Monday Night Open Thread

It's another season of the Bachelor. Ben seems very vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. It's hard to tell if that's the way he really is, or its just a story line crafted from the "edit" from last season. (His reaction to being rejected was to voice his fear he was unlovable.)

The women so far are the typical mix of beach blond bombshell wannabes, weirdos (the dentist), annoying chirpy voices (the one who just passed the bar exam), and sad sacks who are going to share their personal tragedies with us, regardless of whether we want to hear about them. I'm having a hard time telling one blond from another. I also don't like Ben's haircut, it's way too short. His eyes seem much closer together than they did last season. And where are his muscles?

Will I make it through another season? Too soon to tell.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Update: So many "Laurens" (at least 4 I think.) There's a news anchor who quit her job to meet Ben and only talks about herself. One woman's occupation chiron says "chicken enthusiast." What does that mean? And what's up with the twins? Do they intend to share a single husband? Ben calling his parents after meeting his 26 women was too corny.

I wonder if this season is meant to be a spoof on the regular Bachelor season.

Update: The Biggest Loser also premiered tonight. Wow, what a difference a host makes. Trainer Bob Harper is now host instead of trainer, and he's on fire. I lost interest in the show when Jillian left, but it might be time for another look. Harper is really good. (The only thing I don't like is him calling women contestants "baby."

The show begins with Harper putting all these 300 pound people on the treadmill as he offers them $5,000, then $10, then $20k to quit. He asks one of the panting contestants what $20 grand means to him. He says, "I go home, I have a burger and I die in 5 years.'" None took the bait.

< Obama Outlines Executive Action Plan for Gun Control | San Bernadino: 18 Missing Minutes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jeezus (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:31:30 AM EST
    Allow me to go out n a limb

    Donald is going to be the republican nominee.  Unless the party does something unbelievably suicidal-which is not impossible, he is going to be the nominee.  The msm is beginning to get their minds around this fact.  I strongly suggest others do the same.

    Because you know what, as soon as this round of denial is over, a whole new round will begin.  

    "He could never EVER win a general election"

    You know what folks?  If we don't start taking Donald as serious as a heart attack RIGHT NOW we are fu@ked.

    I really want to be an ostrich re Trump. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    When he first announced he was running, I thought no one would take him seriously and he would be laughed off for the ridiculous, hateful buffoon that he is.

    Now, I am coming over to your side. I have read and heard too many comments stating that if Bernie is not the nominee, the person is going to vote Trump. My brain is really struggling with that.

    I did not think Dubya would be elected President the first time and definitely not the second time. I was very, very wrong. I did not think anyone in the GOP would be able to beat Clinton, now I am not sure.


    I would (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    never underestimate any Republican after W got reelected in 2004. There's no accounting for the number of people that will vote for a bozo like George W. Bush.

    to be fair (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by pitachips on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:29:55 PM EST
    He did steal that election fair and square.

    We must have (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    A similar circle of friends.  As soon as Donald has the nomination he is going to pivot so hard the media will get whiplash.

    He could win.  In this environment, he could win.


    An article that gives me some hope. (none / 0) (#99)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 09:26:01 PM EST
    Vml, that link is not working. (none / 0) (#101)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 09:42:00 PM EST
    Sorry, hopefully this will work. (none / 0) (#102)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 09:55:33 PM EST
    The only (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 07:33:17 AM EST
    thing I think might be right about that article is if Trump starts losing he loses his luster and his fall from grace might be pretty rapid. Other than that I think a lot of that article is wishful thinking.

    Well (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:11:12 PM EST
    I guess if we need something to hold on to the straws are getting hard to find.

    I honestly don't buy a word of it.  The last paragraph sort of sums it up where he admits it completely magical thinking.  

    Which honestly made it feel a little like click bait.  But harmless click bait.

    Predictions have certainly proved a fools errand.  I only made the one above because as he points out it appears the paths to any other outcome are fading.  Klein is usually one who is big on data.  That honestly seemed like anything but.  

    But sure, I guess he might just lose.


    To be more specific (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:28:49 PM EST
    IMO he wrong from the first paragraph.  Trump might lose in the first two states, ok.  He might but as far as I know no one expects him to lose NH and while I don't buy that Cruz is a shoe in in Iowa, that state is hardly a predictor of who wins the nomination.  
    Then we go south.  I believe the south belongs to Donald.  That's what I think.  The belt way thinks Cruz is the great white hope for the south, I don't.  
    Donald is polling better than Ted with both evangelicals and those self described "very conservatives".    

    We won't have to wait much longer to find out.

    Oh, and the Dean stuff is IMO just a croc.  Sorry Ezera.


    I perceive that the South belongs to (none / 0) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    Donald too. And he has clinched it by going full birther, and bringing Canadian birth into the discussion. There are few things worse in deep South Alabama than suspicious Canadian affiliation :)

    I want to believe in that magical thinking (none / 0) (#106)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:28:58 PM EST
    because the thought of Trump as the next President  is more than I can bear.

    I understand the impulse (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:03:36 AM EST
    I do.   In a general election that impulse broadly enough may be what saves us.   As long as it translates into enough votes.

    I think (none / 0) (#98)
    by lentinel on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 09:14:01 PM EST
    that Sanders would defeat Trump, but I'm not at all sure about Clinton.

    Nobody else seems to feel that way, however.


    Imagination is in very short supply (none / 0) (#115)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    As always. For whatever reason, Americans seem to believe the arena in which the most imagination is needed, politics, is actually where the least should occur. Pathologically self-cannibalizing mindset that never seems to change, no matter the party "in power."

    It also (none / 0) (#117)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:14:06 AM EST
    seems to me that people who consider themselves to be progressive have given up the fight.

    Completely defeated.


    Captain, is there room (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:33:11 PM EST
    out there on that limb?  I want to join you.  With the tumbling of Carson and the exceptionally poor candidacies of the rest of the lot, Trump has, in my view, a much better than fifty percent chance of being the Republican standard bearer.

     Trump's fact-free, emotionally-laden, policy-empty, racist-filled candidacy is just up the Republican primary voters' alley.  The Republican establishment can easily overlook those flaws, for who amongst them does not appreciate them, if it appears that Trump has a decent chance of winning the general election.  

    If Trump does not succeed in scarfing up the nomination, it is difficult for me to see how the party rallies around Cruz or Rubio--despite the fact that not being Trump is being no less a right wing radical. But, the crowds want it loud and impolite.

    I hope, too, that the 'if not Bernie things will be the same' with either party, will reconsider that position if Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

     And, Mrs. Clinton, if the nominee had better re-tool her campaign to address the curiosity that is a Trump candidacy--she can expect attacks on her strengths, such as a belittling of facts, experience, and sagacity. George W. Bush went for his "gut" and the electorate seemed to like that; Trump will go for another biological function, and that crowd will eat it up.  


    One of the many reasons I love to read (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    your comments :-)

    George W. Bush went for his "gut" and the electorate seemed to like that; Trump will go for another biological function, and that crowd will eat it up.

    I've been trying to imagine (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:04:05 PM EST
    What a general election campaign against Donald would be like.   One thing we know is that everything we think we know is wrong,   There has never been a candidate like Trump.   There has never been a campaign like his.  At least not in modern history.  No consultants.  No pollsters.  How do you run against a guy that has no rules no shame and no limits?  He will do or say anything.  And we have seen over and over that nothing he does sticks to him.  I can't help but think Hillary would way rather run against almost any of the others.  I did not think that at first.  I bought the conventional wisdom that demographics and the electoral college and blah blah.   I think we can probably toss that stuff right out the window.  
    I think it would be very wise to remember that no one NO ONE thought he would be where he is   Almost no one is even now willing to admit what we agree is becoming pretty damn obvious.  I think it would be very very unwise to assume he could not be a real threat in a general election.  
    Example, the last few days.  Hillary hits him for being a sexist and he goes right fir the jugular.  Guess what, the Clinton's BOTH suddenly don't want to talk about Donald at all.
    I have been saying a Hillary/Trump battle would be something to see.   But instead of exploding popcorn futures I'm afraid maloxx futures might be a better investment.

    In a general election (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    with Trump, Mrs. Clinton would need to re-tool her campaign. The campaign experiences of the past (either Bill or Hillary) would be of limited value.

    I am hopeful that the Clintons and the Clinton campaign have not only recognized the Trump phenomena, but also, have experts on it.  However, I am concerned that the campaign may not be resilient in the face of Trump.  As you note, Trump's raking up Bill's transgressions seemed to be unexpected. Although, at this point, maybe dropping Trump is better than dropping his name.

    As stated, Trump can be expected to turn Mrs. Clinton's strengths into weakness--not unique to an opponent, but in way unique to Trump. And, anything and everything will be brought up.  After all, when a bathroom break is attacked, there can't be much that isn't.  

