Monday Open Thread

I'll be offline Monday and Tuesday, so here's a new open thread.

I'll be glad to miss the news as to the new UnPresident. It's still too difficult to process.

I'm debating whether to start a second blog tracking his moves. Here's what it would look like (only I'd move it to its own site.) Might be too much work and too depressing. You can't leave comments as of now, it's just a prototype (but that would be the site name, once I moved it off worpress.com.)

Again, All topics welcome

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Team Trump: Not Ready for Primetime >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's a great idea, Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by leap on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    but I don't know how you'd have time to track DJT. He's overwhelming. The shit he does is overwhelming. His "people" are vile and overwhelming. You have a day-job, plus this wonderful blog. I think "Tracking Donald" could be a full-time occupation and very depressing.

    RIP, Gwen Ifill (1955-1961). (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    The well-respected PBS journalist, who served as co-anchor of "The PBS Newshour" and moderator of "Washington Week" died today in hospice care at age 61, after a battle with cancer.

    RIP is too little to say, but? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 02:27:10 PM EST
    10 to 15 minute stories.  No one else did them or does.

    I've been watching the NewsHour since McNeil and Lehrer.  Nothing else on television is worth the time.


    PBS Newshour is what "60 Minutes" ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 07:12:28 PM EST
    ... and even CNN used to be 25-30 years ago. The produced quality television journalism with in-depth stories that are meant to inform.

    Nowadays, everyone else is into "infotainment." Paddy Chayefsky's "Network" has come to pass, with everything on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC a real-life derivative of that film's fictional "The Howard Beale Show." And we're now ruing the day because of it, with an easily manipulated and misinformed electorate that's "mad as hell and not going to it anymore."



    democracy now... (none / 0) (#5)
    by desertswine on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    With amy goodman is worth a view if you can get it.   Otherwise you are right.

    Chelsea Manning (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 02:08:03 PM EST
    asks Obama for commutation of sentence . I for one hope this happens.

    Time spent, (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    over six years, is more than enough. Miss Manning was not just insensitively cared for while in confinement, but inhumanely treated in prison. It seemed to be vindictive and mean-spirited toward the sexually confused young soldier, beyond norms for punishment. The few convicted under the vintage Espionage Act were sentenced to lesser periods, from one to 3 l/2 years.  The mental health care needed, alone, cries out for a merciful commutation.

    Maybe Assange will call in a favor... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    and Trump will emancipate Manning.

    I don't see Obama doing it, as half decent as he has been for pardons, his admin. has not been decent with whistleblowers.


    That's a good (none / 0) (#123)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    thought. Trump, certainly owes Assange bigly. But, I think Chelsea Manning's best odds are with Obama--as slim as they may be.

     Not good odds, either, for Ed Snowden. Obama wants him to come back for trial under the Espionage Act, which does not cotton to a whistleblower defense, and Trump has called Ed a traitor who should be executed.  It was not clear if the execution was before or after a trial. Although, it may be that when Trump is whispering sweet nothings into Putin's ear, Putin may suggest getting Ed out of town, perhaps, the destination resort, North Korea.

     And, with the re-election of McCain, Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier held by the Taliban for 5-years, does not have a good future. Despite recommendations by an Army hearing officer that Sgt. Bergdahl not be punished, jailed or court-martialed, the General proceeded anyway after McCain said there will be "repercussions" if Bergdahl was not punished. Apparently, this punishment will be after the court-martial.  


    Sexually Confused? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    Are you trying to get labeled as a bigot?

    This is how (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:28:15 PM EST
    Manning assessed herself.  The self-questioning of her gender-identity is described in an article of her life.  It is a lengthy article, but you seem interested.

    If you're not a card-carrying Democrat, ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 08:28:03 PM EST
    ... then the issue is really none of your concern because we are a private organization, albeit one which anyone can join free of charge. Further, how we ultimately choose our delegates is left up to each state party. If you ARE concerned, then you ought to join your respective state party organization so that you can enjoy a say in the matter.


    Well... Trump is asking for top secret security.. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Cashmere on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    clearances for his children.  This continues to disgust and frighten me.  


    I think this (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 09:55:19 PM EST
    top security clearance for his children is disquieting. (a) it signifies that he does not trust those around him sufficiently, so he will need to rely on his children. and/or (b)it indicates something even more troubling: he can only confide in his children the weakness or disability he may have.

      Don, Eric and Ivanka may be a lot of things, but experts, or even somewhat knowledgeable in national security affairs, is not among them. It is something else, and not in a good way.  And, of course, this does not even touch on the conflicts of interest for these children who leave offices at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and head over to offices at 1110 Pennsylvania Ave.


    We don't hand out top security (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 10:46:11 PM EST
    clearances to just anyone, do we? Don't we vet people for those types of things? Is being the president-elect's child really a criteria for a security clearance?

    Important criteria is (none / 0) (#42)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    "need to know." And because the president elect "says so" is not enough reason.

    that's according to CBS (none / 0) (#31)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 02:17:25 AM EST
    meanwhile, ABC reports that the Trump transition team has denied this story



    It might be (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    (Or it might not - this is Trump, remember) clearance to freely walk about the White House, much like the First Ladies get.   No paper work has been filed on this yet, though Donnie could put in a request after he's inaguarated.  But they would still all have to go through the rigorous background check, including full disclosure of tax forms and financial dealings, and I don't know how they'd answer all the questions about their trips to Russia...

    From The Daily Beast (sorry, I can't link tiday)

    But a former Obama administration official said Trump could simply be asking for them to be cleared so they can have unescorted access to parts of the West Wing. Even First Ladies have to be cleared to access that part of the White House, but that doesn't mean they have access to top-secret areas like the Situation Room, the official said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the clearance process publicly. The level of clearance for people with unescorted access to visit the President in the West Wing is known as "Yankee White," which could be what Trump is seeking.

    CBS, however, reports that Trump wants his kids to be able to see top secret information, defined as information that could cause "exceptionally grave damage to the national security" if released.

    So, Melania is being dissed (none / 0) (#61)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:30:21 PM EST
    and will be restricted to the White House beauty salon.

    Kurt Eichewald, (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    who did great investigative work on Trump (and received threats of violence for so doing), presents his opinion on why Democrats lost--myths, DNC and Bernie.

    Some people (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:40:09 PM EST
    unfortunately can't give up on those myths.

    Better (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    Kurt's gonna get blasted (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    but that is a great piece.  Will be interesting to see if anyone can debunk.

    God, and we're supposed to be the "smart" ones.


    That article (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    certainly explains why our concern trolls were pushing Bernie for sure.

    To me the epitome of "concern trolling" (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 07:51:36 PM EST
    taken to it's ultimate, perverse conclusion, is your recommendation, Ga, that Democrats, in order to win elections, follow the Rethugs as they call the tune and move further to the right.

    I think Bernie's (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 05:07:27 AM EST
    behavior of attacking Hillary for not going for $15.00 an hour minimum wage and now licking Trump's feet and begging for $10 bucks an hour says volumes.

    Licking and begging (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    just a bit of an overstatement, don't you think?

    Of course, if you think emulating the eloquence of Steve Bannon and Roger Stone is the way to go, knock yourself out.


