ding ding ding ding! (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    It wouldn't be a stretch (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    O'Malley supported her in 2008, and right now in Iowa, he is in a position of power to be a Queen (or King) maker with his 4.4%.

    Parent
    Not sure about that` (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 10:37:16 AM EST
    That only works if the support is the same across the board. According to Selzer Bernie's support is concentrated in college towns in IA. There might be places where O'Malley makes the cut.

    Parent
    "Cliff Notes (none / 0) (#146)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    on Hillary and Bernie," by Gail Collins (NYT January 28, 2016.)  Miss Collins draws our attention away from the Republican race to the Democratic side, with recognition that the Republicans are more like following professional wrestling and the Democrats like watching Book TV. And, that there are many similarities with differences more in kind than degree. So, she conducts a "Q and A" with herself to deconstruct the candidates for her readers.

    In the concluding analysis, the issue of getting things done arises, particularly some of the Sanders' proposals, like Medicare for All.  Sanders is depending on the people sending a message so strong than even the Congress can't ignore it.  Q. wow, do you think that could happen? A. That's the bottom line of the whole contest.  Vote for Bernie: Send a message. Vote for Hillary: She knows how to make things work.

    Q. I would like to elect someone who can make things work while simultaneously  sending a message.
    A. Do you ever watch those house-hunter shows where people make the list of what they want..., a place in the heart of the city ... that's quiet, ..has green space for the dog,..and four bedrooms for guests.. for no more than $500 a month?

    MSNBC is my cable channel (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    But I love that if Bernie is ahead in the polls Bernie us ahead.
    If Hillary is ahead it's "in the margin of error"

    Parent
    I love (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:05:59 PM EST
    the fact that they never look past IA and NH. But then that wouldn't be good for "the narrative".

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:20:38 PM EST
    Post NH the narative is obvious (none / 0) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:49:58 PM EST

    47-1
    48-1 if you add DC

    That doesn't do much for clicks or viewership.

    Some recent state polls not from Iowa or NH.

    Pennsylvania Clinton +17
    South Carolina Clinton +37
    North Carolina Clinton +25
    Minnesota Clinton +34
    Florida Clinton +36
    Maryland Clinton +13
    Utah Clinton +10

    Parent

    Can't these numbers (none / 0) (#164)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    be attributed to the fact that neither candidate has campaigned in these states? Once the campaigns start going to the states listed, the numbers will certainly change. I don't know what direction. But I would think support would move towards Bernie once he actually visited some of these places. Not saying he would win. But I think he will pick up support.

    Parent
    Sure, there will be some pickup (none / 0) (#167)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:39:00 PM EST
    especially if Bernie wins big in IA.

    But FL and SC are both before the end of Feb. If he has not been campaigning there already he is not going to have much time to capitalize.

    Parent

    It's the demographics (none / 0) (#177)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 01:59:43 PM EST
    I believe (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:00:37 PM EST
    Bernie has campaigned in Florida already.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    he's been campaigning heavily in SC to largely no avail.

    And a good many of those numbers could be due to debate performances even though there's not really been any campaigning.

    Parent

    Yes, that seems to be (none / 0) (#155)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 28, 2016 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    the modus operandi for MSNBC. Chris Hayes was a writer for The Nation, and appears to be reflecting the position of editor, Katherine Vanden Heuvel--a frequent guest.  Rachael Maddow was more clearly aligned with Sanders until more recently, when Mrs. Clinton became available to her show. Lawrence O'Donnell tilts toward Bernie, but spends a large portion of his time on Trump.  Those two guys, Halperin and Heilmann are awful, with the most unwatchable points going to Halperin. Tweety is Tweety.

     Stephen Colbert, at CBS is different than Stephen Colbert at Comedy Central. More favorable exposure time to Sanders, but then, he seems to be working hard on capturing a younger demographic and this may be a part of that.

    Parent