    In my thinking, the Clinton strategy on Trump needs to be divided into two basic areas: debates and other.  The debates will be critical, of course. We know Mrs. Clinton would be the master of the debate in terms of facts, situations--everything.  But, that will be the very focus of Trump--that is the trouble with "Washington", too many facts and information. I, Trump, would just get those Kings and Sheikhs, into a room and knock heads.  Or, bomb.   I will repeal Obamacare and replace it with something terrific.

     Other parts of the campaign can be more traditional in delivery, but the content needs to be bold but well-thought out for the sane component of the electorate.

    Trump's insults to other Republicans and broad-brushed bullying has played well in debates so far with Republicans--and Trump has been granted debate wins by the punditocracy. But, Trump has been saved from himself by the dilution of the other 18 or so, feeble rivals. Just Mrs. Clinton and Trump in a debate will be a different dynamic.

     Drilling down on any issue, is not Trump's forte. He is best as stand-up comedian. Never-the-less, Mrs. Clinton can't do any eye rolls.  Responses have to be framed in a manner to point out that not only is Trump an ignorant fool, but also, unfit for president.  Her Piece de resistance, but not a piece of cake.


    I think Hillary's time with the Benghazi (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:15:05 PM EST
    committee is pretty much a text book on how to deal with a debate with Trump. You patiently pretend you take him seriously and answer him clearly point-by-tediously-obvious-to-any-sentient-human-being point.

    Donald Trump won't be able to say (none / 0) (#196)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:53:23 PM EST
    Much about Bill Clinton's past once the Republican primary is over. Trump's own past is littered with puritanical sexual transgressions. At least Bill managed to hang onto THE marriage. Toe to toe Trump's got nuthin.

    And drilling down is a forte of both Clintons, they just have a different style in doing it.


    Trump puts the "camp" in campaign. (none / 0) (#198)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:43:58 PM EST
    I mean, who better to call out President Clinton for infidelity, than a thrice-married serial philanderer who fathered a child out of wedlock with future Wife No. 2 while he was still married to Wife No. 1. 'Tis to laugh.

    And Bill has never proudly announced (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:58:45 PM EST
    That Chelsea is doable....

    Trump is a slobbering pig

    That particular disgusting faux pas hasn't been isolated and observed because the whole Republican primary is a circus. If Trump shakes out though and you stand his public self up there next to the Clinton's, the Trump ewwww factor goes through the roof.

    I can't imagine anyone becoming President who traveled into the "I'd do my daughter if she wasn't my daughter" territory. I just can't get there :)


    He is the ultimate troll (none / 0) (#70)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    With Trump, there is no intelligent debate to be had. He just flings cr*p in every direction. Trump is the schoolyard bully who never grew up. How does Clinton--or anyone else-- debate that?

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:42:33 PM EST
    Also, unlike any normal politician he has no positions.  No platform.  He has no record or real opinions.   What, they are going to say walling off Mecico is stupid?   That banning an entire religion is unconstitutional?   Like everyone doesn't already know that?  Seriously, how DO you debate that.

    You don't. (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    We're way beyond that point. Republicans can be summed up in two words: Flint, Michigan. Those morally bankrupt a$$wipes willfully allowed an entire community to be poisoned, and an entire generation of that city's children there have had their health seriously compromised for years to come due to the toxic levels of lead which have accumulated in their bodies, thanks to Republican incompetence and arrogance. And the Snyder administration's attempt to cover up this scandal is simply criminal.



    The thing (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:44:21 PM EST
    is what he is doing plays for the most part really well with the GOP base and apparently some Bernie supporters. However does it play well in a general election? The polls show him doing poorly in that area and the way the GOP elite are having a meltdown about it all there must be some internal polling that is showing that they are screwed if Donald is their nominee. I think that if they thought he could win they would not be spilling all over the papers about their hand wringing.

    If you break it down by demographics he does worse than Romney in almost every group. Republicans are publicly spilling to the press that they will vote for Hillary if he's the nominee. There's just something under the surface that we do not know about that is causing this.


    I think the GOP (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:49:22 PM EST
    Doesn't know their ass from their elbow.  If they did they would not have this problem.

    Donald is going to pivot if he wins the nomination.  He is going straight for the middle.  Probably younger voters.  He won't give a damn about the right wingers.  What are they going to do?  Vote for Hillary?


    And before you say he could (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:54:52 PM EST
    Not pivot after the last year I would encourage you to google some of his past statements on choice, healthcare or for that matter the Clinton's.

    He will pivot like a ballerina like the last year never happened.  He will identify his NEW target audience and tell them whatever he thinks they want to hear.


    Oh, (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:00:42 PM EST
    I know those statements. He has great admiration for both Bill and Hillary, supports an single payer national healthcare initiative and all that. That is why so many Republicans hate him.

    Donald (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:55:47 PM EST
    Is not, and never has been a conservative.

    And makes no pretense about it,

    Really will not have to pivot


    Honestly (none / 0) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:58:23 PM EST
    he might try to go to the middle but everything he has said has gotten so much press who would believe it?

    The GOP elite sure don't understand their own base or maybe they do. I don't know. They've been spouting the same stuff Donald has been for years and have gotten away with it spouting it but just haven't delivered on it. The Republicans in metro Atlanta are threatening to sit home if he's the nominee. Maybe that's what's behind their caterwauling.

    Right now the headline at the Wa Po is GOP candidates are focused on nightmares instead of hopes and dreams. Boy that's the truth.


    As long as the news media punts (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:00:58 PM EST
    instead of directly challenging him, Trump can pivot and playact all he wants--and get away with it.

    Who would believe it? (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:04:52 PM EST
    Seriously, that your question.   Who would believe he is going to build the Great Wall of China on our southern border?

    Trevor is right about that.  He has never been a conservative.  But the brand new polls I saw just this morning have him crushing everyone with evangelicals, with those who identify as "very conservative" and every one else.  Oh, and he has far the most supporters who say they absolutely not change who they support.

    Who would believe that?


    Well (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:08:19 PM EST
    I have to tell you that the tea partiers really believe he is going to build a wall. At least the ones around here do.

    And they will (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:10:09 PM EST
    Continue to.  Even when he starts refusing to talk about it like he now refuses to talk about the birth certificate.

    I keep telling (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:49:04 PM EST
    you folks that you don't understand the evangelicals..

    They might not vote at all. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    Which maybe is one of the things the establishment is a little worried about.

    That's basically (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:02:11 PM EST
    what the Republicans here in Atlanta are saying. They're saying they're going to sit home if Trump is the nominee.

    Basically the GOP is a complete disaster. No Trump or Trump it's a problem for them.


    I'm not (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    willing to go that far but I would say Trump definitely has a very good shot at being the nominee. It's just right now I would say it is between him and Cruz. Can the GOP establishment get enough baa baa voters in SC to come out and end Trump's campaign? Right now I would say I seriously doubt that but you never know.

    I see Trump's problem in a general election as people like my friend in SC who is a Republican but doesn't hate Hillary enough to vote for Trump. She said she would pass on this election and another friend like her said he would sit home. It's those voters that might cause him problems. However I do not know if that would amount to 1% or 30% of Republicans.


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#71)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:40:05 PM EST
    Wash POst , and Kevin Drum both have interesting takes  on the rise of Trump


    The Republican front-runner is "saying what a lot of Americans are thinking but are afraid to say because they don't think that it's politically correct," she said. "But we're tired of just standing back and letting everyone else dictate what we're supposed to think and do."


    Five-time Jeopardy! champion Tom Nichols1 writes today about why so many people are attracted to Donald Trump. Nichols is a Republican,2 but he makes it very clear that he deeply loathes Trump ("hideous," "narcissistic," "creepy," "stupid," etc.) and will never vote for him. So what's his take on Trump's popularity? Is it due to economic insecurity? Inchoate anger? Bubbling racism and xenophobia? Hatred of the Republican establishment?

    Nah. He says Trump's rise is basically the fault of the left:

    I'll take pointless (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:45:58 PM EST
    For a hundred

    The left? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:47:07 PM EST
    LOL. The rise of Trump can be traced back decades. Convenient that the GOP suddenly forgets everything they have been saying and doing for a long time and blames it on the "left". So much for that "personal responsibility" thing they like to lecture everybody else in the country about.

    Breaking News! Read All About it! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:52:21 PM EST
    Trump Says Out Loud What Closeted Bigots Have Been Thinking All Along!

    Right Winger Who Loathes Trump Blames His Rise on the "Left"!

    I don't click on tinyurls, as you know, but even so...

    We've already heard and read this stuff before.


    From (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:56:50 PM EST
    Kevin Drum, and the other from the Washington Post,

    Right Wing hit job articles, lol


    Who said they were rightwing hit jobs? (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:18:09 PM EST
    Bottom line, Kevin Drum isn't saying anything new. Many of us have been making exactly that same point for months now: Trump gives voice to all the other bigots.