    Well Jondee (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 19, 2016 at 06:55:51 AM EST
    Bernie is down on his knees in front of Trump. The fight is on and Bernie is having self indulgent rallies.

    Loved this paragraph: (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    "A certain kind of liberal makes me sick. They traffic in false equivalencies, always pretending that both nominees are the same, justifying their apathy and not voting or preening about their narcissistic purity as they cast their ballot for a person they know cannot win. I have no problem with anyone who voted for Trump, because they wanted a Trump presidency. I have an enormous problem with anyone who voted for Trump or Stein or Johnson -- or who didn't vote at all -- and who now expresses horror about the outcome of this election. If you don't like the consequences of your own actions, shut the hell up."

    Thank you.


    Why can't I rate this tears? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    Thx for the article (none / 0) (#71)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    Some good points in it, though I hesitate to blame voters I don't think HRC or any D were going to get anyway. I could be wrong.

    Though I am not generally inclined towards forgiveness for our national tragedy  - very much the opposite for actual adults - I expect most youths concerned will learn from their error. Too bad for them and everyone else it has to be the hard way.


    Shhhh (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    Don't tell johndee or NYS...they'll accuse you voting for Trump or Romney or hanging Cheney's picture on your wall, or some other nonsense.

    And they say Berners take it personal! ;) (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 07:12:48 PM EST
    I say we blame Trump voters in select states for Trump, if we must blame. Occam's Razor and all.

    As to Eichenwald's Point Two...I disagree, and we will never know.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 07:52:18 PM EST
    you and your fellow "both sides are equally bad" purity trolls own this one just as much as the Trump voters. That kind of thinking was wrong a year ago and spectacularly wrong today.

    Hillary faced a unprecedented array of opponents, The Republican congress, the reckless malicious media, Russian intel and the fkng FBI just to name a few and you might even say that she almost inevitably succumbed to a thousand cuts. Make no mistake the sniping from the far left was one of those of those cuts and while it wasn't the deepest it probably stings the most especially now.



    We all own it... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:09:46 PM EST
    who's "I told you so" notwithstanding.

    Hey at least your vote counted in FL...I coulda hacked the system in my state and gave Hillary 5 billion votes and it wouldn't have made a lick of difference.


    Nope, I don't own it (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:52:35 PM EST
    but you do.

    I don't own it either (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    I didn't do this

    Yes we do Tracy... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 01:28:57 PM EST
    2016 and all it's unpleasant surprises is years...decades...of civic neglect coming home to roost.  Yes we did, yes we do....everyone of us.

    People (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 01:36:42 PM EST
    had a chance to stop Trump and some decided not to do anything. Towanda, Tracy and I did something to attempt to stop him. The fault for Trump lies squarely on the people who voted for him, the people in the GOP and those who voted third party or did not even show up to vote.

    The Sarandon Brigades voted (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    All of us straight into hell.

    When does the revolution start? You're all on the front line right?

    I think I'm staying in the rear this time.


    I think the Democtratic Party... (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    would be better off if the old tired candidates with outdated paradigms did take it to the rear.

    They failed to defeat Donald F*cking Trump of all f*cking people in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, & Pennsylvania.  The DNC trainwreck took out the blue firewall in their epic fail...no small feat!  

    But by all means, take no lessons from that and blame it all on the disenfranchised and underserved grasping at ballot box straws and see where that gets us in 2018 and 2020.


    Kdog (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    you were part of the problem. You and like minded people. You were spouting the same tired old tropes the GOP was. You enabled it all.

    And those people who you purport to care for apparently you really despise. It's all about you and your self righteous  sanctimony and women losing their rights and Medicare being eliminated well, hey, that's all just a game to you but real people get hurt.

    You apparently think moving right is a good thing because that is where the party is going. There's nothing that the party can ever do that is going to please you. So people are going to move on and ignore you. You can stay in your corner with your boutique loser and continue but you have lost all rights to complain about the D party.


    kdog, (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 04:17:40 PM EST
    please know that I appreciate your thoughts for the future.  The situation is so serious and bleak that we all need to unite in opposition and to thrash out a new electoral path forward.

     As you know, I was (am) a Hillary supporter and took some umbrage from the media and others who equated Trump and Clinton--just Coca Cola or Pepsi when it was, in fact, Coca Cola v. Sewer Water.  But, that was then, this is now. We will never get that perfect candidate so we need to get the one who offers progressive views and programs and is electable in whatever environment four years from now brings.  Democrats, of course, can't just re-fight the last war.  

    However, to complete our analysis of what went so wrong, we should not gloss over what Admiral Michael Rogers, head of NSA and US CyberCommand, said, just today, that a "nation state" interfered in the election, benefiting one campaign as its goal.

      And, of course, the role of Comey and the FBI,needs to be assessed from the gratuitous editorializing last July, the "new" emails found 10 days before the election, and the "nevermind" two days before the election.  All outside of DOJ guidelines and advice.  Maybe it had no bearing on the results, but that seems entirely unlikely.

    The Democrats can work very hard, convince those white males in WI, MI,PA and OH, as Trump calls them, the poorly educated (without them taking offense), run the perfect candidate and campaign, all for naught, if these undermining activities are not thoroughly investigated--as hard as that will be, given the Trump Administration.


    Try (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    making a list of all the actors that were arrayed against Hillary, you will need a sharp pencil and a large piece of paper. It is truly a global all star team of ratfkrs.

    Comey's Assistance. (none / 0) (#161)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    Corey Lewandowski, former Trump campaign manager and CNN contributor, boasted that Comey's letter handed Trump the election.

    Can (none / 0) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 01:16:26 PM EST
    you say banana republic?

    Yes, I can. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by KeysDan on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 02:15:12 PM EST
    But, I think that would be a compliment.  And, banana republic libel.

    I've taken a hard look at my people (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 07:32:29 PM EST
    And the paradigms aren't outdated kdog. The people continue to vote against their interests. Why?

    I think I'm with Rob Reiner this morning (none / 0) (#156)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 05:32:44 AM EST
    This is the last fight of the civil war. There have only been 2 Presidential elections where people immediately took to the streets afterwards. The first was Lincoln and now Trump, and race was a factor in both.

    And an opinion that is mine alone. Lincoln was nothing if not competent and capable. Donald Trump is not, and the institutional Conservatives, the people who work inside the beltway who are key components of functioning infrastructure whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican, they are fleeing the Trump administration.


    B.S., kdog (none / 0) (#149)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:11:33 PM EST
    New rumor (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    Kris Kobach, current Kansas Secretary of State, and legal counsel to FAIR (hugely anti immigrant), to be AG...

    I saw that (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    BTW I tried to DM you back on twitter and it wouldn't work. I don't know what is wrong.

    Tried to DM you back (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:22:40 PM EST

    Yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    I got yours but could not reply. I don't know what is wrong.

    My irony meter hit record levels (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 09:02:01 PM EST
    in reading that President Trump can be hauled into court -- latest tally, 75 lawsuits -- because of . . . the precedent of the Paula Jones case.

    I haven't heard anything about emailz (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    lately . . . other than on the GOP side, as Pence sues to hide his and wants a private server.

    My irony meter now officially is broken, and that was only in Week One.

    But if Clinton's emailz were such a threat to the republic, doesn't that threat still exist?

