Monday Open Thread

The news reads like a joke: Al Gore meets with Ivanka Trump (and then her father) on climate change.

Is anyone surprised Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump are house-hunting in Washington?

A federal judge has ordered the vote recount in Michigan to begin immediately. As for the current vote total:

Mr. Gore’s loss to George W. Bush pales in comparison with Hillary Clinton’s. If you’re still counting, Mrs. Clinton’s popular vote lead over Mr. Trump climbed to 2,597,156 over the weekend, five times Mr. Gore’s final lead over Mr. Bush. And at 2 percentage points, Mrs. Clinton’s lead has equaled Jimmy Carter’s victory spread over Gerald Ford in 1976.

Both the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times are demanding you turn off ad blockers to read them. When you do, there are so many ads you can't find the story. The ads pop up every few seconds. Sorry, WP and LAT,not a chance will I suffer through your popups (or pay and subscribe.)


El Proceso reports that after he was caught, El Chapo told them the tunnel escape was easy and had been arranged by his lawyers. He said there was actually a first tunnel, but it went to the wrong cell so they built a second one. The article further reports Mexican President Pena Nieto may "gift" El Chapo to Trump, extraditing him a few weeks after he takes office, to start building good will with him.

Trump takes office on January 20, 2017, and a gesture of cordiality for the start of a new era in relations with the president threatening to build a wall along the border and overrule the North American Free Trade Agreement, would be delivery of El Chapo few weeks after that date. El Chapo could be a present of Peña Nieto to Trump.

If Mexico trusts Trump more than El Chapo, I think it will be making a huge mistake. The minute El Chapo gets here, he will start talking about corruption in Mexico in hopes of getting a lesser sentence. Only if Mexico keeps him under wraps at home, can it prevent its dirty laundry from coming out. El Chapo still has extradition appeals pending, and they will not be resolved in the next month. To extradite him before his appeals are up would be a huge breach of Mexican law. I don't know who this reporter's "diplomatic sources" are, but I'm not buying it.

ISIS has appointed a new spokesman to replace al-Adnani. He goes by the name Abu Hassan al-Muhajir. He released a speech today calling for attacks on the West and in Turkey.

I'm not interested in Ben Carson.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Oakland: It Justs Keeps Getting Sadder | Poland's Supreme Court Rejects Roman Polanski Extradition Request >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am thinking that paying to subscribe (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Peter G on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 04:44:20 PM EST
    to WaPo online is appropriate and worthwhile. Would that also solve the ad-pop-up issue?

    No pop ups with the (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by fishcamp on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    Aspen Times Peter.  They have a small political news section, but most folks are hurrying towards the gondola.

    It hasn't with the L.A. Times, ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 06:35:13 PM EST
    ... speaking from experience as an online subscriber. I can't speak for the Washington Post subscribers.

    I will say, however, that it we want to see journalists continue to do their work, we really ought to consider paying for at least an online subscription to the newspaper of your choice. The hard fact of the matter is that newspapers are in dire financial straits, having hemorrhaged money over the recent years.

    John Oliver on HBO's "Last Week Tonight" discusses that very point in a very forthright if humorous way.



    A Trump Surrogate, less humorous, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:49:49 PM EST
    made the same point recently:

    "One thing that's been interesting this entire campaign season to watch is that people that say facts are facts. They're not really facts," Trump surrogate Scottie Nell Hughes said on "the November 30, 2016 Diane Rehm Show" on NPR. "It's kind of like looking at ratings or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts."

    I'm happy with my WaPo subscription (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Towanda on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:38:28 PM EST
    after cancelling the NYTimes.  Sad! what that paper has become.  I just ignore Maureen Dowd and a few others, not at all in the league of David Farenthold.  

    And WaPo has a few popups but far fewer than my local paper (also by subscription).


    Washington Post Subscription (none / 0) (#22)
    by KD on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:28:36 PM EST
    In addition to the L.A. Times, I subscribe to the South Bay Daily Breeze for more local news. A benefit of that is a free subscription to the Washington Post online. So some smaller papers make deals with other papers for subscribers.

    Do you already subscribe to the NYTimes? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:09:48 AM EST
    No, I don't (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    and never have. If I had access to the NYT everyday, I'd do nothing but read the newspaper. Too many interesting stories. Sad, but true. We get both Philadelphia newspapers delivered to the driveway every morning. Already makes me late for work most days.

    I'm trying to decide between the two still (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:36:24 AM EST
    Things I Blame For Hillary Clinton's Loss, Ranked (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 07:39:20 PM EST
    News media rush[ed] to whitewash their role (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 09:10:17 PM EST
    - in savaging Clinton's character

    Hillary didn't change from 2015 to 2016. Perceptions of her changed. And those perceptions were based on an avalanche of lies and smears.

    That is what happened. Every post-mortem of her campaign that provides another explanation is lying to you.

    - peter daou, shareblue, november 10, 2016


    The Best Post on That Subject I've Seen (none / 0) (#23)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:33:27 PM EST
    is on a physics blog.  Physicists are smart, I suppose.  Here is an excerpt
    Most of the explanations one hears of Trump's success don't hold up if you look at exit polling numbers:

    Sexism: more white women voted for Trump than for Clinton.
    Racism: many counties that went solidly for Obama in the past went to Trump this election. Many Trump voters last voted for an African-American President.
    Revolt of the rural poor whites: While New York City went heavily to Clinton, nearby Suffolk County on Long Island, with a median family income of $100,000, went for Trump.
    Ignorance, lack of education: Most white college graduates voted for Trump.

    Trump voters scored very (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    high in racial resentment.

    Not to mention sexism (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:24:09 PM EST
    That post, continued: (none / 0) (#27)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:56:31 PM EST
    One way to describe what has happened is that this was the first real social media election, with most people getting the information they used to decide who to vote for from Facebook and other internet sources. Many if not most of these have no interest in what is actually true. Many are dominated by a reality TV ethos of picking out someone for others to attack, appealing directly to the ugliest part of the monkey brain we are all descended from. This is not just the province of the Right, with the Left just as happy to join in the ugliness. Everyone can play and get satisfaction of their darkest needs. The winner will always be the con artist monkey with the best dominance displays.

    Well physicists are smart about (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 09:20:16 PM EST
    physics ... but that doesn't mean they are smart about other things...such as politics.

    But he does have 6 good points.


    And let's not forget (none / 0) (#36)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:08:55 AM EST
    renowned philosopher and slavery apologist John W Campbell Jr, has said scientists are not to be trusted.

    Silly, sophomoric logic (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    Even physicists do it.

    max blames (none / 0) (#25)
    by linea on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:44:14 PM EST
    bernie sanders too.

    bernie did exactly what he was supposed to do; he ran against hillary if the primaries and then endorsed her during the election. it's time for the hillary moderate democrats to stop blaming bernie and progressives.


    You think it's time? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 09:29:42 PM EST
    Too bad.

    BTW - "Progressives"?  Most of her supporters were progressives.  You don't speak for them.


    I blame (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Towanda on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 10:14:07 PM EST
    your sort of non-strategic thinking for the loss.

    I hope that you and yours are smarter in 2020.


    Maybe it's time for you to stop worrying about (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    labeling folks who may disagree with you minutely on approach and form strong stable unions with those that agree with you largely on policy.

    continues... (none / 0) (#32)
    by linea on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 09:48:37 PM EST
    Things I don't blame:


    Because seriously, fu*k that.

    - max weiss, the huffington post, 2/5/2016


    Things I blame (none / 0) (#35)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 06:04:20 AM EST

    It was a change election, and it went according to form
    Policy differences - In a change election, 1 candidate pledged to continue current policies, the other was to make marked changes from current policies

    Despite the abhorrent classlessness of 1 candidate, enough people felt the country needed a change, and voted that way


    Out (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:28:34 AM EST
    of the frying pan, into the fire type of change.....

    I seriously doubt many Trump voters  understand what they are "changing" from and what they are "changing" to....and neither does Trump for that matter.


    Bathroom Governor, (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    Pat McCrory, the loser, who finally conceded the North Carolina governor's race after four weeks, to Democrat Roy Cooper, is reported to be on his way to Trump Tower for an interview.

     McCrory whose "have  birth certificate ready for public bathroom use", anti-gay and block of local minimum wage above $7.25/hr bill was intended to shore up his re-election bid, but proved to be his electoral downfall despite the other Republican wins in the state.

    It is not known what job McCrory is fit for in a Trump Administration, but he has been to a doctor over the course of his life, so maybe, Surgeon General.  In any event, McCrory would join a bevy of anti-gay cohorts, such as Mike Pence, Betsy DeVos and Ben Carson.

    Mistrial in Walter Scott case (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    There was a lot more to this case that the initial shaky video.

    They couldn't even agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    on a manslaughter charge?

    That seems odd


    Sounds like they overcharged with murder (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    ... to convict on manslaughter, right? The fact that jurors could even not agree on the minimal charge is certainly not evidence that prosecutors overcharged. Reportedly, the jury -- which was composed of 11 white persons and one African American male -- hung on the adamant refusal of one of its members to go with the flow, so to speak, although I would also emphasize here that such uncorroborated information constitutes hearsay at best, and as of this writing has neither been confirmed nor denied by the trial judge or anyone else involved in the proceedings.