    And where the other guy--the one who is a right winger--is concerned, there's nothing remotely interesting about a right winger blaming something he doesn't like on the "left". It's par for the course for the GOP to never take responsibility for creating their own monsters. Same as it ever was.



    First piece of evidence is that Trump's (none / 0) (#134)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    emergence on the political stage was as birther in chief, a decidedly racist movement IMO. A demagogue was born. That's really all I need to know about how he started his "following".

    He's now suggesting Cruz' being born (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    in Canada may also be problematic.

    Well, this was inevitable (none / 0) (#157)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    But has Orly Taitz emerged from wherever she is hiding to weigh in on this?  ;-)

    That's not Kevin Drum's take. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:25:03 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "Wash POst, and Kevin Drum both have interesting takes on the rise of Trump[.]"

    Rather, he's merely taking note of Tom Nichols' opinion, which is that Trump's rise is simply a manifestation of the conservative backlash to so-called political correctness. Drum's take on Nichols' opinion is actually more nuanced and as follows. (I'm hyperlinking your source because a lot of people here won't open tinyURLs):

    "Still, even if I think Nichols is overstating things, it's not as if he doesn't have a point. Even those of us on the left feel the wrath of the leftier-than-thou brigade from time to time. [...] For the most part, I don't mind this stuff -- and conservatives do themselves no favors by harping on supposed PC idiocy like the 'war on Christmas.' But the reason I don't mind it is that I can navigate it reasonably well and I mostly agree with the aims of the PC police anyway. People who have trouble with navigation obviously feel a lot more constrained. So while I don't really buy Nichols' argument -- conservatives built the monster named Trump, not liberals -- I do think he has a germ of a point. Donald Trump is basically telling ordinary people that ordinary language is okay, and since that's the only language they know, it means they feel like they can finally talk again." (Emphasis is mine.)

    Now, here's my take on it, and I'm speaking for myself only. I specifically said "so-called political correctness" above, because what more than a few of us consider to be basic common standards of decency when talking about or referencing our fellow human beings, is unfortunately and cavalierly dismissed and ridiculed by far too many on the right as "political correctness."

    Sorry, but I refuse to apologize for calling people out when they brazenly characterize African-Americans as "shiftless and lazy," or suggest that Latinos as "dishonest" and "drug dealers," or -- as our very own State Sen. Sam Slom did on Fox News last week -- insinuate that Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are somehow culturally inclined toward engaging in acts of incest and pedophilia.

    Such cruel and vicious stereotyping of other people should rightfully have no place in our public dialogue. And if anyone has a problem with my denunciation of it, well, they can just kiss my lily-white a$$ and then eff off.

    Look, this is the year 2016, and not 1916. If some people want to continue to wallow in their own sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity, I can't stop them. That's their decision. But in this day and age, it's also their problem as well, because it doesn't then necessarily follow that the rest of us have to sit quietly and tolerate it.

    Free speech should also be responsible speech. There's no provision in our Constitution that guarantees one the right to disparage others for no reason other than their race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation or religion (or lack thereof), without any heed to the potential consequences to what they say.

    I refuse absolutely to pay any deference to such contemptible displays of bigotry, regardless of whether it's conscious on that person's part or otherwise. Our political discourse really ought to appeal to the greatest common multiple of our citizenry. and to achieve that, we need to cease pandering to society's lowest common denominators.



    Political correctness (none / 0) (#108)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 05:57:17 AM EST
    The pendulum never corrects itself appropriately,

    When it swings it most always over corrects,

    And thus must swing back again.

    And Trump, and his speech, is a blatant over correction, a reaction to years of political correctness that stifles free and open dialog.

    He is also gathering support from disenfranchised conservatives having watched Republican politicians say one thing on the stump, and once they return to Washington become a creature of that city.

    I can understand being amused by Trump and his disruption of normal Republican politics, but actually voting for him......

    As FL Joe stated in another thread, all the wannabes have to drop out of the race, consolidate behind 1 candidate, make it a 3 way race with Trump and Cruz, and the phenomena would fizzle out.
    But I don't see politicians doing that, sacrificing personal ambition for the good of the party, or country.


    To say political correctness (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:18:42 AM EST
    Is what Trumos support is all about is to miss the point.    It's a part of it.  A powerful part even.  But there is a lot more going on than just that.  
    Attacking political correctness is pretty easy.   I did it myself a couple of threads ago.   But it means different things to different people.  In Donalds case it's really not about just saying shocking things.   It's about modern politics and sick people are of it.  It's about how every politician in the living memory of every voter never says anything from their gut.   Every word they say, every thought they even allow themselves to have is poll tested focus grouped, filtered twice and sanitized for your protection.

    And people are sick to death of it.  They are so desperate to hear a politician talk like a normal person many don't even care if they disagree with every thing they say.  As long as they say something, anything, that sounds real.


    And I would suggest (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    That Ms Clinton think about this.  IMO if there is one single thing she could take from Donald to begin to talk to his followers it's to drop the focus groups and talk from the heart.  She could do it.   I know she has one.  It's my hope that is what would happen in a Trump/Hillary contest.

    Sadly and inexcusably, Trump... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:10:47 AM EST
    ...is wildly more imaginative than Hillary Clinton. When you are THAT in the pocket of Big Finance for that long, sorry, you are barking up a very dead tree if you are wishing she does ANYthing approaching creative. Hillary is what she is, like Bill. Terribly co-dependent personalities, who simply cannot break out of their fairly conservative paradigms for anything. With her as prez, we will simply tread water at best and nothing more, because her creative capacity to do more simply does not exist.

    Tired old white people. That's all they are. The Clinton Brand represents everything wrong with the Democratic Party to me. Everything. But, hey, it'd be great if we had our first female prez. Hooray. Terrific. I'm serious, I was raised by a woman. And yet still...pfft... whatever. We're all just noose-makers at this point.


    I'm trying really hard (none / 0) (#119)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:29:20 AM EST
    To disagree with you.  I am.  But lately I've been thnking some troublingly similar things.  Unlike you, I guess, I love Hillary.  I have a history with her.  I remember who she was in the AR First Lady days.  I have nothing but respect and admiration for her perhaps because I've known and followed them so long.

    I think she is a terrible candidate.  And it worries me.  Because as much as Trump horrifies and terrifies me I think he is a fairly remarkably good candidate.

    What perhaps worries me even more is the denial you see everywhere.  There is a link to Ezra Klein in VOX in this thread that I think is a perfect example.  These are smart people.  It's hard fir me to believe they don't know better.  I understand, perhaps, why they write it.  I understand why people want to read it.  But I don't get.  I really don't.  IMO denial is not admirable or morally superior.  It's dangerous.


    Adding (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:38:25 AM EST
    The other alien thought I've been having the last few days, watching the back and forth between Donald, Hillary and Bernie, is that Bernie MIGHT actually be a better candidate against Donsld than Hillary.  Against any of the others, IMO, no.  Against Donald everything changes.



    I sincerely doubt that there (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:43:08 AM EST
    Is anything that Trump could say that would shut Sanders up. He has a message that he is going to deliver come what may. Hillary supporters here may think he comes across as a grumpy old man but for many others he comes across as authentic and real. In the early states, he is attracting the younger voters, one of the components of Obama's winning coalition.



    no (none / 0) (#122)
    by CST on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:41:20 AM EST
    You are forgetting the built in demographic advantages/lines.  Hillary helps with those, Bernie doesn't.  We don't need to win over Trump supporters.  We just need to win.

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    Devils advocate

    All those demographic groups who are not now supporting Bernie would be if he was running against Trump instead of Hillary.


    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#133)
    by CST on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:30:52 AM EST
    That Bernie could probably beat Trump.

    I just don't think it's going to be a problem for Hillary either.


    I didn't forget (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    Trumps attacks against the Clinton's are going to be effective.
    They already have been.  They shut the Clinton's up in mid sentence and coincidentally his numbers have gone from the 30s to the 40s.

    Don't doubt that Trump is already lining up every available ex Clinton girlfriend for joint appearances

    I'm not saying I'm now a Bernista

    I'm saying, hmmmmmm


    Also holding onto (none / 0) (#191)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    The Jeffery Epstein  Bill Clinton Bromance

    That just looks ugly, what the hell was the Big Dog doing on those airplane flights?


    Actually (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:49:04 AM EST
    the polls back you up on that thinking. Bernie does do better against Trump but he loses to even Cruz according to the polls. Hillary is capable. She has shown that. She just needs to show it more IMO.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#130)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:57:48 AM EST
    There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that a Trump nomination will push a non trivial amount of any remaining centrist Republicans to vote for Hillary rather then subject the country to the disaster of a Trump presidency. Bernie might be a bridge too far for such voters.

    Hillary has proven again and again that she can withstand withering incoming fire, I am not saying that Bernie can not but he has not had to face much yet, certainly not the barrage he would face if he won the nomination.    