    What say you, New York Times?  You always had so much to say on this.  But now, your idea of a threat to the republic is when that guy that you elected goes to a restaurant and doesn't tell you.

    yesterday in Oakland (none / 0) (#6)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 02:56:04 PM EST
    thousands of ordinary citizens joined hands to encircle the 3.5-mile perimeter of Lake Merritt

    it was a cheerful & entirely peaceful demonstration, with police helicopters circling overhead

    why helicopters?

    because every other peaceful demonstration in Oakland for the past week, not to mention virtually every peaceful demonstration in Oakland over the past three years, has devolved into blocks-long trash fires, obstruction of surface streets & freeways, burning of police cars, defacement & destruction of public & private property (including minority-owned businesses), & assaults on police officers as well as on random civilians

    yes, all these things really are a thing around these parts (aloha, Donald in Hawaii)

    Someone (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 08:33:57 PM EST
    told me that the anarchists show up at dark at any protest. I don't know if that is true or not.

    true in Oakland (none / 0) (#26)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 09:27:41 PM EST
    yesterday's peaceful demo was at 3 PM

    anarchists came here about 5 years ago from Eugene, Oregon, to form Occupy Oakland ("the Westboro Baptist Church of the Occupy movement")

    they never left

    one reason they have been able to stay is that they squat in foreclosed houses in formerly African American neighborhoods of West Oakland (now undergoing tech gentrification)

    sociopathic, apolitical scumbuckets


    Don't worry, (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    Sundar Pichai is on his way and will be handing out, "Do No Harm" buttons.

    Did not know about the Oregon bit (none / 0) (#43)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 11:24:54 AM EST
    Otherwise I can vouch that this is fact. I'm downtown every day.

    It's gotten pretty routine, unfortunately. I don't feel endangered, but it's a bad thing that the anarchist crowd has made peaceful protest impossible, at least on werknights.


    Of 108 arrested in Portland, all of 31 (none / 0) (#95)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:55:02 PM EST
    protesters voted.

    The other 72 -- including half, 36, who were registered voters -- own the result.  And my disgust.


    Isn't 30% pretty good for that cohort? (none / 0) (#120)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    There's a bright side to everything, or so I've been told.

    They probably voted third party. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    Dilettantes all, who are play-acting at political activism -- just like Susan Sarandon, only without the Beverly Hills address and money. As for Ms. Sarandon herself, she encourages them from her charitable foundation's office on South Beverly Drive. Perhaps she'll donate the funds to bail them out of jail.

    No. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:14:29 PM EST





    I'm sorry, I was actually talking about ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 01:34:23 AM EST
    ... the 30% of those arrested who did vote. I apologize for not making myself clearer -- and for sure, I really wasn't clear at all in my comment. My bad.

    Nah, I've seen them coordinate (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 07:09:31 AM EST
    Hitting a protest in broad daylight.

    Harris found guilty in hot car infant death (none / 0) (#7)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 03:25:18 PM EST

    Did anyone follow this case?  I mostly forgot about it.  I hope the jury's decision didn't have a lot to do with his sexting young women.  Lots of people cheat on their spouse without killing anyone.

    Have not seen any (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 06:12:36 PM EST
    former juror's comments, but the jury focused among other things, on surveillance tapes of Harris' return to the car at lunchtime to throw a light bulb purchase into the car while still not noticing the little boy left in the car that morning. The jury asked to see this video again during deliberations.

      The defense tried to impeach the testimony of the Cobb County (the trial was held in Brunswick owing to pre-trial publicity) detective-- a rush to judgment, reliance on Harris not outwardly grieving, and certain inconsistencies.  And, that Harris was forgetful.

    The prosecution posited that the act was deliberate, not accidental, and malicious. Harris did not hate the child, but loved himself.  The sexting and affairs were presented as a double life he lead and a reason to escape his lot in life (divorce would be contrary to his Christian values).  The sexting and affairs were introduced in all their salacious detail, including dic pics of Harris that he sent around.  

    The defense did not offer, somewhat surprisingly, that the sexting and other obsessive sexual behavior had caused him to be preoccupied and contributed to his forgetfulness. As hard as it is to believe, accidents of forgetting children in hot cars does happen, but the jury, in this case, wasn't having it.


    Brendan Dassey to be released! (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 03:39:44 PM EST

    A federal judge ordered on Monday that Brendan Dassey, one of the subjects of the popular Netflix series "Making a Murderer," be released from prison while state prosecutors appeal his overturned conviction

    His "confession" was absurd and should have been thrown out before his trial.

    The judge ruled Dassey's borderline to below-average intellectual ability likely made him more susceptible to being coerced than someone with a higher ability.


    Not quite yet. . . . (none / 0) (#12)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 05:21:53 PM EST
    as Walker AG asks for delay.  See jsonline.com.

    Looks like he won't be getting out anytime soon (none / 0) (#190)
    by McBain on Sat Nov 19, 2016 at 08:14:48 PM EST
    this is the second time I thought he would be released.  

    Watching the priorities, (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 04:05:02 PM EST
    in accord with those poorly educated white voters, concerns in MI, WI, PA, OH--trade and jobs.  Shaping up: over-turn Roe v Wade, round-up and deport illegal immigrants, repeal Obamacare AND Medicare-- replace Obamacare with nothing and replace Medicare with Obamacare (subsidized premiums for insurance obtained on exchanges), take away gay rights, curb all that voter fraud, eliminate food stamps for those people, and work to keep Muslims out of the country.

     Not everything can be done at once to help those "forgotten" white working class rust belters, it will take a  little longer to sell off Western public lands, and run oil pipelines across the country.  Coca Cola v Pepsi.  

    Hmmm. In Wisconsin (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    reliance on Obamacare is much higher in counties that went to Trump vs. counties that went to Clinton.

    Reality is gonna smack some in the face soon.

    But Walker and Ryan and others will them that it's the fault of the Dems, and that will be believed, because the most obvious factor is this:  In counties that went for Trump, avoidance of cognitive dissonance is much higher.

    And, of course, where in your view of their worldview is race, gender (not just your inclusion of gender orientation), and ethnicity?  You may think those are subsumed under jobs, but that does not comport with Trump voters averaging much higher incomes than do Clinton voters.


    Agreed, (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    reality will displace their illusions and delusions. But, as you say, they will be told that it is the fault of someone or something else.  Lots of scapegoats, for both Walker, Ryan and others as well as for the voters themselves to cling to.  No, I do not think factors of race, gender and ethnicity are subsumed under jobs, but are subterfuged under jobs.  

    Thank (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 08:31:09 PM EST
    heavens he won't be able to blame Democrats. Whatever he does or does not do is all on the GOP.

    Are you speaking of (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:09:51 AM EST
    "reliance" as in receiving a subsidy or as in paying the full fare?

    If it is the former that's strange. If its the latter then it is probably a revolt over price increases.


    Reliance on subsidies (none / 0) (#62)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:37:35 PM EST
    This is Walker's Wisconsin.  Logic fail on all matters.

    Just curious (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 07:08:01 AM EST
    what is your source? Exit polls? Pre election polls? Surveys??



    See jsonline.com (none / 0) (#115)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:42:10 AM EST
    The major newspaper in Wisconsin.

    Thanks but (none / 0) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 09:32:09 AM EST
    It went to the paper's home page nit the article.