    I've never been on a jury (none / 0) (#12)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 06:58:00 PM EST
    so I don't know what it's like to hear a prosecution tell you all trial that someone is guilty of murder then have a judge instruct that you can consider something that wasn't really brought up.  Based on today's reporting, some jurors had questions about why the manslaughter charge was added.
    The jurors also asked the judge several questions, including why Slager was charged with voluntary manslaughter in addition to murder.

    From what I've read, this was never a legitimate murder case. Too much evidence of a fight and struggle for the officers taser.

    What is "too much evidence"? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:05:05 PM EST
    Apart from the fact that a murder charge could easily be justified even if there was such evidence, what evidence are you talking about that is "too much"?

    "Sounds like" the murder charge ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:09:26 PM EST
    ... was completely justified, but it's notoriously difficult to get a unanimous decision of guilt against a police officer.


    That "sounds like" thing is pretty easy!


    The biggest part of that "a lot more" (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 05:15:51 PM EST
    being a lot of baroque, lawyerly spin, and the fact that you only need to get to ONE juror in order for a mistrial to be declared.

    But maybe you have some inside scoop you'd like to share with the rest of us, McBain.

    It sounds like you think you do.

    Don't leave us hanging.


    There was evidence of a struggle (none / 0) (#13)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 07:03:43 PM EST
    for the the officer's taser, which is a weapon. Most people only know about the video and made up their minds right away.  Happens all the time.  Just about all of these high profile, racially charged cases have exculpatory evidence that gets ignored by many.

    Too bad you weren't around (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:20:14 PM EST
    back when they buried Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman at that reservoir, in that other famous "racially charged case"..

    You could've spread the word that there was "evidence" they tried to run people over with their car, even if you didn't know what the evidence was.


    "Evidence" that you can't specify (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    is only evidence of you eschewing objective facts and taking an unwarranted leap of faith based on your belief that "this happens all the time."

    The jury foreman talks about evidence (none / 0) (#186)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    and other reasons why they didn't convict Slager...

    Also, the 11-1 split wasn't correct.  


    Tell us, McBain, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 07:54:55 PM EST
    just how far away must a black man have fled for a back-shooting to be considered a 'non policy conforming' and justifiable shooting?  At what precise point is he no longer considered a threat to the officer's damaged ego?  500 feet?  1,000 yards?  

    The skin color is irrelevant (none / 0) (#20)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 08:17:56 PM EST
    I doubt anyone can answer your question about exact distances as many other factors would be involved as well. I do know the law applies differently to police officers than to civilians when it comes shooting someone who's running away.  

    Perhaps the jury didn't necessarily buy Slager's story but did find enough reasonable doubt to convict.  That's the part all the arm chair jurors overlook.... the incredibly high burden of proof in a criminal case.

    Slager isn't off the hook. There could be a retrial and there's also a pending Federal case.


    Very interesting that you neglected (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 06:13:12 PM EST
    to mention a lot of evidence -- considering how concerned you are about evidence -- for Slager struggling to drop his taser as quickly as possible next to Walter Scotts dead body after he shot him multiple times in the back.

    But then, I guess it "happens all the time." New Orleans cops used to call weapons they planted a "ham sandwich." Go ahead and Google it.


    The placement of the taser doesn't really matter (none / 0) (#107)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:42:42 PM EST
    What matters is if Scott had possession of it or fought to gain possession of it.  There was testimony that Scott's DNA was on the taser.  I believe that took murder off the table for many jurors.  

    Manslaughter is a different story.  Perhaps, if the prosecution focused on that charge there would  have been a conviction.


    The "placement," or planting of (none / 0) (#111)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:01:40 PM EST
    the taser doesn't really matter; besides showing Slager tampering with the evidence; which immediately begs the question as to why he would do that if he knew he was in the right.

    Suggesting that Scott was ever "in posession" of the taser is laughable.


    All it takes is a reasonable doubt (none / 0) (#123)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    to sink a prosecution.  There was also  expert testimony
    about burn marks on Slager's uniform coming from a taser.



    Funny stuff (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:19:11 PM EST
    First of all,  the presence of Scott's DNA does not mean he had possession of or was fighting to get the taser.

    Secondly,  your baseless "beliefs" about why the jurors voted  (or one juror voted) to acquit are sheer speculation with no basis in fact.


    Don't try to reason with the unreasonable (none / 0) (#124)
    by pitachips on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:50:35 PM EST
    Although in fact everyone here knows the real answer. I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see that at least it was 11-1. With a jury of that composition in SC, that is great progress.

    It wasn't 11-1 (none / 0) (#184)
    by McBain on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 03:24:37 PM EST
    The jury foreman told the media....
    That was people jumping to conclusions.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:25:02 PM EST
    Never heard a jury foreman speak out in such detail.
    That was interesting and enlightening

    Lots of conflicting reports out there... (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    ...conflicting on which charge was hung and how many yays and nays there were, etc., etc.

    "Lawyers for Michael Slager had sought a mistrial after jurors told Newman on Friday they were deadlocked because one holdout juror was unwilling to convict Slager. Jurors, however, sent the judge a note Monday saying most of the jurors were undecided."

    12 Angry Men


    Question for lawyers. (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 06:44:55 PM EST
    If they hung on manslaughter, does that mean he was found not guilty of murder?

    Googled around a little (none / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:08:32 AM EST
    apparently if the jury stuck on the lesser charge of manslaughter that means they found not guilty on the greater charge of murder.

    If so, he can be re-tried, but not for murder.

    Saw some claims that for the sake of clarity the judge should have asked for the specific juror determinations on each charge.

    Not sure we have all the information at this time.


    I heard that as well but couldn't find (none / 0) (#50)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    a quote.  Do you have a link or remember where you saw the not guilty on murder vote?

    I wonder if the lone "holdout" claim was more media BS.  The only quote I could find on that last Friday was the foreman saying "he's the only one having issues".  I think people took that to mean one person was having issues finding Slager guilty but it could have meant something else.


    It could have meant something else (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:12:51 PM EST
    but it probably didn't.

    If that's the case (none / 0) (#56)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    why did the foreman say "He needs to be removed"?  You can't remove someone because they don't agree with the others.  If the "holdout" was having physical issues or trouble getting along with other jurors, a request to remove him would make more sense.

    According to this link...

    After 22 hours of deliberation, the jury reported today (December 5) that it could not agree on a verdict on the murder charge or the lesser manslaughter charge.

    If that's correct, Slager could be retried by the state for Murder.  Who knows what to believe.... the reporting on this case as been even worse than normal for the media.


    Just about every reputable outlet (none / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 06:58:08 PM EST
    including the NYC has said there was on holdout juror.

    It's interesting that you can't even discuss the deliberation process without trying to spin it to make it sound like there was more imaginary "exculpatory evidence" than any appearences have indicated.


    My googling was of the jury procedure (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:32:52 PM EST
    regarding murder v manslaughter when both options are on the table.

    Seems that the jury first addresses the murder charge and if they determine that the defendant is guilty of murder, then, logically, the defendant is not guilty of manslaughter. 'Cuz he's guilty of murder.

    However, if the defendant is found not guilty of murder, the jury then addresses the manslaughter charge.

    Thus, if the jury hangs on manslaughter, they previously found him not guilty of murder.

    Also, as I said, I'd be interested in what our attorneys say about this, and also I don't think we have all the info right now...


    I just posted a comment above you that (none / 0) (#58)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:55:52 PM EST
    said they hung on both charges. I'm not a lawyer but I'm not sure this quote is true...
    Thus, if the jury hangs on manslaughter, they previously found him not guilty of murder.

    In the first Michael Dunn case, the jury hung on first degree murder but found him guilty of a lesser charge.  He was found guilty of first degree murder in a second trial.


    Got it, thanks. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:58:32 PM EST
    procedure on this point (none / 0) (#57)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:55:26 PM EST
    varies from state to state.  In the end, a hung jury is a hung jury on all counts, if the jury did not return a unanimous verdict on any count. No double jeopardy bar to retrial on either count.

    Ah, thanks, that makes sense. (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:58:15 PM EST
    If the jury returned a verdict of guilty (none / 0) (#72)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    on manslaughter, that would imply an acquittal of the greater offense of murder, as a matter of law. But unless the jury instructions imposed an order of deliberations on the jury, as some do, to start with the top count and work their way down, then you have no idea what the failure to agree may mean. And even if the judge's instructions did impose an order of consideration, it would depend what the instructions said about when the jury would be allowed to proceed to a lower count:  if they couldn't agree on the higher count, or only if they determined to acquit on the top count.  

    Makes sense. Not that it matters now, (none / 0) (#74)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:46:48 PM EST
    but from an academic standpoint I would be interested in the details of what the jury instructions said about that.

    Life sentence in hot car death case (none / 0) (#2)
    by McBain on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 04:17:39 PM EST
    I hope Harris's inappropriate texting relationships weren't a big factor to the jury.