    A month ago (none / 0) (#131)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    I might have written that comment.

    Bernie is a scrapper.  He yells.  He gets authenticly righteously indignant.

    Also I think it's possible for every republican who might support Hillary there's a populist who might support Trump.

    I'm just trying to keep my head out of the sand here.


    Well (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:04:53 PM EST
    the metro Atlanta GOP'ers are swearing they will not vote for Trump. I have to wonder if they sit home what would happen in a state like GA. Right now the GOP carries the state because they carry both the rural areas as well as the suburban counties. With the likely loss of suburban counties here that Trump would cause I'm not sure he would be able to carry the state.

    The thing is (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:39:36 AM EST
    no one has actually voted yet.

    Hillary is not the best candidate in the world, but she'll do.  The silent majority I think is big enough.  And BTD has me convinced that America just isn't white enough for the GOP anymore.  Now here we have a candidate in Trump who has made it his express mission to piss those people off.

    Sure, he may pivot toward the middle come general election time, I'm sure on a lot of issues he will.  But people won't forget the blatant racism.  And while there is a substantial group of people in this country who like that sort of thing, maybe even enough to get him the nomination, there are also a lot of us who find it completely abhorrent.  And no amount of "support" for left-wing policy in the general election is going to change that.

    For the people who actually give a $hit about this racist nonsense, no one is going to need the media to remind them.  Personally, I still think that's the majority of this country, and I think you could easily see another year of record minority turnout.


    I think record turnout (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    Is almost a given.  And I sort of agree with you.  I completely agreed with you until fairly recently.

    Here's the thing though.  Cruz has been talking about the millions of blue collar voters who have sat out the last few elections.  He's right about that.  But I think Donald is more likely to bring them out.  IMO Donald's most dangerous aspect is the possibility that he will bring out vast numbers of people, just like his rallys, who are not currently in the calculations of easy victory for a democrat.

    Sall I'm sayin


    i think record turnout is a (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:15:28 AM EST
    double-edged sword; I don't think we can assume that the turnout works exclusively in the GOP's/Trump's favor.

    In fact, this was pointed out in some analysis I posted here, that yes, the GOP needs to GOTV, but they need to be mindful that the kind of campaign they are running, and the messages they are delivering, may be working to turn out Democratic voters who will vote for the Democratic nominee.

    I agree, though, that no one who wants a Democrat in the WH should allow themselves to believe that defeating the GOP is going to be a cakewalk; I think we have to have a sustained, focused, relentless campaign against the insanity that is the GOP - no matter who the nominee is.  At this stage, I don't see an establishment Republican at the top of the ticket.  I think it will be Trump, and I think his running mate will be just as bad.

    And if that's the case, I think you are going to see establishment GOP voters either failing to vote, or voting for a Democrat in November.  Trump may be able to get the crazies out to vote, but he will do so at the expense of establishment voters.  I don't think the evangelical/Tea Party bloc is large enough on its own to elect Trump, or Cruz, especially since Trump has already managed to tank the GOP's chances to pick up AA, Latino and yes, Muslim, votes.

    I just don't want Democrats to fall asleep on the job, and get too complacent too soon about how this is all going to play out.


    GOTV can definitely (none / 0) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    Be an unpredictable sword.

    Here's the thing, do really believe that faced with president Hillary and another possibly 8 years of democratic control of, for example, the courts, that they will really stay home.

    I'm not at all sure I believe that.


    There's a poll out - admittedly, it's (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:34:02 PM EST
    an online poll - of "far right" activists that says:

    The nomination of either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio would cause 53% of conservatives to consider voting for a third-party candidate. If Republican power brokers were to take advantage of a deadlocked convention to nominate Mitt Romney, 75% would oppose that move.

    I got this via digby, but she doesn't include a link, so I have no idea where it came from - so consider that.

    So, it appears that the grumbling and rumbling isn't just coming from the establishment Republicans wetting their pants at the prospect of a Trump nomination, it's coming from members of the whack-a-doodle wing, who are threatening to vote third party if their preferred whack-a-doodle wingnut doesn't get the nomination.

    I think this is what is known as "damned if you do, damned if you don't."  Which I happen to think is the perfect "just desserts" for a truly odious group of people.

    However valid these numbers are - or aren't - it's clear that some number of far righties are feeling this way, and we already know from multiple reports that the establishment wing is beside itself about the possibility of Trump at the top of the ticket.  All things considered, I don't think it portends unity among the GOP in November.


    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    This is the "split party" stuff I've been linking to.

    But again, here's the thing - totally my opinion - if the establishment try's to steal the nomination with convention tricks and install an establishment candidate IMO the proverbial sh!t will definitely hit the fan.  The wackados will leave and not come back.  It's possibly the best scenario for us I think.
    On the other hand
    If Trump wins the nomination IMO all the bluster about republicans not backing him will evaporate like fog at noon.  They will back the nominee.  If you listen closely to the "leaders" they are already saying this when pressed.  Priebus has said flatly that the party will back Donald if he wins.  If God forbid Donalds wins he will moderate his views.  He will do whatever it takes.  



    I totally agree with this, Capt. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    Two months ago I would not have believed it. But the GOP establishment is so craven, so cowardly, they will do whatever it takes to win, even if it means backing the creep they really despise.

    And if Trump were to win the WH, it would be the quintessential example of a "Pyrrhic victory" for the GOP. They would never be able to come back from the brink.


    Never mind (none / 0) (#167)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:17:16 PM EST
    the GOP, this country will never come back from the brink if Trump wins the WH.  If this establishment even exists anymore is rapidly turning to dust and a Trump nomination will be the end of it, win or lose in the general.

    Okay, so if someone became a (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    Trump supporter because Trump tells it like it is, and doesn't do the PC thing (leaving aside for the moment that the PC argument is total BS), how does that person react when Trump starts to moderate and hedge and nuance - if Trump is even capable of nuance?

    Does that person feel betrayed?  Disillusioned?  Disheartened?  Or does this begin the rise of the same phenomenon we saw with Obama: he has to say these things to get elected, but once he does, he's gonna be all that and a bag of chips, just like he was during the primary race!

    I sometimes feel like a terrible person because I have come to believe that people who support the likes of Trump and Cruz and Christie and Rubio and their ilk are just not very smart.  I don't know what organ controls their thinking, but it isn't the brain.  Or if it is, it's the last little vestige of primitive taking over for reality.

    I do not get it.  I do not understand how anyone can believe that anything Trump says makes sense, on any level.  

    I completely understand why Charlie Pierce refers to Trump as the vulgar talking yam.  but I don't understand why anyone thinks a talking vegetable would make a good president.


    His new refusal (none / 0) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    To discuss the birth certificate I believe answers your question.  Everyone "knows" he still believes it, he just can't talk about now that he is running for president.

    TPM (none / 0) (#170)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    Follwing the CNN Republican presidential debate, MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked Trump, "Is Donald Trump honest when he says that Barack Obama isn't a legitimate president?"

    "So, I knew you were going to ask me that question," Trump said in response. "You know what I'll say? I don't talk about that anymore."

    "You know the problem with talking about that question?" Trump continued. "If I do answer it, that's all people want to talk about."

    And the media worms then slither under (none / 0) (#171)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    their chairs.

    Talk about a protection racket.


    Any voter backing Trump (none / 0) (#169)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    cannot, IMO, be considered intelligent. Sorry, but I view them as inherently stupid people. The GOP has been appealing to low-info voters for nearly four decades now, and Trump's circus act is the culmination of that dynamic. And the blathering I keep reading and hearing about how Trump voters are just like Sanders voters is beyond ridiculous. Anyone doubting the ridiculousness of it needs only to watch the video of the Trump supporter who showed up to heckle at a recent Sanders rally.

    This country is populated by the stupids. Stupid is in, with a vengeance.


    It's possible (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    but it's also possible that a lot of his voters are not registered to vote and with all the shenanigans with registration like here in GA the GOP could have ended his ability to get those voters in a general election. It's like they've slit their own throat with this kind of stuff.

    Well (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:56:38 AM EST
    Except that they are not designed to keep republicans from registering

    Well (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:47:23 AM EST
    what's going on under the radar seems to back up what you are saying. Hispanics have been organizing like crazy since Trump came to the forefront.

    Just for fun (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    Try to imagine what is most likely to bring those unregistered blue collar voters to the polls.  

    Might it be news of a tidal wave of Hispanic registration?


    You think a wave of Hispanic registraiton is (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    more important to them than opposition to an African-American in 2008 and 2012? I don't.

    I think candidate Hillary (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:08:33 AM EST
    Is not candidate Obama.  

    I also think (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:10:46 AM EST
    Candidate Trump is not candidates McCain or Romney

    Trump (none / 0) (#158)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    is worse than McCain or Romney sorry to say. Neither one came off as a carnival barker.

    she doesn't have to be (none / 0) (#151)
    by CST on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    Because Trump is Trump.