    No big deal I was just curious.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 04:37:00 PM EST
    that anything remotely concerning the economy is way down on the list.

    Yes, it is (none / 0) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 05:24:54 PM EST
    interesting.  Economy Schmocy, first things first. Don't count on that bigly infrastructure anytime soon.  

    Clinton lead nears 850,000 votes (none / 0) (#15)
    by Towanda on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    today, with millions more ballots still to be counted.  (See Cook Political Report; see spreadsheet updated daily.)

    the popular vote (3.00 / 2) (#32)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 03:36:14 AM EST
    is a statistic from a game no one is playing

    SPADFY (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:38:07 PM EST
    (Some People Are Different from You)

    that is objectively true, CC (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    i am a 68-year-old woman with biracial grandchildren & a spouse who is the daughter of Holocaust survivors

    like my parents, i have been a registered Democrat since the first year i was eligible to vote

    i've voted for Hillary every time i've had the chance: once in 2008, twice in 2016

    i spent the last several weeks phone-banking for Hillary in the Rust Belt states

    i am sad & disappointed in the outcome of this election

    & yet, as you so helpfully pointed out, some people are indeed different from me

    unlike some people, for example, i remember one of the most elementary lessons from my 8th-grade civics class

    in case you missed that lesson, this is why we have the Electoral College (the blue shows where Hillary won the popular vote, & the red shows where Trump won the popular vote)

    please have a lovely evening


    Slavery is why we have the EC (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:56:49 PM EST
    as amended in 1804.  

    But gosh, don't let that reality get in the way of your lovely evening.


    yes, protection of the slave states (none / 0) (#104)
    by The Addams Family on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 02:23:35 AM EST
    was the justification for the Electoral College as amended in 1804

    but of course slavery is no longer the reason why we have the Electoral College

    ethical, reasonable people can & do disagree on the benefits & flaws of the Electoral College system

    & for all its problems, the Electoral College system does continue to offer important safeguards against the potentially extreme, destabilizing consequences of a national popular vote, superficially appealing though that approach may seem


    That used to be (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 05:43:03 AM EST
    a good argument for the GOP. However since it now has put a dangerous and destabilizing demagogue into office I think the argument for it being a stabilizing force has been shot.

    Your argument fails (none / 0) (#151)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    in 2016, in case you haven't noticed that the Electoral College was on by an extreme, destabilizing candidate -- without the popular vote.

    You may find this situation superficially appealing.

    I do not look at it superficially. So I do not find it appealing.

    For cripes sake, the Constitution was written with an amendment process for us to fix it.  We honor its creators best by doing so -- which is the reason that our Constitution still stands after more than 200 years.


    RIYF (none / 0) (#152)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 01:16:26 AM EST
    superficial appeal, as i said, would be one quality of an NPV system

    but nice try at a straw-man argument

    anyway, do stay on top of those popular vote counts

    there's only a month to go until December 19, when the Electors will correct the voters' mistake, as Nostradamus foretold


    Keeping score (none / 0) (#157)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 05:43:13 AM EST
    Presidential elections...World Series

    Electoral votes per state... Winning 4 games

    It is not total number of votes , nor is it total number of runs scored,

    Each state is scored independently, as is each game
    The rules are known by both teams and candidates beforehand

    Otherwise, the the 1960 NY Yankees would add another championship to their impressive array, as they destroyed the Pittsburgh Pirates, in total runs, but lost 4 games to 3.

    Just a losers lament


    Like they say, (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:01:50 AM EST
    "a picture is worth a thousand words."

    Unfortunately, the Democrats appear to want to double-down on the message that picture illustrates: As of now it appears that Chuck Schumer, New York, and Nancy Pelosi, California will become the minority leaders of the House and Senate, respectively.

    After eight years of what can only be described as a political slaughter: 900 State Legislature seats, 12 Governorships,  69 House seats, and, 13 Senate seats, you'd think they would have learned there's more to America than the two coasts.


    Seriously Shooter... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    With Schumer and Pelosi as the faces of the Dems, there will be no phoenix rising from the ashes in the midterms...the bloodbath will continue.  Schumer...they gotta be sh*tting us.

    Kdog (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    you decided not not participate in the election. So with all due respect you are as much a problem as you say Schumer is. You even said Trump would be better than Hillary.

    Seriously, what Ga6thDem said (none / 0) (#116)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    You forfeited your right to complain, kdog.

    You still can post about kittens and unicorns.


    Make a suggestion then. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:20:42 AM EST
    I personally think Pelosi's time is past but don't just complain offer suggestions. The places for growth potential for Democrats is the south and the west.

    An alternative was offered... (none / 0) (#125)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    y'all didn't like it.  You own it! ;)

    I'd suggest Ellison as DNC Chair, Liz Warren as Senate leader, and pick any rust belt member of the House progressive caucus to lead Brand D in the House...for starters.

    For 2020, ...the anti-establishment populist fervor that ruled the presidential election in 2016 will rule again in 2020 after Donald's swamp draining fails...Dems need to find someone outside of politics with some celebrity appeal to run for president as an outsider.  And the message needs to be refocused to be more inclusive of rural whites.  Dems can and should still be the party of tolerance and gender/racial/sexual orientation/religious equality...but they need not make that the centerpoint of their campaign like Clinton did down the homestretch...as noble as it is, it's a loser as far as elections are concerned.  The focus should be on the economic struggles, or simple uncertainty and worry amongst those not yet struggling, of those who globalization forgot domestically.  Lay off gun control as a campaign issue too...again, not necessarily changing the position, just stop running on it nationally.  It's a loser.

    Those are my suggestions to build a new coalition that extends beyond the northeast, west coast, and big cities and will be required to take our country back with the electoral college and all.  

    And for god's sake...the next presidential candidate needs to learn from Trump how to use the media for free and go gladhand people in West Bubblef*ck on the trail relentlessly, instead of attending 10 grand a plate fundraisers in NY and LA.  


    Stop whining (not you) and compete (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 12:01:43 PM EST
    The focus should be on the economic struggles, or simple uncertainty and worry amongst those not yet struggling, of those who globalization forgot domestically.

    Those days are over.  This is what you don't understand.  It's not going to get better for plant workers, truck drivers, etc.

    Go back to school, community college, or vote for candidates that talk about retraining.


    Yep. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    Globalization is here to stay whether you like it or not. The only antidote to globalization is to become like Russia used to be behind the iron curtain and that would be worse. The companies that Donald said are going to bring jobs back to the US have already announced those jobs are not coming back.

    And the category of voters Trump did the best with make 50 to 100K a year, hardly struggling blue collar workers.


    You're right... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    I do understand. But I think in lieu of selling "retraining" for jobs that ain't exactly coming to the rust belt either, or community college for 50 year olds, we should start educating the nation on guaranteed income.  And in the meantime infrastructure...bring the case directly to the people that the Republicans have fought funding infrastructure projects that would bring construction jobs to their counties tomorrow instead of assuming they know watch C-Span and know this.

    Because another hard truth in addition to globalization being here to stay is automation/technology continuing to advance at rapid rates.  Nevermind a decent paying factory job, before too long there won't be a job as a truck driver to be had.  The demand for labor will continue to go down while global competition will continue to increase.