    I popped in to read (none / 0) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 05, 2016 at 07:24:37 PM EST
    Donald's annual rant on the NCAA CFP/BCS Committee, only to be disappointed to find nothing. I will retreat to reading Bowerman and the Men of Oregon and return to read the sour grapes report should it appear at a later time (which he may find difficult to write with the Huskies being first out if someone else had been included.)

    ... in this country right now which are far more important than college football. Wouldn't you agree?

    That said -- CAUTION: Rant Ahead -- given that Ohio State didn't even win its own Big 10 East Division this season, never mind the conference championship, the CFP committee's selection of the Buckeyes over actual Big 10 champ Penn State to play in a limited four-team "national championship playoff" demonstrates an inherent and wholly arbitrary devaluing on the part of its members of both that conference's actual final standings and the result of its championship game.

    Why even have conference seasons, standings and championship games at all, if some selection committee feels free to disregard those once-definitive determinants of supremacy and choose whomever they want for whatever their reasons?

    In ye olde olden days of yore, back when Pong and Pac-Man ruled the earth, if you didn't win a Pac-10 or Big 10 conference title, you didn't get to go to Pasadena to play in the Rose Bowl game on New Year's Day. Period. As admittedly flawed as the old system was with regard to choosing a national champion in Div. 1 college football, at least that system respected the integrity of a first-place finish and upheld the validity of a conference title.

    For the second time in five years (see "2011 Alabama football"), the current BCS / CFP format has done neither. And for what, exactly -- some highly subjective "power rankings," as opposed to the division and conference winners? Because the Buckeyes pass some sort of undefined "eyeball test" with the CFP committee members, while the actual Big 10 champion does not?

    Well, I gotcha yer eyeball test, right here! On October 23, in a game which ultimately proved decisive as far as the Big 10 East was concerned, then-No. 2 Ohio State  -- a 20-pt. favorite that night -- blew a 14-pt. 4th quarter lead over then-unranked Penn State by giving up 17 unanswered points to lose the game. Seven of those Penn State points came on this blocked field goal attempt in the contest's waning minutes, which deprived the Buckeyes of an opportunity to control their own conference destiny, and ultimately proved fatal to the team's division title aspirations.

    I won't deny or dispute that Ohio State is a very good team, or further that the Buckeyes have a good chance of winning the CFP's little soirée four weeks hence. But they are not a great team by any means or definition, due entirely to the inconvenient fact that the Buckeyes finished second in their division due to their aforementioned loss to Penn State. And that's why they sat at home this past weekend, watching on TV as their inter-division rival Nittany Lions played for and won the Big 10 championship.

    A truly great team shouldn't have to depend upon some committee to suspend the reality of conference standings, grant them a mulligan retroactive to October 23, and then extend to them an invitation to this overly exclusive affair at the immediate expense of the very team who actually beat them on the field that day, and who ultimately won the Big 10 outright.

    And so, Ohio State gets to play for the ginned-up glory that's the NCAA's CFP Invitational, while the Nittany Lions will have to console themselves with having at least earned a once-coveted Rose Bowl berth on January 2.

    But wait! Who will the Nittany Lions be facing that day? Why, none other than the Pac-12 South runners-up, the USC Trojans, similar recipients of CFP committee largesse when its members also decided to punish actual South Division winner Colorado for losing a Pac-12 championship game which the Trojans stayed home in L.A. to watch, by virtue of their second place finish. But nuf ced. That's another rant for another time.

    "CFP Power rankings," y'all. HOO-rah!



    Expected you to argue for (none / 0) (#52)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    Western Michigan, not an undeserving two-loss Penn State that got thumped by two-loss Michigan.

    Well, you expected wrong. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:51:16 PM EST
    Further -- CAUTION: Well-Reasoned Rebuttal Ahead -- your contention that Penn State is "undeserving" is based solely on your own personal opinion, which further rests entirely upon your own willingness to thrice ignore: (a) The final Big 10 East Division standings; (b) the outcomes of several key games as they impacted those standings; and (c) the Nittany Lions' victory over Big 10 West Division winner Wisconsin in the conference championship game last Saturday night.

    As embarrassing as it may have been at the time, Penn State's 49-10 defeat at Michigan last September 24 ultimately proved to be meaningless in the ultimate determination of the Big 10 conference championship, given that the Wolverines themselves subsequently stumbled twice to finish one game behind the Nittany Lions in the Big 10 East Division standings.

    After that admittedly obvious debacle, Penn State went on to win eight straight conference games to take that division crown. For their part, Michigan controlled their own destiny after their victory over the Nittany Lions, only to lose two of their final three conference games in November to Iowa and Ohio State -- two teams which, I might add, Penn State had already beaten -- to finish in third place.

    Great teams will find a way to persevere and win those games that will take them to the top. Final standings and championship games do matter, even if CFP committee members and their facilitating sycophants in the sports media now conveniently think and / or say otherwise, for the mere sake of justifying their own early season prognostications, mid-season projections and often specious personal opinions.

    Committee members and punditocracy alike clearly wanted Ohio State, Michigan or both. They were obviously determined to have Ohio State, Michigan or both. And in the end, as Michigan fell by the wayside, they got Ohio State by first setting aside their own publicly stated beliefs that conference standings and championships should matter, and then making a call based on approval ratings rather than earned merit.

    Now granted, nobody outside of a few die-hard true believers in Happy Valley really foresaw Penn State turning it all around after that late September pratfall at Michigan to come on like gangbusters down the stretch, myself included. Further, it's certainly not unfair to point out that the Nittany Lions likely indeed have less top-tier talent that either Ohio State or Michigan.

    But in the final count, Penn State proved themselves to be a great team on the field where it really mattered, by winning out in October and November when it truly mattered. As for the Buckeyes and Wolverines, both those teams failed to live up to their otherwise awesome potentials, by faltering at critical moments in their own respective key games during that same two-month period.

    Michigan failed to hold 10-pt. leads at both Iowa on November 12 and Ohio State two weeks later, to neatly and effectively remove themselves from the running for the Big 10 East Division title. And as I noted in my previous post, the Buckeyes blew a 14-pt. 4th quarter lead at Penn State in rather spectacular fashion on October 23 to lose not only the game itself, but also their ability to control their own destiny within the Big 10 conference without receiving assistance from at least one of the Nittany Lions' remaining opponents.

    And because that help never materialized as Penn State won their final five games, Ohio State's season finale with Michigan on November 26 ultimately proved meaningful only to the Wolverines, who desperately needed to win that day in order to forge a tie with the Nittany Lions in the final Big 10 East standings, whereby they would have owned the tiebreaker to win the division due to their earlier victory over Penn State. In that respect, the Buckeyes proved themselves spoilers.

    That's why the Big 10 championship trophy presently resides in State College, PA, rather than in Columbus, Ann Arbor or Madison. That's why neither Ohio State nor Michigan can call themselves either conference champions or division winners. And that's why Ohio State required that mulligan from the CFP selection committee, to validate for the Buckeyes what they had otherwise clearly failed to earn on the field with that disastrous 4th quarter face-plant at Happy Valley last October 23.

    But hey, thanks for playing. Please don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on your way out.



    The committee was quite clear (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:25:56 PM EST
    They decided Washington was a better team than Penn State for the #4 spot. Ohio State was never in the discussion to be dropped in favor of Penn State. Alabama and Ohio State were advancing no matter the outcome of any games the final weekend.

    I'm not talking about Washington. (none / 0) (#132)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 06:19:26 AM EST
    The Huskies don't play in the Big 10, so your comparison is as nonsensically apples-and-orangish as the CFP selection committee's.

    Further, that "Ohio State was never in the discussion to be dropped in favor of Penn State" -- even after the Buckeyes' 17-pt. 4th quarter meltdown in Happy Valley, and the Nittany Lions' subsequent surge to the Big 10 East Division title and eventual conference championship -- is exactly why CFP selection committee members have their heads shoved up their a$$es.

    Again, what's the point of even having conferences in the first place, when some so-called "national championship" committee can decide on its own whim to first ignore both the final Big 10 regular season standings and the championship game result, and then arbitrarily reward a division runner-up with one of only four playoff slots at the expense of the actual Big 10 champion?

    How did we ever reach a point where one team's first-place finish and conference championship are no longer truly respected as such, while another team winding up in second place in that very same conference that very same season can be considered good enough, provided that enough people merely desire it to be so and lobby to make it happen?

    If the Ohio State folks honestly think that they really and truly deserve to be considered for an at-large national championship playoff berth in lieu of their own conference's champion, then the school should leave the Big 10 and compete in football as an independent, as do Notre Dame and BYU. Because the Buckeyes have no business playing in that conference if they refuse to abide by and respect the final standings.

    (And the same goes for the Michigan Wolverines, many of whose fans are griping about not being included in the CFP even though their team actually finished 3rd in the Big 10 East. If you're not going to accept the reality of the conference standings, then get out and go your own way.)

    The CFP is farce. Rather than bring clarity to an already highly arbitrary process, committee members have only managed to render it even more opaque and subjective. They made matters worse. Again, it's not a true championship but rather, an invitational tournament, with the selection committee in the mercurial role of Alice in Wonderland's Queen of Hearts.