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:43:55 AM EST
    I really do.

    I admire and respect (none / 0) (#161)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    Hillary a great deal. I have for many years. I don't want her for President this time around but that doesn't change the fact that I am well aware of her many gifts.

    Flexibility isn't really one of them, though, it seems to me. I don't mean she has the kind of inflexibility that prevents her from taking in new facts and evolving her thinking (or at worst, appearing to). I mean rather the kind of flexibility that can detect the need for a significant course correction and then implement it. She has always settled for minor, mostly cosmetic tweaks. She still has the people around that she has always had.

    Her determination to design and follow a path is admirable. Truly. It's only an issue when the goal at the end of the path might be off the mark. She doesn't ever really seem to understand that. Which mystifies me, frankly.

    As for Ezra, pfffft. That's another thing that mystifies me -- that he has developed this reputation as smart and insightful. As far as I can tell he has two modes: rephrasing of conventional wisdom or wishful thinking. This column is an example of the latter.

    Although to be fair, I stopped reading him years ago. I can get fatuousness elsewhere. I don't have time to read it everywhere.


    The GOP (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 07:40:29 AM EST
    has been fleecing the rubes telling them that they're going to be rich one day if they just believe in the magic of voodoo trickle down economics. It's starting to dawn on them that they've been fleeced hence Trump leading in the polls. The GOP also has been promising a return to the past of segregation and a structured society "where everybody knew their place". Oh, and if you can't get a job? It's the fault of someone else mainly a minority.

    If there is one area where the (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    Republican and the Democratic Party agree on the most it is that the left is responsible for every negative thing that has happened in this country.

     Long live a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.

    And yes, a Trump government would be for the benefit of corporations and the very, very rich.


    My LTE ran in the paper today (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    A form letter has been going around, used by a number of police associations to raise money.  I pretended not to know that it was boilerplate, but if you Google the key phrase, you will find that it is not confined to the entity I refer to in my LTE.  

    Here is the text as it ran in the paper, very slightly edited from the original but fine with me.

    Sheriff's group's request `beyond mere bad taste'

    I received a solicitation from the Marin County Deputy Sheriff's Association asking for a monetary contribution. The letter contained this phrase: "... we are mindful of the unprecedented wave of violence against our fellow officers in Ferguson, Baltimore and New York ..."

    These of course are places where unarmed black men died at the hands of police after allegations of petty misdemeanors, and communities responded with justified outrage.

    The county recently paid a $585,000 settlement to my friend Chaka Grayson, an unarmed black man who was wounded when a deputy fired 16 rounds at him in a crowded neighborhood over a minor vehicle code violation. The deputy managed to hit the stationary vehicle with about half of those shots, the other rounds disappearing into the residential neighborhood.

    It is beyond unlikely that a police officer would have sprayed bullets at a white driver in Belvedere [Note: this is a very wealthy and very white enclave about eight miles from where my friend was shot] over the same infraction.

    In light of the shooting of Mr. Grayson and the subsequent cost to the taxpayers, the solicitation goes beyond mere bad taste. The only people I can imagine responding positively to a plea invoking the killing of unarmed black men are racists of the worst kind.

    This letter will prevent me from ever contributing a dime to the Marin County Deputy Sheriff's Association.

    The first $585,000 collected by the MCDSA by this solicitation should be paid to the county to compensate the taxpayers for the cost of the actions of one of its own.

    Great letter. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    Though surprised your local paper published it. Local media generally slants towards law enforcement. Local TV is especially egregious in this regard. Local anchors practically fellate police in their stories.

    i.e. puff piece fluffing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:16:02 PM EST
    Well Ask Steven Avery... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    ...why focking with the cops is not a good idea.

    actions at that traffic stop, nor those of the previous decade or two of his life, in quite the gentle light that your letter makes them out to be...

    fund their own dam selves.

    There is not enough room (none / 0) (#88)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:07:13 PM EST
    ...here for me to adequately respond, but I have taken the time to scan the disgusting letter and my response to the sender into a .pdf.  I have included a photo of my friend's shot-up car, which I took quite a chance to get, because I entered the impound lot and snapped away for about ten seconds before I got chased out by a police officer.  Police were pretty pissed that I got the photos.

    I get away with this stuff because I'm an old white guy who has no police record, but I stand by my black friends who do have records.  There is no doubt that I am the most popular white guy in their neighborhood, because I stand up for my friends and I am SO not afraid of police.  

    My black friends have been astonished at how I will get in the face of police and stand up for my and their rights due to my white privilege.  It's a power I try to use for good.

    I will post the link, you can read the rather lengthy document I have composed, and then we can continue this discussion.

    I have known Chaka Grayson for about ten years.  Like most of my black friends from that neighborhood, he has done time.  I like Chaka, he is a great guy, but the "powers that be" have every reason to sully his name.

    He paid his debt to society, and he does not need to get shot over driving on a suspended license.  There is a reason the County paid him $585,000 to keep the matter out of court, and that reason is that they would have lost.


    All I'm saying is... (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:35:52 PM EST
    You said his car was stationary when he and it got shot up, but his own attorney says he was fleeing, ie., not stationary at all.

    Also, due to all his run-ins with the law over the past couple decades, which included assault, armed robbery, standoffs with the police, etc., supposedly the police knew him and the knowledge of his violent history impacted the deputy's actions.

    Lastly, he sued for 10 million. Seriously? 585K was probably less than what would have been the city's insurance co's bill for defending the lawsuit so they settled.

    I know he's your pal, you've explained that.

    All I'm saying is, contrary to what you said in the letter, if the popo pulled over a white dude in whatever fancy neighborhood you mention, who they knew had a similar violent and anti-police past history, as apparently they knew your friend had, I'm not sure they wouldn't have over-reacted in a similar way.

    Obviously there's no way to prove anything mighta woulda coulda happened either way, I just found that Chaka was not exactly the innocent babe that you presented in your letter.


    I'm looking at the physical evidence (none / 0) (#100)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 09:30:20 PM EST
    Look at the shot group in the door.  The car was not in motion when the first shots were fired.  There is no way anyone could hit a moving vehicle several times from that angle.  Once the gunfire started, any prudent person would step on the gas.

    Sixteen rounds fired.  How many bullet holes do you see?  Four.  I'm aware my friend tried to escape a suspended license citation, and I don't condone that, but there was also a guy shooting at him.  To suggest that he is somehow a worse person than a guy who unloaded a magazine in a residential neighborhood over a minor violation is a stretch.

    Is firing 16 rounds into a residential neighborhood a violent act?  If Chaka had done it, he would be in prison.

    Fleeing a citation won't kill anyone.  Spraying gunfire will.  I have experience with the cops who patrol that area, and in my opinion they are the bigger criminals because they commit crimes under the color of authority.  I didn't know that until I encountered the overwhelming corruption and racism among the deputies myself, because I had the nerve to hang out with black friends in a poor neighborhood.


    but you say he was not.

    To suggest that he is somehow a worse person than a guy who unloaded a magazine in a residential neighborhood over a minor violation is a stretch.

    Um, what?

    I know you're not saying I said anything like that. Right?


    "fleeing" (none / 0) (#152)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    In other words, by definition, Chaka was not a threat to the officer.

    In a rational world, that would be Case Closed,  Q.E.D.


    Not sure about (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:47:46 PM EST
    That f...can't drag fingers on iPads.  Besides I'm 45 minutes into my boat drink, watching the rain.

    An enigma. (4.00 / 1) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:57:45 PM EST
    Apropos of nothing, (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:04:38 PM EST
    I really don't like the task of updating and editing my resume.

    I hate it too (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    What makes it so horrible? I don't feel like I lack self confidence...it is just trying to describe the stuff that drives me nuts.

    Phrasing and descriptions (none / 0) (#162)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 01:34:45 PM EST
    are definitely part of it. For me, the goal is to keep the CV to two full pages and no longer (and that's without making the font too small for older eyes to tolerate). In my line of work, the descriptions are all fairly standard but it's a matter of communicating everything that I actually do, which can be quite wide-ranging. So it's editing, editing, editing.

    I passed the (none / 0) (#177)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    point of keeping my resume down to two pages about ten years ago.  And it's still editing, editing, editing.  


    Contracting. I have to account for the time.


    You could always (none / 0) (#180)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:25:41 PM EST
    Do a hybrid type of resume (part functional, part chronological) - a laeger section for Skills / Accomplishments / Experience and then a smaller section just listing your jobs, titles, companies, and dates.

    hmmm (none / 0) (#181)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:32:20 PM EST
    I've never done a hybrid, but that could be interesting. I have both chronological and functional versions.

    But even the functional one is 3 pages (chron is four). I have been through a lot of technology and performed a lot of functions. My knowledge is deep as well as wide and there are still a lot of holes in it.