    I don't know if either party, or the nation, is really prepared or equipped to discuss and address these hard inconvenient truths...but we best try otherwise we ain't seen nothing ugly yet.


    Infrastructure (none / 0) (#158)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 05:48:00 AM EST
    You will get your wish.

    The Donald is planning the mother of all infrastructure bills,

    Fiscal conservatism is out the window with the President Elect,

    Republicans will spend like crazy, at least for 4 years


    It's another (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    crony capitalism bill like the ones George W. Bush used to push through which produces no jobs. But we all know that Reagan proved deficits don't matter. So you should not be surprised. This is what Republicans do and have done for at least the last 36 years.

    Hmmmm, Really? (none / 0) (#166)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 06:46:19 PM EST
    The Bern and Madame Pelosi are all set to sign on.

    Not so sure about the Republicans though.

    The Donald has no cronies to pay off, right? None of the establishment supported him.

    No, this bill The Donald says he wants right out of the box. We will see.........


    Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 12:50:44 PM EST
    was a sucky GE candidate and he could not win the primaries because POC could not stand him and his sanctimony. Bernie could only talk about one thing. And honestly you can't complain because you couldn't even be bothered to vote for Bernie. And Jill Stein is mentally unstable. People asked you to be an ally but your purity got in the way. Can't sully my precious hands and if you lost your rights oh, I'm so sad but sullying my pure hands is worse than everybody else losing their rights. So frankly you have lost the right to advise anyone on what to do. The party has gotten the message that the left wing or the Stein voters are just not reliable and there is no pleasing them and they don't want to be part of a coalition. So I'm sure a rightward move is in order.

    Populism is based on anger and denying people rights or subsuming the rights of people. You're willing to go there again? Bernie told us to go to the back of the bus because we weren't as important as his imaginary class struggle.

    We definitely do not want someone outside of politics after Donald who can't even run his own transition.

    This election was about white nationalism and backlash against Obama and POC. To deny that is to deny reality.


    You can suggest all you want, kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 12:53:49 PM EST
    But I, for one, specifically warned you time and again about the perils of self-marginalizing. Because you've willfully minimized your own voice through your own self-indulgence, you've essentially forfeited your own political credibility in the eyes of many people.

    More to the point, what you're offering here is really nothing more than recycled political trope that you've likely read and heard elsewhere. In the face of the open racism and bigotry expressed by our opponents, are you now advising us as Democrats to soft-pedal our own principle of equality and inclusivity, and reduce it to the level of a dog whistle? Seriously? Why, yes, I do believe you are:

    "Dems can and should still be the party of tolerance and gender / racial / sexual orientation / religious equality ... but they need not make that the centerpoint of their campaign like Clinton did down the homestretch ... as noble as it is, it's a loser as far as elections are concerned."

    So, after an entire election season in which you decried and denounced Hillary Clinton in these threads for not standing resolutely on liberal principle, when she actually does just that, you now think that's "a loser as far as elections are concerned."

    Do you even listen to yourself? Not only is this ex post facto armchair political quarterbacking at its absolute worst, you now sound exactly like Mark fckn Penn!

    When you can't be bothered to get off your own a$$ and get involved personally, or even change your voter registration to "Democrat" to participate in your own state's primary election, you've really no business advising Democrats as to what they did wrong.



    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 12:59:06 PM EST
    I agree. The left wing of the party or the left of the country really is a joke. They should be ignored in all future endeavors.

    They don't ALL need to be ignored, ... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 01:55:29 AM EST
    ... just the sparkle ponies like Susan Sarandon and Jill Stein who are overly enthralled by their own political reflections. Perfect is always the enemy of the good, and they just proved that in spades. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on liberal dilettantes who won't get their own hands dirty, save to fling poo at their own side and run off when they don't get their way.

    Lemme get this straight... (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 02:09:11 PM EST
    it's ok to triangulate and sacrifice welfare programs, fellate Wall St. and Outsourcers, and fill prisons to the gills in order to "win" in the 90's...but it's not ok to make something other than race/gender/immigrant issues the focal point of a campaign?  Again, I said you don't change these noble positions, just run on others that have wider appeal.  

    Do you hear yourself?

    And I know damn well better than to offer advise to Democrats after repeated chiding by you that it's sign up or shut up...but GA asked my opinion, so I offered it.  


    Y'all voted against the person that wanted (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 02:49:12 PM EST
    to and had plans to change all that.

    This is an example of the purity folks are talking about: "fellate Wall St" and no, Welfare programs weren't sacrificed.  Changed, yes, some hurt, sure, but many poor people still got services.  Was it perfect, no.  Things got demonstrably worse when again, purity allowed the GOP to win the presidency.

    A NY Senator has to work with Wall St?  C'mon man.  That's NOT shady.  You know what Wall St. also provides?  Jobs to NY'ers and plumbers and electricians and cleaning staff and all kinds of other people who live in Westchester, Putnam, Nassau, Jersey......you ever been to Wall St during rush hour?  You know what you see on the subway, working class people of ALL shades bro.

    You folks need to work with the allies you have not the ones you want.  I promise, you're not going to die, no one will know what you do in the voting booth.  I hope you all will remember this in 2018.  I'm not hopeful.

    So no, it's not OK.  You want people to worry about people who might face some hard times, meanwhile those of us that face an actual threat now are supposed to say, nah, let's let your stuff take priority. Do you hear yourself?

    Guaranteed income and other things folks see as freebies just doesn't sell in America - yet.  The system has to be worked as it exists. Colorado shot down Single Payer, Bernie supporter Zephyr Teachout lost.  The country is just not there on these liberal ideas yet.  That's why the ACA was such a big deal, but again, forest for the trees with you guys.


    You (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    still don't get it. Between purity trolls like yourself. and outright demagogues like Trump, Democrats do not have a chance.

    You and too many other Americans continue to be under the delusion that both sides are the same. One more time with feeling, they are not.  

    You would rather die of thirst than drink from the glass that is half empty. Unfortunately that might be the epitaph for our country and the world.


    They are just (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 03:20:56 PM EST
    like the far left Germans in the 1930's that thought Hitler would not be a problem. They enabled that rise.

    When you insist on all or nothing, ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 03:51:12 AM EST
    ... 90 times out of 100 you'll end up with nothing. Those other ten time when you get everything you want, it's because you've likely coerced an underclassman into forking over his lunch money at recess.

    It really east to talk in clichés as you do and assume the role of moral poseur. But you're really in no position to issue demands of anyone, because you have no skin in the game. Adults realize the value of compromise and playing the long game politically, and that sometimes you have to bite the bullet, make tough decisions and sacrifices and endure the unbearable -- at least temporarily -- for the greater long-term good.

    Do you think Marshal Kutuzov and the Russian army wanted to surrender Moscow to Napoleon and the French in September 1812? Of course not, it ran against every fiber of their being to give up such ground to an invader. But they did so after the Battle of Borodino because they realized that if they stood their ground any further, the alternative outcome would have been far worse. Through tactical withdrawal and strategic redeployment, they lived to fight another day -- and they ultimately won the war.

    Any fool can draw a line in the sand, kdog. When you do that, you effectively reduce the question to whether or not you can back up what you say. In politics, that means do you have the votes.