    Okay, nuf ced. I'm not going to talk about this subject anymore. It's like arguing over this year's presidential election, and the obvious divergence between the Electoral College results and the nationwide popular vote count. The results simply are what they are, and I understand and respect that, but it's still rather annoying as all Hell nonetheless when you know in your heart that it really shouldn't be this way.



    that stupid fool Trump (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    has now ended up picking a fight with China.

    A huge fire (none / 0) (#44)
    by CST on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:43:40 AM EST
    Took out 16 buildings and displaced more than 125 people in Cambridge this weekend.  In what can only be described as a miracle:

    "No one was injured, and the only reported casualty, according to the Red Cross, was a cat."

    Still a huge loss - sometimes I'm amazed that the Boston area still has so much old housing stock that is dense wood construction, and this doesn't happen more often.

    I was talking to an elderly (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    woman here in Rochester who told me she lives in 100+ year old building that the absentee slumlord, Mr "LLC", keeps so cold that the tenants are heating their ovens up to four and five hundred degrees and leaving them on with the door open in order to get some warmth..

    This is a building that houses both elderly folks and people with young children.

    Talk about a disasterous conflagration just waiting to happen..

    All of which puts me in mind of Trump's weasely little son-in-law, who apparently pulled the exact same sorts of things, early on in his rise to the bottom, with some his tenants in Massachusetts.


    oy (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CST on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 02:56:17 PM EST
    There are a lot of problems with slumlords here, especially in the areas with a lot of college kids as they are generally seen as transient/non-complainers.  There is one landlord in particular that is notorious for how many code violations he receives every year - and yet he continues to own large swaths of the city.

    In this case it was a building undergoing a full rehab that caught fire - not clear if it was negligence or just bad luck - but no one was living in it at the time, just the neighboring 15 buildings.

    It does seem like the neighborhoods in the city are a giant tinderbox. As a transportation engineer sometimes I joke that a large fire would be just the thing to fix the roads... (it worked for the Germans!) I should probably stop making that joke now.


    The main problem tenants (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    of ruthless absentee slumlords have is that they're usually inordinately vulnerable; either economocally, mentally, or physically, and often all three, and live in constant dread of being seen as "trouble makers," being put on the sh*t list, one step away from being kicked out in the street..

    So they're basically too ground down and cowed to stand up for themselves.

    Then, to make matters worse, they're subjected to a continual drubbing from the cutthroat social darwinist right in this country, who rebuke them for their "poor life choices", so that folks wind up more disempowered through doubting their own self worth.

    But, Don't Mourn, Organize is still the watchword of the day.


    A friend of mine (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:06:44 PM EST
    that used to live in Buffalo said the gas line or the gas regulator blew in her apartment. She said she was lucky to be alive.

    I have had the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    same though about a lot of New England towns and all the very old wood. I'm glad that no one was hurt though. That's very good news.

    This would be awesome if they did it (none / 0) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    Crooks and Liars

    On January 3, 2017, Democrats will hold the majority in the Senate for a few minutes, until the newly-elected Senators are sworn in. Biden could convene the Senate in those few minutes and call for a vote. The majority could then suspend the rules and vote in Merrick Garland

    curious to read that (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:38:12 PM EST
    and see what their theory or basis is for saying that the D's would have a majority in the Senate at some point.

    Curious indeed (none / 0) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:29:11 PM EST
    I assume the theory is that (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:40:43 PM EST
    of the two third not involved in the election the majority would be Democrats who would be willing to absolutely poison the water.

    The questions are:

    Are those elected previously not Senators and in office??

    If they were not, could not the Repubs walk out and prevent a quorum?


    ... by refusing to grant Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland even the courtesy of a public hearing. That said, Jim, your inquiry about achieving quorum ought to be well-considered.

    The Constitution expressly provides that a majority of the Senate constitutes a quorum to do business. Under that body's rules and customs, quorum is always assumed to be present unless and until a member requests the Senate Clerk to conduct a roll call to explicitly demonstrate otherwise.

    Therefore, all the GOP needs to do is assign one of its member to remain in the chamber while the rest huddle in caucus to formally choose its leadership. Should the Democrats try anything in their absence, that member would immediate request as a point of order that the Clerk call the roll to ensure that there's a quorum present on the floor. And that, as they say, would be that.

    But in any case, as someone who has a lot of experience as a parliamentarian, I'm rather a stickler for rules when it comes to the legislative due process. And I'm of the opinion that such an attempt would constitute a cheap political stunt which likely holds scant chance of success.

    Personally, I generally take a very dim view of cheap political stunts, regardless of whoever tries to pull one or for what reason. You violate longstanding legislative protocols at your own peril, in large part because of the dubious precedent you may be setting with regard to those protocols, should that stunt somehow succeed.

    Further, the Senate's overall function has long rested and depended upon personal collegiality and relative harmony being achieved amongst its members. Should you lose the personal trust of your colleagues across the aisle, or -- Heaven forbid -- of the members of your own caucus, your overall effectiveness as a legislator will be compromised accordingly, if not rendered moot altogether.

    That's something which an equal-opportunity offender like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) failed to understand when he first arrived on Capitol Hill. And that's also why the GOP's baseless and cynical obstruction of Garland's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court this year may well come back to bite them in the a$$ in very short order.



    For Facebook Users RE: Climate Change (none / 0) (#54)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    Global warming is not expected to end anytime soon, despite what Breitbart.com wrote in an article published last week.

    *Note - Autoplay Video at Link*


    Though we would prefer to focus on our usual coverage of weather and climate science, in this case we felt it important to add our two cents -- especially because a video clip from weather.com (La Niña in Pacific Affects Weather in New England) was prominently featured at the top of the Breitbart article. Breitbart had the legal right to use this clip as part of a content-sharing agreement with another company, but there should be no assumption that The Weather Company endorses the article associated with it.

    Make America Great Again Part 2 (none / 0) (#62)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 04:07:33 PM EST

    Buy America provisions in the Water Resources Development (WRDA) Act would have permanently changed the law to require the use of American-made iron and steel products in infrastructure projects. The provision passed the Senate overwhelmingly. But Republican leadership removed the Buy America language in a compromise package worked out with the House announced today

    Make America Great Again 3 (none / 0) (#63)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 04:37:11 PM EST

    Sometimes The Donald just makes shake my head and laugh. I have no idea of he why and how, but he is front and center on this

    Masayoshi Son, the CEO of the Japanese telecom SoftBank, announced Tuesday that his company will invest $50 billion and bring 50,000 jobs to the US after he met with President-elect Donald Trump.

    According to The Wall Street Journal, Son told reporters at Trump Tower that the investment would come from a $100 billion fund created in partnership with the Saudi Arabia sovereign-wealth fund and other investors.

    You left out this part (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    "Details about the jobs or what sort of businesses the fund would invest in were not announced. But Son showed reporters a PowerPoint slide signed by Son and Trump with the vague numbers."

    I'll believe it when I see it, but I sure as hell won't just take their word for it.


    Saudi Arabia?!?! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:30:39 PM EST
    Suddenly, he's okay with Saudi Arabian money again?!?

    What a difference a few weeks makes in Trumpland.


    When its invested (none / 0) (#78)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 07:13:30 PM EST
    In the country, creating jobs, YES

    But not (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    on a charity that actually helps people. Wow just wow. Talk about sanctimonious and condescending. I guess we are going to need the government to do more if private charity has become such a bad thing.

    Ohhhhhhh .... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:00:56 PM EST
    ... so Saudi $$ is good when invested to make $$ for private companies,  but not when donated to a charity.


    So how about when Saudi money is just going into Donald's pockets?

    Heh, heh ...


    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 06:06:54 AM EST
    When it is invested to create jobs for Americans

    Awwwwe ... that's cute (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 07:49:15 AM EST
    You think that investors invest to create jobs,  rather than returns.

    Focusing on the byproduct doesn't change the blatant hypocrisy if those that attacked HC because the charity accepted Saudi contributions.


    You need to get off Facebook, research more (none / 0) (#65)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    the company announced plans to invest around the world before the election in October.  It's in your article as well.

    While I'm glad for those in need of jobs, I'll wait and see what actually happens here.

    I thought pay for play was a bad thing?  Awfully convenient how now your boy is president, suddenly it's all good to cozy up w/foreigners to facilitate business in the US.  Is it just when women do it or is it Dems?

    Wear that hypocrisy well sir.


    Trump is gonna (none / 0) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:09:13 PM EST
    need it after he attempted to destroy Boeing today and oh, there was another foolish thing that happened too. There are so many foolish things that happen in a day that I can't remember them all.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 07:49:01 PM EST
    The problems associated with costs over runs by the "military industrial complex" has long been a staple of the Left... from $200 hammers to $2000 johns... Yet when Trump calls one of the biggest out he is destroying them...

    Hypocrisy is your secret name... lol...

    BTW - Boeing will survive.