    I do have a hybrid one (none / 0) (#182)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:36:00 PM EST
    and it works pretty well for me. But there's still a lot of culling to do. I've held more than one job at a time for years now. The people hiring in my field don't generally have the patience for reading through long resumes...they want to see company names they recognize (and can count on for honest referrals) and size you up in person to see if you can meet the physical demands of the job. The resume really is all about getting in the door for an interview.

    Humpday Ha-Ha via the late great Spalding Gray (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    Remember the olden days? (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    When North Korea would have a nuclear test and the newscast didn't start out with immediately contemplating North Korea nuking the United States?

    Trooper who arrested Sanda Bland indicted (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 07:29:31 PM EST
    for perjury

    He (Special Prosecutor Shawn McDonald) explained the grand jury didn't believe Encinia's statement that he took her from the car she was driving so he could conduct a safer traffic investigation.

    Some wonky reading (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 07, 2016 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    Oh wait. Does a Bachelor (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 04, 2016 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    who doesn't pick a female who accepts get to grandfather into the next season?

    I was more interested in this line (none / 0) (#3)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:02:52 AM EST
    "I wonder if this season is meant to be a spoof on the regular Bachelor season."

    Hasn't the show from Season 1 been a spoof since day 1?


    Mythbusters (none / 0) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:57:24 AM EST
    ...went out with a ten day marathon, all 250 shows.  It ended yesterday

    Withdrawal is a beotch.

    When I first read that (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    I thought you were binging The Batchelor.  I saw you differently, for a moment.

    Make it through another season? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:05:02 AM EST
    I can't fathom making it through a single episode.

    Come on Chuck (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:17:00 AM EST
    How could this paragraph-

    It's another season of the Bachelor. Ben seems very vulnerable and lacking in self-confidence. It's hard to tell if that's the way he really is, or its just a story line crafted from the "edit" from last season. (His reaction to being rejected was to voice his fear he was unlovable.)

    NOT make you want to set your DVR?



    Ben's obviously on the wrong show. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:41:56 PM EST
    Those women rejected him because they see him as "The Biggest Loser."

    Howdy (none / 0) (#9)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    I'll schedule right after WWE Smackdown (or whatever call it now).

    Please make it Jeralyn! (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:55:46 AM EST
    I don't watch the show, but I enjoy your recaps.

    Because yes, when I am not watching TV, I am reading about TV.


    Happy Belated B'day, Ruffian! (none / 0) (#24)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    One of these days I am going to ask you for recommendations on TV shows to watch from the past 15 years.

    I watch a lot of movies at home but about the only thing I watch on TV are Tennis matches and game shows that my mother forces me to watch when she is visiting.

    Couple of years ago, I rented House of Cards at a Redbox and was totally confused when I first started watching. I thought it was a movie! It was season 2, but I watched it anyway and then rented Season 1!


    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    Ask me anytime - let me know what you are in the mood for. So many good choices!

    8000 people+ started lining up (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 09:44:34 AM EST
    At 10am yesterday in Lowell Mass. for and Donald rally last night.

    But they probably won't vote for him.

    This crowd shot from Donald Trump's Massachusetts rally is absolutely mind-boggling

    According to weather underground (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    Lowell's air temperature was in the low twenties yesterday at 10:00 AM.

    Those people standing in line are true believers or more likely, truely angry.

    Esquire released a poll the other day showing Women more angry than men, for both parties.  Breitbart called Trump the Avatar of Anger.

    Warning: the Breitbart link contains autoplay Flash video.  I linked to it only for its truely trollworthy and alliterative headline.

    If you're having problems with autoplay, find your browser settings and make Flash "Ask to Activate"  It's a pain in the butt (PITA) but will save you many browser freezeups.


    One person who was there was (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:57:03 PM EST
    Charlie Pierce:

    Lord knows what he [Paul Tsongas] would make of the fact that the arena named after him was filled to the rafters with people who came out and stood in line for hours on a winter's day to get all hot and bothered by the likes of the following:

       "I know exactly how to build a wall. I know the footings. I know exactly how deep they have to go. I know everything."

    I would go deeper and longer into the policy prescriptions presented, if there had been any. The primary policy prescription is to elect He, Trump, because he knows everything, including enough smart, top guys who will help him in the unlikely event that he comes up against a problem about which he doesn't know everything. (He once again cites Carl Icahn and the rest of his proposed junk-bond Cabinet.) I would analyze the ideas presented to the loving audience, but the only idea presented was electing He, Trump, who knows everything. For example, he proposes that, to defeat ISIS, we should "take the oil." Taking the oil is the beginning and the end of the policy, the alpha and the omega of the idea. "We should be unpredictable," he says, and I don't really know what that means, but everyone cheered.


    He does not deliver speeches. He delivers remarks. He recites his poll numbers. He explains his long fight against the odds that has resulted in said poll numbers. He mocks Jeb Bush and he sucks up to Tom Brady. He cracks that Hillary Clinton "has the biggest teleprompters," and everybody laughs a laugh straight out of a frathouse smoker, and he's rambling on to another topic, usually involving He, Trump. He did four minutes on how he filed the required documents regarding his financial affairs.


    And everybody cheers. I am not prepared to explain why except to say that a lot of people in the audience identify more with his wealth than their own lives. He speaks to their deferred dreams and their frustrated ambitions. Trump gives them He, Trump as something to believe in. It only gets malignant when he also gives them someone to blame for why we are all not He, Trump. Immigrants. Muslims. They are why not everyone is He, Trump. That is why everyone needs He, Trump to show them the way. They can resist taking any of this seriously because He, Trump winks at them and tells them not to do it. He, Trump and his Top Men will handle the serious stuff. It's all a show and he's the star. He's not building a movement. He's building an audience. In 2016, that may be enough. Political alienation is a genuine phenomenon. It has been in development for decades. "Government is not the solution," said Ronald Reagan. "Government is the problem." In reality, government is the only product of politics. Alienate people from their government and you alienate them from their politics, and vice versa. All that's left is the show, and people will gravitate to the superior show. And that is what came to Lowell, in an arena named for a decent man whose entire career was based on a kind of politics radically different from the political vaudeville the arena hosted on Monday night.

    Personality cults never take us to a good place. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:31:41 PM EST
    Some may say that was Obama's ride to the Presidency

    The Obama personality cult.


    Having a personality (none / 0) (#92)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:18:19 PM EST
    ...is a decided advantage when running against people like McCain and Romney who do not have one, but it is nothing that he should apologize for any more than he should apologize for being taller than his opponents.

    It's not Mr. Obama's fault that these guys are stiffs with no soul.


    New Hampshire and Massachusetts (none / 0) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    both fall in the 1st month of primary voting. He gets a 2 for 1 with that appearance. His business sense is far above his fellow GOP candidates.

    In both New Hampshire and Massachusetts (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    If a voter is registered with a party, they may not vote in the other party'supplies primary.  Yes, it"seems easy to change.

    What? (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:26:53 AM EST
    In Massachusetts at least (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:32:38 AM EST
    You cannot vote in the other party's primary.  But if you are "unenrolled" (independent) you can vote in either primary.  More than half the voters in MA are unenrolled for that exact reason.

    This: (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 10:01:50 AM EST
    And yet, the willingness of so many people to wait so long in such cold temperatures simply for the chance to see Trump speak would suggest that the idea that his supporters won't be the sort of people to sit through the long caucus process of Iowa or turn out to vote in the frigid cold of New Hampshire might be misguided.

    is the first time I've ever seen the beltway media admit well, yeah, Donald's people might actually show up to vote and caucus. LOL.


    What the article points out, though, (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:00:28 AM EST
    is that crowds don't necessarily translate to votes.  People show up to rallies for all kinds of reasons, one of which is the celebrity factor - just being able to say they saw him in person.

    Lots of articles point out (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ragebot on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:37:20 PM EST
    Trump events may be attended by those simply wanting to see the show.  No doubt Trump is a master showman.

    What I wonder is why I have never seen an article about folks going to Sanders events simply to see the show, even if Bernie is not the showman of the Donald.

    Just as an aside I still remember back in the 1960s folks saying some peeps went to the peace marches not to march for peace but to hook up with members of the opposite sex.


    My guess (none / 0) (#174)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:58:56 PM EST
    What I wonder is why I have never seen an article about folks going to Sanders events simply to see the show, even if Bernie is not the showman of the Donald.
    People don't want to give any weight at all to the size of Sanders' crowds. They just want to use DKos as the yardstick.

    Frankly, as a Sanders' supporter, I'm just watching it play out. I neither discount it, nor revel in it.


    Not sure (none / 0) (#187)
    by ragebot on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    I understand your answer.

    Sanders clearly gets much larger crowds than Hillary.  I know some Hillary fans discount it but the MSM seems to have noticed it, and anyone who pays any attention to politics knows Sanders fans seem much more intense and numerous at events.