    And if you don't have those votes, then you're really talking out of your a$$ and will likely be exposed as such in short order, unless you're a really good bullschitt artist. And if I'm on the other side and I DO have those votes, and you're in my way, then I'll simply throw a sharp elbow and knock you aside without so much as a second thought or glance.

    At its heart, politics is the art of the possible, which is a concept you refuse to even acknowledge, never mind bother to understand. Occasionally, guys like you will somehow get themselves elected to public office, but nine of ten will be one-term wonders because they mistake bluster for accomplishment.

    If you want to be taken seriously in political discussions, kdog, then you need to be a serious person, and right now you're not even close. You want to know how I know that? You gave yourself away last spring before the New York primary, when you complained about how difficult and onerous it was to change your party affiliation on your voter registration and that's why you couldn't vote for Bernie Sanders -- even though the State of New York merely requires you to complete and sign this one-page form and submit / mail it to your local county Board of Elections.

    Without even realizing it, you had effectively told me that you didn't even bother to try. Dude, I've been involved in Democratic Party / grassroots political organizing for 30 years, and you might have considered that perhaps I know a little something about registering people to vote and amending their party affiliations. When you tried to bluff our way through, you insulted my intelligence and frankly, that surprised me.

    Look, I'm sorry that I've been really busting your chops here, but dammit, you're better than this. I know you are. if you want to grow as a person and truly actualize your potential, then you need to break out of your immediate comfort zone, toss aside the cynical shell you present here, and start endeavoring to truly understand where others are coming from, rather than merely assuming that you already do.

    If you ever change your mind and want to actually learn about how to be effective politically in your community and become involved, I'm more than happy to help you get started. Just get in touch with me through the email address I've provided to TL, and I'll connect you in person to a local Democratic Party official in your community. who'll get you going. From there, you'll no doubt meet a lot of like-minded local residents who share your interests and concerns.

    The door is open. Whether or not you choose to avail yourself of the opportunity is entirely up to you.



    Hey kdog! (none / 0) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    I know Donald doesn't know but he really doesn't run Talk Left.

    That picture is bull$h!t (none / 0) (#126)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    because all it shows is the land based off some stupid extrapolation to make some stretch of a point to BS you.  I assume you know much of that land is sparsely populated.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, there are more people around the coasts.

    All those loses show one thing - the other side has a big picture in mind and we do not.

    What are Dems supposed to be learning? Which Dems?  Politician Dems or people Dems?  Cuz the politician Dems have teams to tell them what's up, i.e. who's voting, who's not.

    The Dems that need to learn are US, the citizen ones.


    It's about (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 03:50:18 AM EST
    a mandate. Not that I think it's going to matter to Republicans. We've been here before and it seems they believe that any way they get into office by hook or by crook they think they have an overwhelming mandate.

    But, losing the popular (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:44:10 AM EST
    We should (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    constantly remind him then. I know it gets in the craw of Republicans who have been making up the popular vote numbers in an attempt to apologize for Trump. It's been really bizarre.

    Reason enough to hammer on it right there (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:50:05 PM EST
    Of course, (none / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    it is the electoral college statistics that call the win, but Trump supporters, apologists and those less than astute have tried to minimize the importance of the comparative vote of the people (popular). It does not seem to have escaped Trump, and he, once again, sawed them off from the limb they were out on.

    if america had a popular vote (none / 0) (#86)
    by linea on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 07:25:33 PM EST
    the winner would be the one who turned out the most urban residents from large cites. it would be a completely different race and the winner would be much farther progressive-left than hillary. in my opinion.

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 07:39:09 PM EST
    You're assuming that Atlanta is the same as Seattle or Dallas is the same as NY.

    i dont know the math (none / 0) (#91)
    by linea on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:00:16 PM EST
    but i imagine the large urban north-east and the pacific coast would be 51% of people.

    It's possible (none / 0) (#121)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    You'd have to get suburbs and exurbs too, and it never pays to get killed in any demographic. But I think there would be more left-ish influence over positions campaigned on and policies enacted, which is what matters most.

    And as of 5:00 p.m. EST on Tues. Nov. 15, ... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 04:00:19 PM EST
    ... Hillary Clinton's margin has now increased to 1,002,296 votes.

    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 06:05:26 AM EST
    The losing team uses it as a scorecard....

    But didn't Madame Sec also win the popular vote for the 2008 nomination???

    And who received the nomination???


    Apparently (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 09:42:25 AM EST
    it gets stuck in the craw of Trump and the Republicans who are really upset about the fact that Trump lost the popular vote. Not only did he lose the popular vote but he lost it in record numbers. He's going down in history as the biggest popular vote loser ever.

    Let's not get too carried away here. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 04:12:33 PM EST
    There's little doubt that Mrs. Clinton's margin of victory in the nationwide popular vote will be substantive when the various state results are finally certified. In terms of actual percentages, the final differential will likely be somewhere just south of 2% in her favor.

    But the biggest per capita disparity occurred in the 1876 presidential election, when Samuel Tilden defeated Rutherford Hayes in the popular vote by three percentage points, 51-48%, while losing the Electoral College, 185-184.



    But Hayes did not win the Electoral College (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Peter G on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 07:57:15 PM EST
    in the way that Tr*mp apparently did, by cobbling together enough narrow popular vote wins in particular states whose Electoral College power, added together, totals over 270. Hayes won over Tilden, the clear national popular vote winner, because a political deal was made to resolve an impasse over who was the winner in four states. That evil deal was as described by Towanda.

    As you recall, I discussed this ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 08:48:44 PM EST
    ... five days ago in a prior thread:

    "In the particularly acrimonious 1876 dispute between Gov. Hayes (R-OH) and Gov. Tilden (D-NY), Tilden had won the popular vote decisively by 3 percentage points and had initially won in the Electoral College, only to see three southern states suddenly flip their electoral votes to Hayes under very dubious and corrupt circumstances, in which Republicans promised to end Reconstruction those states in exchange for the necessary electoral votes to give Hayes a 185-184 edge.

    Now, to be fair to the GOP back then, this was a period in which the Ku Klux Klan was an enormous and much-feared influence in southern U.S. politics, and Klansmen had actively moved to violently suppress the Republican vote down south on behalf of the Democratic candidate, Gov. Tilden.

    There is a very good case to be made that without Klan activity, the overall vote in those three states would have, if fairly cast, delivered those states to Gov. Hayes and the Republicans anyway, and Hayes would have likely won the nationwide popular vote, as well.

    So, yes, there was a deal, because as elections go, the one in 1876 turned out to be a very messy affair, one which rekindled the still very raw feelings in the wake of the U.S. Civil War only a decade prior.

    The Republicans engaged in backroom dealmaking with Southern Democrats in order to deliver the White House to Gov. Hayes. For their part and via their agents in the Ku Klux Klan, Southern Democrats had actively engaged in the violent intimidation and suppression of GOP voters, most of whom so happened to be black.

    In the meantime, the hapless Gov. Tilden got screwed royally by the southern wing of his own party and was compelled to reluctantly acquiesce to his rival's election as president. Our nation's democratic values were induced into a political coma for the sake of expediency.

    As both you and I know, and sadly contrary to what some people would otherwise desire to believe, American history has had some truly ugly chapters which are fully revelatory of our country's darker side. One was the 1876-77 electoral impasse between Hayes and Tilden, and the resultant sellout of our black citizens by the white male leaders of both political parties.