    No, Jim (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:25:45 PM EST
    this is not about the MIC. This is about the fact that Trump lied and said that they were building a new Air Force One. There is no new Air Force One. It is going in for some retooling and the reason Trump went off his rocker is because Boeing said that Trump's plans are going to hurt their business because he's already turned off a lot of Asian countries who are customers of Boeing. Look they're not the only ones that are saying Trump is going to cost them. There's a reason why Hillary won 2/3 of the business economy and not Trump. Then Trump tweets the lie and Boeing's stock drops. Honestly we would all be a lot better off if we just ignored his insane rantings.

    Should I believe you or CNN?? (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:31:20 PM EST
    Donald Trump wants to cancel government plans to build two new Air Force One jets.

    The president-elect said in a tweet Tuesday that the new Boeing (BA) 747 jet that's being built to carry "future presidents" already costs more than $4 billion, and that he wants to cancel the order.


    I'll take CNN.


    Fact (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 06:14:53 AM EST
    checker here

    And almost everything Donald Trump said was a lie. But what else is new? We all know conservatives and Republicans wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face.


    Boeing Statement (none / 0) (#108)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:56:49 PM EST
    "We are currently under contract for $170 million to help determine the capabilities of these complex military aircraft that serve the unique requirements of the President of the United States. We look forward to working with the U.S. Air Force on subsequent phases of the program allowing us to deliver the best planes for the President at the best value for the American taxpayer."

    Boeing Media Room


    That's called "spec writing." (none / 0) (#114)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:18:52 PM EST
    You get the specs set in stone for things only your product can do.

    It's the prime mission of the sales group. I'd say the order is Boeings.

    See what I wrote to jondee. Trump is just negotiating.


    Negotiating, ok (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:32:29 PM EST
    Fact is there is no 4 million dollar overrun. The media repeats that BS, people everywhere believe it. Case in point your CNN post.

    Again lying is OK when it's not a Dem, woman or black person.


    So am I to test everything CNN says?? (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    And do you mean repeating it like the Left's blogosphere repeated the lie that Palin said she could see Russia from her front porch???

    How about testing things (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:46:57 PM EST
    your p*ssy-grabber-in-chief says once in awhile???

    CNN only reported Trump's words, which, as his own history has shown, are often reality challenged.


    Yes you should (none / 0) (#127)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    Be a skeptic where it matters. Tell your friends and family to do the same.

    The Palin bs is of no consequence.


    Your inability to recognize sarcasm (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 07:42:39 AM EST
    is astonishing.

    And an attack on  a VP ticket using false information is truly bad.

    But then it is a Repub candidate so it doesn't count.


    Your inability to discuss issues in depth (none / 0) (#136)
    by vicndabx on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 08:40:07 AM EST
    is what's astonishing.  Your sarcasm was noted and responded to.

    And yes, the Palin BS does count.  We should strive to raise the level of discourse in our politics and policy making.  Focusing on BS like attacks on Palin's intelligence is counter productive.  Better to focus on the ideas and proposals - which was why that ticket lost.

    In a way, your comments (and lack thereof) reveal what is terribly wrong with a significant portion of WWC voters in this country.


    Okie dokie let's discuss. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 09:33:09 AM EST
    Obama won because of the same reason Trump won.

    Americans wanted change and bought into his "Hope and Change" the same way they bought into "Make America Great Again" by Trump.

    It didn't hurt that the election of an articulate intelligent self identified black man was seen as historic and afforded the opportunity to many whites to participate in this event.

    There was very little discussion of policies. Obama did claim that his administration would be the most transparent in history and that he would examine the budget very closely.

    It also didn't hurt that the economy was collapsing due to the housing bubble bursting, something the Bush administration tried to prevent five years before with Democrat opposition. To top this off oil prices exploded, fueled by speculators thinking that there would be a shortage caused by a Democrat administration blocking drilling. After all, the Demos blocked new drilling 5 times in May of '68. Angels and other stuff/


    I don't disagree w/most of what you posted (none / 0) (#144)
    by vicndabx on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:33:40 AM EST
    Americans wanted change and bought into....

    So you would agree that WWC Americans bought into the BS Trump was pushing?  There was even less policy discussed this time around (outside of the D primary).

    Regarding the housing bubble and legislation proffered but not advanced:  

    Republicans, who controlled the Senate at the time, did not bring the bill forward for a vote. And it's unclear how much the legislation would have helped, as McCain signed on just two months before the housing bubble popped.

    Most of the problems you cite that existed in 08 have been reduced significantly.  

    What then was the beef/need for change this time around?


    A whole lot of things that was years old (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:10:10 PM EST
    Clinton, as detailed in the links....poured gasoline on the fire.

    "By STEVEN A. HOLMES (New York Times)

    Published: September 30, 1999

    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring."

    The first attempt to reign in the housing bubble was, as shown in the links, was in 9/2003. While it can be argued that Bush could have tried harder but the Demos made it plain they would strongly oppose him. The Feds chimed in in 2005 and McCain in 2006. Again the Demos opposed and the Repubs didn't fight. By and large the average Repub has demonstrated no leadership.


    The MoveOn ad you link to is mostly a finger pointing exercise about what happened after the bubble burst.Whatever it was...it was too little and too late.

    Read the "Big Short" if you really want to become angry.

    The BS you reference is policies that Trump states he is for.

    Immigration remains a problem and bringing in refugees of any stripe when they aren't needed is stupid. Doubly so when X % have shown to be radical islamists. He wants to shut down the influx and institute a very detailed vetting process. Perhaps you can explain why we are taking 2000 muslim refugees that Australia refused.

    Obamacare is seen as nothing more than welfare for Obama's base. They're right.

    He is going to reform the tax laws. Best I can tell is I'm gonna get a reduction. I have no idea how much the rich will get and don't care. I don't  remember much push back from the Demos beyond telling us that Trump was a nasty man and Hillary was a sweet heart.

    I think we can now see that the voters didn't care how nasty he was and that Hillary needed to do more than claim it was her turn to be President.

    In foreign affairs he made it plain that it is time for our allies to start paying their fair share. The Demos immediately claimed that he was trying to break up NATO.  

    He has indicated he would like to partner with Russia and attack the radical islamists using ME forces.  The Demos countered that he was a nasty man and that Russia was controlling all the voting machines...especially all the ones that have no connection to the Internet. Hillary opined that she was not a crook and all those millions she and Bill received were just from friends who expected nothing In return and the video showing her lying was a fake.

    Our military forces are near WWII level and he wants to increase its size. Hillary recounted her experience of coming under sniper fire as she left the plane...

    Our veterans are dying while waiting for treatment. Most people I know think that is unacceptable.  Nothing has been done. Most people think that is unacceptable. Trump says he will fix it. Hillary says that she really wasn't all that sick when she collapsed trying to get in her SUV.

    Our inner cities are crumbling and black unemployment is sky high. Trump says , "Give me a chance. You have nothing to lose." He has a point. Blacks have supported Demos in the 90% range for 3 generations.  Hillary says Trump is a nasty man and a racist. Every grocery store I know don't consider that a statement that can be used in lieu of money.

    Then the kicker.

    Most of the problems you cite that existed in 08 have been reduced significantly.

    A recession is when your neighbor is out of work.

    A depression is when you're out of work. Work force participation is near 1976 levels.


    Stupid cliches (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:14:50 PM EST
    all strung together.  Wasted bandwith.

    Sorry that you are not informed (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:21:15 PM EST
    enough to comment.

    Still trying to do damage control for the Boss (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    who should only be held responsible for everything if he's a Democrat. And a Democrat Mayor in particular.

    You put the hack in "partisan hack", Jim.

    The rampant deregulation that led to the meltdown continues to be one of the main articles of faith of the people you're running interference for. Always has been.

    Quit insulting everyone's intelligence by trying to pretend otherwise.


    Washington Post (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:04:13 PM EST
    Pentagon leaders had requested the study to help make their enormous back-office bureaucracy more efficient and reinvest any savings in combat power. But after the project documented far more wasteful spending than expected, senior defense officials moved swiftly to kill it by discrediting and suppressing the results. The report, issued in January 2015, identified "a clear path" for the Defense Department to save $125 billion over five years......  The study was produced last year by the Defense Business Board, a federal advisory panel of corporate executives, and consultants from McKinsey and Company. Based on reams of personnel and cost data, their report revealed for the first time that the Pentagon was spending almost a quarter of its $580 billion budget on overhead and core business operations such as accounting, human resources, logistics and property management

    You too meed read other sources (none / 0) (#87)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:18:22 PM EST
    The deal currently is for several hundred million dollars, nowhere near the 40 billion quoted by your boy.

    *need to (none / 0) (#90)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:25:18 PM EST
    What's more amazing (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:04:56 PM EST
    is that it took a deep thinker like Donald Trump to inspire you to take the subject seriously.

    After all this time.


    Once upon a time I was the (none / 0) (#113)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:13:49 PM EST
    government contracts dude in the company I was employed by... Not that that was anything special, I was also in charge of all contract administration...which consisted of listening very carefully to our corporate lawyers, coming up with the + and - from a business view and making a recommendation.

    I can't remember ever rejecting their advice. Much of it consisted of "this is what the government business is going to cost us in additional overhead and allocation of resources" that could be otherwise deployed in a more profitable manner.