    I kinda get the feeling that Hillary intentionally stages her events to limit the number of folks who attend and to limit her contact with those who do attend.


    I think this too (none / 0) (#188)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 06:38:28 PM EST
    She has purposely NOT gone for the stadium-sized rallies.  Part of her "lustening" tour.  I think she'should going for a slow burn, instead flaming out too soon.

    But good for Bernie and his big crowds. He  brings excitement.


    Um, "listening" (none / 0) (#189)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 06:39:14 PM EST
    "Lustening" would be a whole other kind of campaign....

    She likes (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 06:57:09 PM EST
    to do town halls and those are not conducive to big crowds.

    They both play to their strengths (none / 0) (#194)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:10:34 PM EST
    Hillary getting into a battle with Bernie over who can draw the biggest crowds would just make her look bad. It is not her strength. Smaller events and TV appearances are better for her.

    I certainly do not have the expertise to even speculate about whether crowd size on the GOP or Dem sides will translate to primary victories.  There will be voting soon enough and we will find out.


    As Howard Dean himself has admitted ... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    ... in citing himself as an example, he was drawing the largest crowds by far of all the Democratic candidates at this particular juncture in the 2004 campaign, and how'd that ultimately work out for him?

    I have to ask (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    Do you honestly believe that?

    Well, a related article throws a little (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    cold water on equating crowd size with votes:

    In summary, then: Trump's base of support is among groups that tend to vote less frequently than other demographic groups. The theory is that turning them out means a jump in support for Trump that's hard to measure.

    But it's also very hard to turn them out. Less-educated voters likely vote less regularly because they tend to earn less and tend to be younger. That means that they are more likely to rent or more likely to move around or more likely to work odd hours -- all of which make it literally harder to vote. (This is why Democrats advocate for early-voting options: Their voters are more likely to need them.) So it's not just a function of getting people excited to vote. The Republican Party would need to actually make sure it's easier for Trump's less-frequent voters to get to the polls, but without increasing the Democratic vote at the same time. That means a good field/turnout program -- which is not a Republican strong suit.


    That is the final card that Priebus gets to drop on us here, though -- a card which supersedes all the other cards on the table. Donald Trump almost certainly can't win the nomination unless he demonstrates an ability to get less-frequent voters to the polls in the primaries, including in Iowa. If Trump can do that, he can win the nomination -- and Priebus's confidence in general election turnout is warranted. If Trump can't do that, he won't be the nominee and Priebus doesn't have to worry about it anyway.

    People are guessing, that's all; they might as well be reading tea leaves.

    I do think there's a celebrity factor at work with these rallies - how much of a factor, I couldn't tell you.  

    Here's a question I haven't seen anyone address: how many of the people who go to these rallies aren't going to any other candidate's rallies?  I mean, would you expect some of the people at a Sanders rally have also gone to a Clinton rally?

    I just can't imagine that everyone we see at a Trump rally is only seeing him.


    I don't have much doubt (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:38:24 PM EST
    that the people at Trump's rallies would be more than willing to skip a day of work to go caucus or vote in the primary for him.

    By golly shoephone (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:42:47 PM EST
    you have it exactly right.

    sorry, didn't mean to use your name (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:43:19 PM EST
    All good questions (none / 0) (#173)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:54:59 PM EST
    When Bush/Clinton were running I went to both rallies, although my vote was spoken for. But that is pretty unusual I think.

    This is me talking totally out of my a$$, but looking back, it seems that rallies of that size (for both Sanders and Trump) don't usually happen until the Party's candidate has been chosen.

    Certainly in Denver we weren't picking venues like university stadiums during the pre-season.


    I just can't imagine that everyone we see at a Trump rally is only seeing him.
    ... I can. Do you see other rallies of that size on his side of the aisle?

    I wouldn't discount the fact (none / 0) (#176)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:13:37 PM EST
    That the Donald is a master huckster and could easily pay or entice people to his rallies, just so everyone is commenting on the size.  It'seems not like this spin isn't always out there (remember the "200,000" people that showed up to see Obama in Berlin?)

    And frankly, I do think there are a bunch of people who want to see the freak show.  Doesn't mean they will actually vote for him.


    I agree (none / 0) (#178)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    And frankly, I do think there are a bunch of people who want to see the freak show.  Doesn't mean they will actually vote for him.
    But it doesn't mean they won't either.

    Gee (none / 0) (#172)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 02:45:05 PM EST
    I wonder why you consider crowds that size and larger for Sanders' are indicative of nothing. While Donald's people
    ...might actually show up to vote and caucus.

    Almost forgot: LOL


    You missed (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:03:16 PM EST
    the point. It was about the beltway saying something about it. Nothing at all about me, Sanders or anybody else.

    I didn't miss the point (none / 0) (#179)
    by sj on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    I was using you as a nutshell.

    I should have been more clear.


    My mind is not boggled (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:12:32 AM EST
    People like an exhibition...what else are you going to do in Lowell on a Monday?

    Seriously (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    Wouldn't you be curious to go?   I would!

    Curiuos of What ? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:57:58 AM EST
    Trump supporters, big crowds, cold weather ?

    I would have zero interest at going to any kind of political event.  I didn't even go to my roof when Obama was 2 blocks away eating at the Breakfast Klub to see the madness at a place I used to eat at regularly, and that was when he was in prime 'hope' mode in 2008.

    I can't imagine being in a huge crowd that cheers when Trump mentions building a wall or banning muslims.  I would feel very uneasy, certainly would be scared if I let my feelings be known.


    I have only been to one political event... (none / 0) (#39)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:13:00 PM EST
    John Kerry was campaigning and I only went because Bruce Springsteen was there to support him and sing a couple of songs.

    I have never donated to a political candidate either. Last year, a Republican Senator stopped by my husband's work place. The manager told them ahead of time that they were expected to donate a few hundred each. When my husband told me, we got into a big argument about it. I told him he needed to make a stand and refuse but he did not want to be the only one in the office making a stink about it.

    I have been bombarded daily with emails from the Clinton campaign asking for donations and have resisted so far. Don't know where they got my info from since I am not a registered voter. If Trump gets the nomination, Clinton is going to be the first politician to get money from me.


    I Was in a New Apartment... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    ...when I got a thank you from GWB with a 8"x10" portrait.  I did not donate, but the picture I would show to my friends telling them I did to see their reactions.  To this day I have no idea who donated to George using my name.

    I am with your husband, that couple hundred would easily cost him thousands over his career there.  It's the game we play and not time for stands, we work to make money, that is it, so everything else IMO needs top revolve around that, not politics.

    Sucks, but that is reality.


    "donated using my name" (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    That is an interesting question.  It points to a possible method of skirting the then in place campaign finance laws.  

    Are donation records ever audited?


    I Am Pretty Sure It... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 01:36:14 PM EST
    ...was someone I knew and done for a joke.  I had just moved there, so the name/address would not have been on anything beyond my bills.

    But speaking of 'donating in my name', when I was in the service, they wanted 100% for the United Way so badly that when I refused to do it, one of the bosses would do it in my name.  I always wondered what the perk was of hitting 100%, but it must have been pretty good.

    Now, I do it because same thing, they want 100% and since I am no longer a kid and actually care about this career, I begrudgingly donate.  For the record, I donate fairly liberally, I just don't like the fact that it's expected and that if you don't 'give' to their organization its viewed badly.


    My understanding (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    is they are audited to see if it is a real person not to the point of finding out if that particular person really did donate unless it's the case of a lot of money that would drag flags like D'inesh D'Souza did.

    Um, seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    Wouldn't you be curious to go?   I would!

    And what is it, exactly, that would make you curious? How many hecklers would get "roughed up" at Trump's urging? Or is there something you don't already know about Trump and his supporters that you believe you would learn there?


    The pure entertainment value (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 06:32:54 PM EST
    Certainly more entertaining than some of the handwringing and pearl clutching around here sometimes.

    Is it just Trump and his Trumpian army, (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by shoephone on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 06:48:20 PM EST
    or do you find all bigots and bullies entertaining?

    Would your curiosity (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:22:23 AM EST
    Get you in line at 10 am?

    When it's 28 degrees? (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    maybe (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:34:06 AM EST
    If it meant I got the day off of work.  But probably not.

    Sure (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 02:48:14 PM EST
    If I didn't have to work or be somewhere else.

    In the summer of 1991 or 1992 I stood out in the Texas summer heat in line to see Dan Quayle give a speech because a friend wanted to see him.  I thought he was a tool, but it isn't every day the Vice President of the United States is in town, and my classes were done for the day.  

    We didn't get to go in, because my friend had an attack of conscientiousness and decided she needed to go to her class instead.  I went home because we were so far back, I probably wouldn't have gothen in at that point.


    I hadn't heard this was going on (none / 0) (#19)
    by CST on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    So I looked today and the only "story" that's being reported in local news is about protesters/hecklers, even in the Herald - which is known to be the right-wing tabloid response to the Globe.  