    Unfortunately for our generation and era, last week's election results hold very rich potential to also become one of those less than shining moments.



    Thanks for letting (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 04:22:55 PM EST
    me know that!

    That's why I co-majored in history at UW, ... (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 04:27:59 PM EST
    ... So I could post on a blog 30 years later to clarify the historical record.



    And the result was rise in lynchings (none / 0) (#79)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    and rapes and the end of Reconstruction in the South in 1877, and killings of labor organizers and workers in the North in subsequent years -- and more . . . all from the deal made to hand the presidency to the loser of the popular vote.

    Elections have consequences, indeed.


    Wanted to rate your post (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 10:31:48 PM EST
    a "5" but it felt as though I was high-fiving the dastardly deeds you've described.

    It's amusing (2.33 / 3) (#16)
    by itscookin on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    that the party who uses super-delegates would be concerned that someone who won the popular vote didn't win the electoral college? I'm willing to consider abolishing both. Or at least awarding electoral college votes by congressional district instead of by state. But the super-delegates are easier to change. All the Democrats have to do is eliminate them. No major change in legislation required.

    Both parties (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 08:28:20 PM EST
    use super delegates. And frankly if the GOP had theirs set up the way the DNC does there would have never been Trump as the nominee. The super delegates came into being to avert disaster to the party or to the country. Too bad the GOP couldn't avert disaster to the country.

    It's amusing (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    That people STILL don't understand superdelegates.

    Are they stupid?  Yes. Did they unfairly give Clinton the nominatiom?  No.



    It's not amusing (none / 0) (#64)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    to see such misinformed comments here.

    In the end, Bernie Sanders, his camapaign ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 04:24:57 PM EST
    ... and his supporters were left clinging to the forlorn hope that Democratic Party superdelegates would overthrow the will of the majority of Democratic primary voters, who had favored Mrs. Clinton by a substantial 3.7 million-vote margin, and switch their declared support to throw the nomination to Sanders.

    Well, that didn't happen, obviously, because the votes of superdelegates at the convention reflected the popular will. Most pro-Bernie historical revisionists tend to forget that rather inconvenient truth when spinning their false narrative about how the nomination was somehow stolen from them, and they would like the rest of us to do the same.



    Why is trolling "amusing"? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    But you sound very concerned about superdelegates. You should get right on that.

    Clinton lead now more than a million votes (none / 0) (#66)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:50:44 PM EST
    and still counting. . . .

    Hillary is the choice (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 01:57:59 PM EST
    of the people. Trump is the choice of a relic from the days of slavery.

    Relic? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Erehwon on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    I hope so ... the so-called Alt Right in the next White House may have other plans ...

    On how to understand Hillary Clinton's defeat (none / 0) (#20)
    by linea on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    I'll tell you how I understand it. I understand it because there are a lot of people in this country, including people in the Democratic Party, who do not fully appreciate the kind of suffering and pain that millions of working people in this country are feeling.

    Trump ran his campaign talking about he was going to be a champion of the working class. He was going to stand up to the establishment.

    bernie sanders on today's edition of "all things considered" on npr.

    Sanders (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 14, 2016 at 08:29:47 PM EST
    is wrong again. These people are not suffering and there is data to back it up.

    yaaaaawwwwwwn ... n/t (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 06:05:02 PM EST
    Sanders is mostly saying strategically smart ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    ... things if what one wants to do is get back into power by not getting one's ass kicked quite so badly by white rustbelt voters. But have to ignore most of what Trump said to conclude that his message was thus. I don't believe most his voters did. Those that did clearly have little regard for others - or should I say "Others".

    The Democrats had the right economic message. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 09:19:27 PM EST
    We lost because we seriously underestimated two things:
    • The potent appeal in the white hinterlands of the GOP's racist scapegoating and demonization of immigrants; and
    • The cumulative effect of a quarter century's worth of rumor, innuendo and worse from the Republican establishment on our party's nominee, i.e. "Clinton fatigue."

    As for the latter point, the Clintons are done, so Republicans and their allies in the media aren't going to have Bill and Hillary to kick around anymore.

    As for the former, how we as Democrats seek to effectively combat or counter the GOP's racism and xenophobia, without subsequently compromising the integrity of our own commitments to our country's immigrant communities, obviously remains a work in progress.



    You forgot one thing (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 09:42:36 PM EST
    Comey. Without his interference Hillary was headed toward a landslide.

    Whether or not she was going to win, ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 04:33:26 PM EST
    ... and I'm not sure about that after the fact, is completely beside the point. FBI Director James Comey and a not insignificant number of special agents in the New York office set a horrific precedent, by abusing their positions and offices in an attempt to influence an electoral outcome.

    Probably not (none / 0) (#100)
    by McBain on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    Trump was doing well before Comey's bizarre announcement. The polls were BS.  They weren't sampling accurately.

    People wanted something different.  Trump was differnt.  


    Actually no (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 09:59:21 PM EST
    Trump was doing poorly due to his lack of support from Republicans. The Comey thing energized his voting base and hurt Hillary's hence the result we got. Comey should still be investigated for what he did. He knew there was nothing there before he even did the letter.

    Not buying it (none / 0) (#102)
    by McBain on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 10:17:22 PM EST
    I don't think Comey hurt Clinton that much and I don't think the Access Hollywood tape hurt Trump that much.

    The media lied to you guys.  Made you think Hillary was always winning. They downplayed the size of Trump's rallies and what he was actually saying.  


    Investigations (none / 0) (#117)
    by KD on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 10:48:31 AM EST
    There won't be any investigations of Comey or anyone on the Republican side as long as Republicans are in charge.

    I'd say a squeaker - but it hardly matters (none / 0) (#122)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:22:28 AM EST
    What matters now is our security services are going to intervene in elections from now on.

    I don't recall (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 05:56:45 AM EST
    Any economic message that was pushed.
    The memorable message from Madame Sec's campaign, was that The Donald was a racist , misogynist, not qualified to be President. That drowned out any other messaging the Democrats might have had.

    Democrats in the House, wisely pushed back voting on House leadership from this Thursday to after Thanksgiving. Just the fact that the vote was scheduled immediately after the election seemed ill advised.

    Washington (CNN)House Democrats decided Tuesday to delay their leadership elections until after Thanksgiving -- a move that will give reeling Democrats time to nurse their wounds and could spell trouble for longtime leader Nancy Pelosi.

    After a closed-door meeting, some of Pelosi's supporters said it was time for some serious soul-searching in the Democratic Party.
    "We just had a shellacking. We just got a shellacking last Tuesday. We got an unexpected defeat and we've got to recalibrate it and decide how we go forward," said Rep. G.K. Butterfield, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus and a Pelosi supporter. "It's just like death. There are difference stages of grief you go through."

    Nah.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 07:47:35 PM EST
    Calling the people you need to convince to vote with you bigots and/or morons will work...lol. Regardless of how much truth there may be in that.

    Let we the people remind how bigotry will not be tolerated, in the streets protesting and in our lives...as I truly do believe that culture war is ours, dying wail by electoral college fluke aside. Besides, are we kidding ourselves thinking bigots haven't been in far too many positions of power all along? At least now, it's out in the open and we can have it out.