    The problem with much of government business is compliance with military specializations for a product that doesn't need to be milspec. One that a standard commercial product would be just fine.

    So that $200 hammer got that way because the steel had to be of such and such tensile strength and such and such compression strength with a 12.5 radius of the claw tip (+/- .1 degree)to the point 1.4 inches from the center of handle......etc.

    In addition there had to be a Federal Stock Number and a guarantee of spares for 20 years and an End Of Life of not less than 10 years in all climates...

    So since it was a small division of a large corporation that believed in profits or door closing....yes, I took things very seriously.

    But you still don't get it. Trump is a negotiator. That was his first counter. What Boeing should have said is, "Look, we'll give you a 3% discount for prompt payment and you get to pick any color you want for the seats."  



    Not amazing to some of us. (none / 0) (#120)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:35:59 PM EST
    Trump and Pence, (none / 0) (#67)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    despite Trump's initial second thoughts about his pick of running mate, make a good team. They are a complementary team of liars.

     Pence's penchant for disassembling  was clearly shown in the Kaine/Pence vice presidential debate when Pence denied statements by Trump that Trump was recorded as saying.  And, it has only picked up steam. Trump's claim that "millions voted illegally" thereby accusing millions of Americans of criminal acts was described by Pence as "refreshing."

     General Flynn's son was continuing to tweet about the Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria being a child sex slavery ring operating out of the D.C. restaurant's basement (there is no basement)--even after the alt-right guy from North Carolina drove five hours to "self-investigate" the pizza parlor and shoot off his assault-type rifle in the pizza parlor, terrorizing customers for over an hour.

     Young Flynn, who serves as his father's chief of staff appeared to be a part of the Trump transition, based on his .gov email address.  At first, Pence, the head of the Trump Transition, said Flynn fils was not on the transition team, and, later, said, he was no longer on the transition team.

    And, as for fake stories and conspiracy theories, isn't it time for Flynn Sr "Flynn Facts",national security advisor-designate. to join Flynn Fils as no longer being on the Trump team?

     But, then, who will be there to warn Trump about attacks from the Lizard People, warn that soup makes you gay, or reveal that there is a child sex ring in the basement of the Alamo.

    Trump (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    has to have assembled the most bizarre bunch of people ever. Let's not forget McFarland who said Hillary sent black helicopters to her house. And that's just one other. The list goes on and on.

    President Obama & PM Abe (none / 0) (#76)
    by christinep on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 06:37:59 PM EST
    On the eve of the 75th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, the realization of what will happen tomorrow brings tears to my eyes and hope to my spirit.  Tomorrow, the leaders of the United States and Japan will stand together at the Pearl Harbor memorial to commemorate TOGETHER an event central to world history and deep within the heart of American history.  
    If we can stand together as friends, allies ... well, we see renewed hope in the most calamitous of days. Yes.

    Burka Ban (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 07:25:55 PM EST
    The issue never was the Burka

    The problem was accepting too many refugees ill equipped to assimilate in countries not willing to accept that many refugees.

    The end result appears to be the political far right making a strong resurgence in Europe.

    Germany's Angela Merkel calls for burka ban 'wherever legally possible'

    German Chancellor Angela Merkel's enthusiastic endorsement of a burqa ban is dominating headlines in Europe.

    "The full veil must be prohibited wherever that is legally possible," Ms Merkel said to wild applause, during a major speech at the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party's conference overnight.

    Others are focussing heavily on Ms Merkel's pledge to send some asylum seekers back home or her comments about Europe's refugee crisis.

    "A situation like that of late summer 2015 must not, should not and cannot repeat itself", she declared.
    The statements are clearly part of a strategy to counter the rising wave of populism that has swept away some of her allies abroad and is threatening to eat away at her party's base

    If the government pass a law (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:18:08 PM EST
    Germany's Angela Merkel calls for burka ban 'wherever legally possib

    Where would it not be  "legally possible?"


    Who among the commenters here (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:57:04 PM EST
    would have expertise concerning the scope of the right of freedom of religious expression in the E.U. or in Germany in particular? Certainly not I, beyond acknowledging that I know that freedom of speech in Germany is not the same as in this country (e.g., it is a crime there to display Nazi regalia or to deny the Holocaust; not so here, nor could be).

    are you demanding (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by linea on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    "expertise" to shut down discussion?

    in germany you are prohibited from wearing masks or covering the face at demonstrations or public gatherings (portland and seattle anarchists would not be happy) nor can you wear a group political uniform at demonstrations or public gatherings. the argument, as i understand it, is that the burqua should be considered a religious "uniform" and included under the existing statutes. it was a CSU proposal that the CDU is now saying they endorse.

    but that's just how i understand it.


    Your understanding may be right (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Peter G on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:46:35 PM EST
    or it may not be. How do I know? That's why we try to link to (cite) competent sources here, or else speak from an articulated basis for expertise. (Donald-from-Hawaii's experience in politics; Towanda the historian; mine as a constitutional and criminal-defense lawyer, etc.) So, while I am certainly not trying to "shut down" any discussion, I will not participate in debating a position that lacks a demonstrated, reliable factual basis.

    i already said (none / 0) (#128)
    by linea on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 11:14:30 PM EST
    that it was just my understanding.

    the conservatives (none / 0) (#100)
    by linea on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:04:20 PM EST
    are lying to get re-elected in 2017. thus the curious "where legaly possible" proviso (condition attached to an agreement).

    in my opinion.


    So she is lying??? (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:22:46 PM EST
    The article goes on: (none / 0) (#138)
    by Nemi on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 08:51:22 AM EST
    But Ms Merkel is not only pitching to the far-right.

    Her speech, taken as a whole, seemed yet another effort to offer something for everyone and position her conservative party in the centre of German politics.

    Ms Merkel called for tax loopholes for big companies to be closed, spoke in support of free trade, of the importance of strengthening the European economy and then criticised EU member states for not taking enough refugees.

    She condemned hate speech, spoke about the importance of education, the challenges of digitisation and then promised to deliver high speed internet to more people.

    The next election, Ms Merkel concedes, will be "bitter" and "difficult" ...

    As for the "rechtlich möglich"-part of a ban, this is left for the Federal Interior Minister, Thomas de Maizière to explore. Back in August he suggested that the ban should be effective wherever 'necessary for the coexistense in our society'. As examples he mentioned: Behind the wheel, in administrative, registration, and other offices, in kindergardens, schools and at universities, in court, in demonstrations, at passport checks ...


    blah! (1.00 / 1) (#150)
    by linea on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 08:41:21 PM EST
    seems generically easy to do. "no person shall obscure their identity by covering their face in government buildings, educational institutions, and at passport checks." hardly a burka ban (niqab?)

    what are their? in the entire country of germany, 2000 maybe 3000 religiously oppressed women forced or brainwashed to wear a burka? add to that a few women wearing burkas to facilitate shoplifting and the occasional male terrorist wearing a burka to murder people at a cafe or theatre. still not many.

    i feel merkel and her conservative party are tricking those people who want the "passive-aggressive terrorism" of burkas (niqab?) off the public streets. but that's just my sense from what i read.

    oh! and thank you for this contribution Nemi! 🍒


    There are 6 million (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 05:46:29 AM EST
    Muslims in Germany.

    That 2 or 3 thousand number wearing hijab might be a tad on the low side.

    The burka ban is a unintended but fully expected consequence of bringing in so many refugees ill equipped, and perhaps not wanting to assimilate to the German culture


    i'm probably wrong (none / 0) (#193)
    by linea on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    i probably don't visit the right neighborhoods.

    just that burkas seem rare. never seen one at university. hijabs seem common but not burkas.


    You're commen is appalling (none / 0) (#191)
    by Towanda on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 06:18:14 PM EST
    as,well,as incorrect.

    How the hell does this happen? (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 07:43:08 PM EST

    Half of Detroit votes may be ineligible for recount

    One-third of precincts in Wayne County could be disqualified from an unprecedented statewide recount of presidential election results because of problems with ballots.

    Michigan's largest county voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, but officials couldn't reconcile vote totals for 610 of 1,680 precincts during a countywide canvass of vote results late last month.

    Most of those are in heavily Democratic Detroit, where the number of ballots in precinct poll books did not match those of voting machine printout reports in 59 percent of precincts, 392 of 662.

    According to state law, precincts whose poll books don't match with ballots can't be recounted. If that happens, original election results stand.

    "It's not good," conceded Daniel Baxter, elections director for the city of Detroit.

    Jeezus, Trevor, if you are going to fake (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    bewilderment and outrage to try and get the rest of us wondering, atleast put some effort into it.

    The answer to your ridiculous question, "How the hell does this happen?", is right there in the rest of the article.

    He blamed the discrepancies on the city's decade-old voting machines, saying 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. Many jammed when voters fed ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if ballots are inserted multiple times. Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said.

    In Detroit, 158 of the 392 precincts with ballot discrepancies had just one extra ballot accounted for either in the poll book or in the ballot box, according to the Wayne County's canvassing report.

    For suburban Wayne County, 72 percent of the 218 precincts boxes with discrepancies in the number of ballots were off by one ballot.

    The other ballot discrepancies in Detroit and Wayne County precincts ranged between two and five ballots, according to the report.