    I think that's a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the local media.


    Lots of outrage over "Making a Murderer" (none / 0) (#21)
    by McBain on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    If you haven't seen the popular Netlix documentary and don't want to spoil the "ending",  don't read this link or this post.

    The outrage and support of celebrities might carry some weight like it did for the West Memphis Three.  I have a feeling it's going to take new evidence and/or new technology get new trials. In some cases, defense/appellate lawyers have to practically prove someone else did it, not just show the previous trial was flawed.

    The more I think about it, the more I come to this conclusion....   Steve Avery made some significant mistakes and rubbed some people the wrong way.  One of those mistakes involved a disgruntled family member who was married to someone in law enforcement.  That got the ball rolling.  

    As Jeralyn pointed out in another case, once the powers that be decide they're going to get you... you're in serious trouble.  Avery's mistakes and reputation were enough for cops and investigators to have tunnel vision.  It wasn't about figuring out who did it, it was about proving Avery did it.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#31)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:20:34 PM EST
    ...the moving back to the district that put you in jail for years, wrongly, and the district in which you are suing for $36M was a worse error in judgement than pointing a gun at a cop's relative IMO.

    Had he not moved to Manitowoc, he would would most likely not be in jail and living a pretty good life with the $36M settlement.

    It's not like lightening, once you get struck the odds are almost zero, these were cops you are accusing of crimes with the documentation to prove it and suing them for a small fortune.


    Another thing I don't like (none / 0) (#49)
    by McBain on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    How does the second conviction excuse the first one? Even if he murdered Teresa Hulbach that doesn't mean it's OK to have taken 18 years from him before that.  

    Did he accept a low ball settlement to pay for his second trial?  I can't remember.


    That Wasn't Clear... (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    ...I thought the $400k was from the state, and the county suit just disappeared.  The show did not clearly state what happened, but eluded to him taking the settlement because he needed funds, but the state I believe passed legislation just for him to get paid.  

    He had proof that the police knew another person committed the crime he was in jail for and they hid it.  It was after the conviction, but he would have gotten out a lot sooner.  The $36M was a slam dunk, or at least that is how the show portrayed it and then all of sudden, no one is talking about it.


    The Disgraced Prosecutor... (none / 0) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    ...says the show was working for Avery's defense team. LINK

    I say disgraced because he is no longer a prosecutor because he told domestic abuse victims their abusers would not get out of jail if they played nice, which meant sexual relationship.  If not, the case would get dismissed.  In other words, he threatened them with violence to get sex.

    He also admitted to abusing drugs at the time which affected his judgement.  Seems like a good reason to file an appeal, the prosecutor admitting to bad judgement because of drug abuse.


    I didn't know Kratz threatened those women (none / 0) (#61)
    by McBain on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 05:21:23 PM EST
    I thought he just sent dirty texts.  Here are 5 reasons Kratz thinks Avery is guilty.  I got it from a tabloid looking site

    1. Avery's past incident with a cat was not "goofing around". He soaked his cat in gasoline or oil, and put it on a fire to watch it suffer.

    2. Avery targeted Teresa. On Oct 31 (8:12 am) he called AutoTrader magazine and asked them to send "that same girl who was here last time." On Oct 10, Teresa had been to the Avery property when Steve answered the door just wearing a towel. She said she would not go back because she was scared of him (obviously). Avery used a fake name and fake # (his sister's) giving those to the AutoTrader receptionist, to trick Teresa into coming.

    3. Teresa's phone, camera and PDA were found 20 ft from Avery's door, burned in his barrel. Why did the documentary not tell the viewers the contents of her purse were in his burn barrel, just north of the front door of his trailer?

    4. While in prison, Avery told another inmate of his intent to build a "torture chamber" so he could rape, torture and kill young women when he was released. He even drew a diagram. Another inmate was told by Avery that the way to get rid of a body is to "burn it"...heat destroys DNA.

    5. The victim's bones in the firepit were "intertwined" with the steel belts, left over from the car tires Avery threw on the fire to burn, as described by Dassey. That WAS where her bones were burned! Suggesting that some human bones found elsewhere (never identified as Teresa's) were from this murder was NEVER established.

    Kratz listed a few more on that site.

    That id the Problem... (none / 0) (#118)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 09:27:24 AM EST
    ...with this case, no one can be believed.  Krantz was disbarred for a period.

    I know this, he did not kill her in the house, so where was the torture chamber, and where did he chop it up.  That would actually make sense in that her blood and hair was found in the back of her car, she was moved.  And why were her bones in three different places and why did a cop call in her plates before the car was found.

    #1 & #4 have nothing to do with this case.


    I wonder if this is true (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    and it's stupid as well.f

    The only thing I surmise ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 05:00:52 PM EST
    ... from that Facebook post is that some people apparently have this pathological need to seek out reasons to take personal offense. They either (a) have way too much time on their hands; (b) need to grow a pair; or (c) both.

    The world's already full of bull$H!+. Why further add to the pile?


    a pair of ovaries, i assume you mean (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:40:53 AM EST
    since we progressive men know where the real strength resides.

    When I first saw this headline (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:01:55 PM EST
    Tom Cotton endorses Bernie Sanders for Democratic nomination

    I was like, "whaaat?"

    But reading the article, it became clear not that Cotton was supporting Sanders as a candidate he would vote for, but that Sanders is the one Cotton wants the GOP to be going up against.

    During an interview on "Arkansas Week: Special Edition," the Arkansas senator said he has no plans to make a personal endorsement on his own side of the aisle but already knows who he's rooting for in the Democratic race.

    Sorry, Hillary Clinton.

    "I, for many months, I've been strongly in favor of Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary," Cotton said with a smile.

    Cheap-a$$ click-bait headlines; I feel better now.

    I saw it too (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 07:03:01 PM EST
    and thought whhaaat?

    And yeah, so you had to click on it to find out it was a joke. Sheesh.


    Meanwhile, elsewhere on problematic planet earth (none / 0) (#97)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jan 05, 2016 at 08:57:33 PM EST
    North Korea has probably detonated another nuclear weapon.

    A 5.1-magnitude earthquake detected 19 kilometers from North Korea's Sungjibaegam nuclear test site was "artificial," according to South Korea's YTN news agency.

    The quake had a depth of ten kilometers, the U.S. Geological Survey said, while Chinese earthquake networks put it at zero. A 4.9-magnitude earthquake in a similar location was recorded before confirmation of North Korea's third nuclear test in 2013 at the site.

    Baseball Hall of Fame Selections to be Announced (none / 0) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    Tonight (Wednesday) at 6:00pm ET

    The process permits eligible voters to cast a ballot for up to 10 players. That's total overkill to me and dilutes the Hall of Fame should ten ever make it. Many writers want 12-15 votes to be possible. I'd be happier if they limited it to five.

    If I had a selection I would only vote for 2 players (maybe 3) on this year's ballot:

    In alphabetical order:
    Barry Bonds
    Ken Griffey Jr.
    If I broke down and listed a 3rd it would be Jeff Bagwell

    There are 32 names on the ballot. If I were to pick a top ten on how voting will shake out it would be:

    Ken Griffey
    Mike Piazza
    Jeff Bagwell
    Tim Raines
    Roger Clemens
    Barry Bonds
    Curt Shilling
    Trevor Hoffman
    Lee Smith
    Edgar Martinez

    Lots of suspected PED users on that list (none / 0) (#143)
    by McBain on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    I don't think baseball is ready to vote them in.  I assume Griffey gets in.  He was never really linked to PEDs.

    Today (none / 0) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:28:59 AM EST
    Every athlete should be suspected of using a few things. As there is no way of knowing who did and who didn't I would vote for the best of the era regardless. I'd put Bonds and Griffey well ahead of everyone else on that list. If Pete Rose was on the list I'd vote for him too.

    Hope Trevor gets some votes. (none / 0) (#148)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:15:45 AM EST
    Ken Griffey & Mike Piazza (none / 0) (#183)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 05:06:43 PM EST
    After Griffey and Piazza (none / 0) (#186)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    the next 6 in order that didn't make it:



    This is a good analysis of HOF bullsheet (none / 0) (#137)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:44:09 AM EST
    Meant as a reply to Coral Gables post (none / 0) (#138)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 10:44:40 AM EST

    Agreed Dadler (none / 0) (#149)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:25:53 AM EST
    The HOF does things their way.  Phil Rizzuto was passed over 15 times and didn't make it in the HOF until 1994.  He played for the Yankees in the 40's and 50's, still holds several records, was loved by all, even George S and just kept getting passed over.  

    Thankfully (none / 0) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    you weren't dating Mario Mendoza's daughter.

    How do you know (none / 0) (#190)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 06, 2016 at 06:46:29 PM EST
    that he didn't?  ;-)