    As for the Democrats...they best rebuild and run on 21st century economic, energy, healthcare, education, & criminal justice systems that serve all people with candidates that can pull off a convincing swamp-drainer persona. Cuz it certainly appears Trump's swamp drain is going to be clogged with the stank old crud from the bottom of the swamp upon installation.


    I've Said it Before (none / 0) (#110)
    by RickyJim on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 08:25:22 AM EST
    But to repeat: Clinton's emphasis in her speaking engagements and debates was to say that Trump's character was enough to disqualify him as president.

    That worked for me but not for many who were listening to and saw some merit in Trump's message.  What I think would have worked was a point by point rebuttal to his economics and his ability to implement them.  Things like: "You can't put a 35% tariff on Carrier air conditioners made in Mexico, Donald, because the free trade Republicans in Congress would never agree."  With her staff cooking up enough good one liners, I think she could have prevented Trump from carrying, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc.  

    Another good thing would have been to emphasize the large number of times Trump said contradictory things, even within the same speech.  She should have had exact quotes with her at the debates so he couldn't complain, as he did, that he was being misquoted.  Constant referencing to the Muslim Gold Star mom and Alicia Mercado didn't get that many votes.


    Every Monday morning QB (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Yman on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 09:37:02 PM EST
    ... knows how to get a 158.3 rating.

    So What is Your Strategy (none / 0) (#179)
    by RickyJim on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 09:11:37 AM EST
    when you have the better case, but are up against an entertaining clown of a lawyer and a not too bright jury?  Do you attack the lawyer or his/her case?

    First off, ... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    ... I'd avoid using flawed analogies.

    GIULIANI for Security of State? Bolton for UN? (none / 0) (#44)
    by sallywally on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    The longer this goes on the more ridiculous it gets. The Clown Car on steroids. How can it possibly work?

    Speaking of Giuliani (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by vicndabx on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    Giuliani took money from Qatar, Venezuela, Iranian exiles

    The Clinton Foundation has been hounded by Republican suspicions of selling access to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and the nonprofit did accept big bucks from foreign governments. But Clinton's defenders point out there's no proof she ever made an official act to benefit a foundation donor, and, unlike Giuliani, she never personally profited from the foreign contributions to her charity.

    Soon, (none / 0) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 02:28:24 PM EST
    the tea pot dome scandal will become the tea pot mountain scandal.  It looks like the Trump Enterprises is on the way to merger with the US Treasury.

    Yes, I keep thinking of Harding (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2016 at 05:03:35 PM EST
    as another stupid and disengaged man who delegated the government to his base and corrupt cronies.

    But the debacle of his Republic presidency, of course, was followed by less corrupt but still stupid policies under Republicans Coolidge and Hoover.

    Hunker down.  This could take decades to fix.


    Fix??? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 07:26:42 AM EST
    This isn't fixable. This is the end of the republic. A pariah nation in two years. Civil war in three.

    i hope you (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 08:18:19 AM EST
    are wrong but fear you might just be right.

    Ivanka, Ivana, Giuliani (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ladyjustice on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:01:29 AM EST
    Good to hear RPaul is speaking against Giuliani for AG.  NYTimes says NO!! To Giuliani nomination. Thin skinned DJT tweets NYTimes is a looser newspaper for publishing news of disarray.  KEEP IT UP NYTimes.   Can Ivanka (x-wife) really be nominated for Ambassador to the Cheque Republic?  Can Ivana and husband get TOP SECRET security clearance?

    "Cheque Republic" cracks me up (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 12:51:27 PM EST
    and so perfect, if Ivana gets her ambassadorship there.

    PLease check (none / 0) (#159)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 05:51:38 AM EST
    The ambassadors from the Obama Administration.

    Some had no clue about anything regarding the country they would be attached to.
    What mattered was how much the bundled for the campaign.
    Ivana Trump would actually be a very good choice, comparatively, as she knows the country and its language.


    She's ineligible. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 05:54:43 PM EST
    Per 5 U.S. Code § 3110(b):

    "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual."

    Thus, a president cannot appoint family members to public office. This would include ambassadorships.



    Oops. My bad. I read "Ivanka." (none / 0) (#165)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 06:33:39 PM EST
    Now whether or not first ex-wife Ivana is considered a relative of Trump per 5 U.S. Code § 3110, by virtue of her former marriage to the president-elect and also being the mother of three of his children, I would think that would be a matter for a federal court to decide.

    5 U.S. Code § 3110 was first enacted in 1967, when divorce wasn't nearly as commonplace as it is today. The people who first drafted it weren't thinking that far ahead, when they defined family members in § 3110(a)(3):

    "'[R]elative' means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister."

    The authors included no references to former spouses. However, per her 1991 divorce settlement, Ivana was entitled to $350,000 annually in alimony, and another $300,000 annually in child support for the three elder Trump children, who've long since attained the age of majority.

    If Ivana Trump is still receiving alimony or other means of financial or in-kind support from her ex-husband, I'd think a court might rule that for purposes of 5 U.S. Code § 3110, she would be defined as a dependent family member and thus ineligible for federal appointment.

    Any family law attorneys wish to opine?


    Would this also disqualify (none / 0) (#167)
    by caseyOR on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 07:12:42 PM EST
    Jared Kushner from holding an position in the administration? Does it apply to all presidential appointments or only those requiring Senate approval? Does it apply to the presidenr's personal staff?

    what's wrong with (none / 0) (#168)
    by linea on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 07:29:14 PM EST
    Jared Kushner?

    He is The Donald's (none / 0) (#169)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 07:44:49 PM EST
    Son in law.

    That makes him inherently EVIL!!!!


    i see (none / 0) (#171)
    by linea on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 07:55:35 PM EST
    The son of of a convicted felon? (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 01:38:58 PM EST
    Jewish. (none / 0) (#172)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 17, 2016 at 09:31:49 PM EST
    sarc, spellcheck turns your name to (none / 0) (#175)
    by fishcamp on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 07:16:25 AM EST
    sarcastic unarmed one.

    That's pretty funny! (none / 0) (#178)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 09:09:10 AM EST
    You have a problem with ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 08:03:10 AM EST
    ... him being Jewish???

    Nope. (none / 0) (#177)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 09:08:28 AM EST
    Strange, considering ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 01:20:12 PM EST
    .... absolutely no one else suggested that was a problem.  But maybe baseless smears make you feel better.  Trump's like that,  too.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#186)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#188)
    by Yman on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 03:50:40 PM EST
    Because that's precisely what you were doing.

    It was Jared Kushner and Stephen Bannon's idea (none / 0) (#182)
    by vml68 on Fri Nov 18, 2016 at 09:51:19 AM EST
    Read the federal statute. (none / 0) (#191)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Nov 20, 2016 at 04:48:37 AM EST
    5 U.S. Code § 3110(a)(3):

    "'[R]elative' means, with respect to a public official, an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister."

    5 U.S. Code § 3110(b):

    "A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a civilian position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a civilian position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual."

    Therefore, Trump is prohibited from hiring / appointing Jared Kushner. He can certainly consult with him, of course, but his son-in-law cannot be appointed by him to a federal office or position.



    I would think (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 16, 2016 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    Ivana could be nominated as an ambassador. Whether she can get security clearance for that post is an unknown.