    Atleast think of poor Jim, who was just about to climax at the thought of the "usual Demoocrat vote stealing brought to light".


    Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    is fact challenged. We all should know that by now.

    Because of that (none / 0) (#102)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    They are ineligible for the recount.

    Poll workers are supposed to adjust counters to reflect a single vote but in many cases failed to do so, causing the discrepancies, Baxter said.

    Although it may be moot after all

    the Michigan Court of Appeals released a 3-0 opinion, following a hearing Tuesday afternoon, saying the state Board of Canvassers never should have allowed the recount to proceed because Stein -- who received just more than 1% of the vote -- did not qualify as an "aggrieved candidate" under state law.

    The 6th Circuit, in affirming Goldsmith's order, said: "If subsequently, the Michigan courts determine the ... recount is improper under Michigan state law for any reason, we expect the district court to entertain any properly filed motions to dissolve or modify this order in this case."

    Don't despair (1.00 / 3) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 07:52:28 PM EST
    Just your standard and usual Demoocrat vote stealing brought to light....

    Again read more (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:24:17 PM EST
    The issues arose due to antiquated voting machines that just happen to be in heavily Dem black areas.

    Why can't we just have a level playing field?


    Oh well, (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:54:45 PM EST
    keep in mind you're arguing with a guy who quotes pro-slavery thinkers on his blog.

    And it goes without saying, if these folks don't mind slavery, they're certainly not going to see anything wrong with voter suppresion.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#103)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 09:08:30 PM EST
    Please tell us why the Democrats, who had control of Detroit for 51 years yet didn't get some modern machines installed.

    Perhaps it is the same reason that the inner city collapsed on itself.

    The bosses were so busy stealing they didn't have time for anything else.


    Your link is BS and totally unrelated (none / 0) (#116)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:23:38 PM EST
    Nonetheless, should voters be penalized? Again why are you afraid of a level playing field?

    In Chicago and across the country, whites looking to achieve the American dream could rely on a legitimate credit system backed by the government. Blacks were herded into the sights of unscrupulous lenders who took them for money and for sport. "It was like people who like to go out and shoot lions in Africa. It was the same thrill," a housing attorney told the historian Beryl Satter in her 2009 book, Family Properties. "The thrill of the chase and the kill."

    The Atlantic

    The "inner city" collapsed because wealth via ownership could not be created. Opportunities denied.


    Sorry about the link (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:43:46 PM EST
    You'll find this one more to the point.

    Detroit was controlled by Demos for 51 years.

    They let the voting machines wear out.

    That is a fact. They were in charge. It was their job.

    And your inability to accept that is totally predictive.

    Now that old "level playing field," the law, says that the votes can be used.


    Where did I not accept your premise? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by vicndabx on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:58:51 PM EST
    Do you acknowledge that white flight, property devaluation, and lack of a decent tax base played a significant role in the ability of cities to fund projects like new voter machines? Surely you who grew up on the farm living the hard life can relate to choosing priorities and making tough choices on where to spend shrinking tax dollars?

    On the farm (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 08:49:29 AM EST
    I learned priorities.

    That the Democrats didn't consider voting machines that worked demonstrates that making sure people's votes counted wasn't important.

    And it continued.

    They were in charge and demonstrated no interest in voting machines.

    And all the complaints about the evil whites who fled and the nasty bankers who red lined doesn't change that.


    Where does the money come from Jim? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by vicndabx on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 09:46:46 AM EST
    How do hundreds/thousands of voting machines get paid for?

    You have no actual evidence "they demonstrated no interest."  Find some evidence of fraud on this specific issue and post it, not a speculative opinion piece.

    What party has controlled the state legislature and senate where funding for initiatives such as these comes from? Hmmmm?  Any guess?

    The blame game doesn't solve problems.  Understanding why the problem occurred and taking steps based on that understanding is what solves problems.

    Here are some facts around this issue:

    Funding to start replacing machines may be on the way soon, if an appropriation in Gov. Rick Snyder's proposed budget is approved by the Legislature. But it's not a sure thing - a similar funding request for new voting machines was cut from the state budget last year.



    Try accepting responsibility (none / 0) (#155)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    and quit blaming everyone but the people in charge.

    That Trump tactic of accusing other people (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by vicndabx on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:48:42 PM EST
    of what you are doing won't work with me. The people responsible are, as you say, the people in charge. That was and is the Republican controlled Michigan House and Senate.

    Interesting theory (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 08:06:06 AM EST
    So your same baseless accusations would apply to all those southern states with their obsolete voting machines.



    Baseless? (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 08:52:29 AM EST
    Hey! If you are the boss you are responsible. That doesn't change because of geography or political affiliation.

    Good to know your new standard (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 09:29:59 AM EST
    Hey! If you are the boss you are responsible. That doesn't change because of geography or political affiliation.




    Thanks for being a straight man (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:40:55 PM EST
    One more time I read this false narrative...Bush and Cheney failed to protect the country and 9/11 happened.

    Now I am not a big fan of Bush. He started losing me right after 9/11 when he started this "Islam is the religion of peace" nonsense. And his strategy of "nation building" without first absolutely destroying the current leaders and totally occupying the country long enough to change the culture...see WWII and Germany and Japan...was totally wrong. Although Obama, against the advice of his military leaders, executed Bush's mistake when he could have corrected it but he did not and ISIS was created.  But I digress.

    First of all, remember that Clinton had an opportunity to arrest Osama bin Ladin but didn't.  This was despite the fact the first WTC attack happened in January '93 and we had suffered numerous attacks outside the US on US facilities. bin Ladin was offered to us in '96 by Sudan and even though we knew what was going on Clinton refused saying incorrectly that we had no reason to hold him and then blaming the Saudi's for not arresting him.  Link

    And we had other opportunities to kill him but they were never completed. There was even a Grand Jury Indictment on bin Lain issued 11/6/1998 .  Read:  Link

    Now when Bush took office in January 2001 the USS Cole attack had just happened and Bush decided to keep Clarke in his administration, who had been Clinton's National Security Adviser, to insure that nothing was dropped in the transition.  Clarke's comments are instructive as to what went on.

    "WASHINGTON -  The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bush's former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters,

    Clarke: "....the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office --..."

    Now stop and think. A number of issues had been unresolved since '98. That was over two years. Does that tell you that bin Ladin and the Taliban was not a priority with Clinton? It does me and it should you. Let's go on.

    "...the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

    And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda"

    Repeat. ".....to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda"


    And yeah, that's Fox News...but it is a verbatim transcript and other reporters were there. So don't try the old "it's Fox and I don't believe BS on me.

    Bush kept what was going on in place, resolved years old issues and increased resources 500%.

    Now, what did we get out of these increased efforts. Let's fast forward to another interview, this time with Bush's NSA, Condi Rice. Now remember, at this point Clarke had been fired by Rice and written a book critical of Bush. So this interview was Rice's response to Clarke. Now understand. She is using Clarke's own WRITTEN words.


    And here's the note that Dick wrote to me on September 15th: "When the era of national unity begins to crack in the near future, it is possible that some will start asking questions like, did the White House do a good job of making sure that intelligence about terrorist threats got to the FAA and other domestic law enforcement authorities, as the attached paper, which was sent to you in July, and the e-mail, also July, note, in late June the Interagency Counterterrorism Security Group,which I chair, warned of an upcoming, spectacular al Qaeda attack that would be qualitatively different. We convened on 5 July a special meeting of domestic federal law enforcement agencies because we could not rule out the possibility that the attack would be in the U.S." In fact, that was the meeting that we asked him to convene.

    "At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."


    At this point I wish one of you Lefties would tell me what else Bush could have done. He had increased resources. The CIA used those resources and said an attack was coming. A meeting was convened and all the agencies were warned 70 days before the attack.



    Heh, heh, heh ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:44:58 PM EST
    Hey! If you are the boss you are responsible. That doesn't change because of geography or political affiliation.


    Heh, heh, heh


    Heh, heh, heh ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:47:03 PM EST
    Try accepting responsibility and quit blaming everyone but the people in charge.

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    Bush acted and did things. (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 11:15:26 PM EST
    Clinton did not.

    And the Democrats in Detroit did nothing.

    Bush took responsibility for what he had done.

    The Democrats in Detroit have not.


    Bush acted and did things (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    Clinton did not.

    Congratulations on expressing the maturity and critical thinking level of a fifth grader on the playground who says "my brother can beat up your brother."

    When in doubt, spout off and swing wildly like a drunken ignoramus.

    What talk radio hath wrought.


    Heh, heh, heh ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:44:01 AM EST
    Try accepting responsibility and quit blaming everyone but the people in charge.



    Can't you read? (none / 0) (#176)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    The point is that you take responsibility for what you do or don't do,

    Bush took actions. He took responsibility.

    The Detroit Demos did nothing, Now you folks want to blame "white flight" and the banks.



    I can read very well (none / 0) (#190)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 05:50:43 PM EST
    In fact,  I was reading your words:

    Hey! If you are the boss you are responsible. That doesn't change because of geography or political affiliation
    .  Jimakappj

    Heh, heh, heh ...


    Yes ... baseless (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 09:28:24 AM EST
    Just your standard and usual Demoocrat vote stealing brought to light....

    The bosses were so busy stealing they didn't have time for anything else.

    As opposed to the same reason all those southern states have outdated technology ... poverty.


    Hey! If you are the boss (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by jondee on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 05:42:04 PM EST
    you are responsible..

    Unless we're talking about the financial meltdown or 9-11.

    Or if we're talking about terrible schools, illiteracy, teenage pregnancy, violent crime, and morbid obesity in the South.


    It is about cultural inferiority (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 06:03:32 PM EST
    according to Jim:  People leave Mexico because it is culturally inferior, but leave what he terms flyover country for jobs--not because of cultural inferiority.

    So, the cultural inferiority theory only works for the brown people.


    What I am saying (1.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:19:12 PM EST
    is that Mexico and Central America are exporting people.

    They aren't leaving because they want to move to a foreign land.

    The culture was inherited from Southern Europe. The large land owner surrounded by peons.

    And yes, that is an inferior culture.

    It's easy for you to sit in your nice home in the US and tell us how great the life of the indigenous people is.

    Shame. Shame on you.  


    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 11:50:53 PM EST
    You dont know squat about Latin America. With every post you show how ignorant you are. You said you visited Latin America when you went to the Bahamas.

    Your attack on Latino culture by referring apparently in a half baked anti Catholic way to the enconmienda system is only a couple of centuries behind.

    You know what is more recent? The slavery of your South. And people are fleeing the small towns in the South and going to Democratic cities that voted 2 to 1 for Hillary. Cities like Memphis and Nasville.

    I have lived in Latin America. In villages far from modern comfort. You have not. You have not been there.  But you spout some cornpone bigotry like it actually means sonething. Your attempt to lecture me about something you dont know highlights your arrogance and stupidity.


    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 11:51:11 PM EST
    You dont know squat about Latin America. With every post you show how ignorant you are. You said you visited Latin America when you went to the Bahamas.

    Your attack on Latino culture by referring apparently in a half baked anti Catholic way to the enconmienda system is only a couple of centuries behind.

    You know what is more recent? The slavery of your South. And people are fleeing the small towns in the South and going to Democratic cities that voted 2 to 1 for Hillary. Cities like Memphis and Nasville.

    I have lived in Latin America. In villages far from modern comfort. You have not. You have not been there.  But you spout some cornpone bigotry like it actually means sonething. Your attempt to lecture me about something you dont know highlights your arrogance and stupidity.


    Well, the fly over country (1.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 10:29:55 PM EST
    must not be too bad. We have two Mexican restaurants, a Mexican grocery specializing in Latino foods....

    Guess all us "Yankees" have been picking up a lot of "South of the Border" recipes from the 'net.  



    You have Mexican food (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 11:53:26 PM EST
    So you think you know Latino culture?  Just like Trump and his infamous taco bowl
     How vacuous and idiotic can you get?

    Ah gee... (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 07:14:31 AM EST
    I don't know why I use sarcasm on you. It is always wasted.

    But watching you respond with programmed responses is always funny.

    Tell you what, I'll try again to explain.

    Start off by studying Southern European culture back in the days of the Spanish empire. It was very much a feudal culture. Big land owners. nobles, peons huddled around the castle.

    They explored and settled mostly in what we know today as Mexico, Central Mexico and northern South America.

    Now comes the hard part. The new dudes brought with them the culture they had at home.

    So the result was a feudal culture. Big land owners, nobles, peons huddled around the the "castle."

    This had nothing to do with "better" or "worse." It was just what it was.

    In the meantime the Norther Europeans grew towards a democracy. They explored and settled what we know as America and Canada. They brought with them the culture they had at home.

    But here's the rub. The northerner's model slowly grew into a democratic republic. It fostered capitalism. The southerner's model fostered and worked towards keeping feudalism.

    The northern model had one revolution and one civil war. The southern model had multiple revolutions and internal wars.

    The northern model came for land. And it was flooded with poor people who just wanted a way out from what they had.

    The southern model replicated what they had at home.

    The northern model morphed into something new and unique.

    The southern model has not been successful. It is exporting people.

    The northern model has been successful.

    Countries, companies... all large groups are the result of the culture.


    So, if it's not the Culture per se (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    in flies-all-over country that resists the growth of knowledge as being irrelevant and "secular", and produces an inordinate number of people who futilely yearn to go back in time, what is it?

    Didn't you say you wished we could go back to 1962?

    Ah yes, when we were teetering on the brink of nuclear annihilation, and Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts hadn't been passed..

    Is that kind of crazed-delusionary thinking the byproduct of a cultural current that still exists in the U.S?

    What cultural traditions make people devalue education and social responsibility and distort sprituality into a backward semi-pagan worship of sky gods we only meet in the afterlife?

    Is it a leftover Southern Peon culture that fears knowledge and "uppity" independent thought because it might lead to too much questioning of authority and the current status quo by the Peons?

    Exhibit A: On your blog you say scientists can't be trusted.

    Better to make America Great Again; like it useta be before folks started gettin' all kinds of hifalutin ideas in their heads.


    You forgot about the slavery part (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 09:39:55 AM EST
    Your so-called "Northern European" culture arrived in the South and established slavery.  

    Just slipped your mind--that little thing called slavery?  Your so-called Southern flyover country is the land that loved slavery.  

    Slavery is much more recent in the South than the Conquistadores in Latin America.

    I understand Latin American History far better than you.  I have studied the issue of which you speak for many, many years.  Again, you do not know squat.  It is painful to watch you spout off such third grade level platitudes.


    Third grade? (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 10:30:35 AM EST
    You flatterer.

    MKS, I'm not trying to get involved in (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 11:53:18 AM EST
    any argument, but I do like to know historical stuff.

    When the Conquistadores arrived, wasn't slavery already in fairly widespread practice in what we now call Mexico and Central America?

    And basically everywhere else in the world? Pretty much from the time civilization/farming was invented?


    European style slavery (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 01:14:54 PM EST
    was not practiced anywhere in Latin America.  Abusive practices did exist, but not the buying and selling of people.

    In terms of Mayan, Aztec and Incan practices, why don't you do the research?   But the racist, bigoted point that Jim was making was that Northern European culture was superior because the Southern European culture had the Conquistadores.  

    So, the relevant comparison, as made by Jim, was Northern v. Southern European culture.  And Jim forgot about slavery, which was far more recent than the Conquistadores or any practice of the Maya pre-Conquest.

    But nice of you to engage in an apologia for slavery--everybody did it, right?  


    I thought he was talking about (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    the Northern and Southern U.S.

    For instance, a correlation could be made between Southerners who sold the fingers and toes of lynching victims as souvenirs a hundred years ago.and some of the practices of the Aztecs 600 years ago..


    Uhh, okaaay... (none / 0) (#179)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    from wiki: (none / 0) (#197)
    by linea on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:34:28 PM EST

    During the Atlantic slave trade, Latin America was the main destination of millions of black people transported from Africa to French, Portuguese, and Spanish colonies. Slavery was a cornerstone of the Spanish Casta system, and its legacy is the presence of large Afro-Latino populations.

    After the gradual emancipation of most black slaves, slavery continued along the Pacific coast of South America throughout the 19th century, as Peruvian slave traders kidnapped Polynesians, primarily from the Marquesas Islands and Easter Island and forced them to perform physical labour in mines and in the guano industry of Peru and Chile.

    Thank you for making my point (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 12:18:59 PM EST
    Slavery is much more recent in the South than the Conquistadores in Latin America.

    Slavery in the US foisted large plantations much like those in Mexico and CA. So, when the war came the South was unable to arm itself adequately and was very susceptible to blockades.

    The amazing part is how the slave owners managed to get the 90% who didn't own slaves to fight. I suspect the reason was that the Yankees were seen as invaders of their homes.

    After the war the south took years to recover. It missed the industrial revolution of the late 19th/early 20th century and it took the agricultural machine revolution to push the blacks and poor whites north and west. This changed in the 50's and 60's with industry following low labor costs and greatly improved education/medical facilities. The industry was largely lost to foreign competition which explains how Trump won the south while breaking every "moral" the Christian base holds dear.

    But none of this has anything to do with what was not happening south of the border. It had no industrial revolution. It had no Civil Rights reform. What it had, and has, is too many people.

    Trust me on this. There is very little practical difference between being a sharecropper/peon and a slave. The main differences is that the land owner feels no responsibility towards the sharecropper/peon and was perfectly happy to see the sharecropper/peon, and his family, starve.

    The slave owner had an investment to protect and will take at least a minimum effort to protect that investment.

    And yes, I know slavery is terrible, etc., etc. But with no money and no way out, what's the difference?? So you can starve as a free man?

    And no, that's not an argument for slavery, just putting all these "into the fight rode rode the 600!" comments and shouts into context.

    There was no "Marshal Plan" for the South.

    Just a conflict between landowners and non landowners.

    Guess which side won?

    If you haven't actually been hungry don't lecture. If you haven't seen a child raking the congealed grease on the pot containing last nights collard greens for breakfast don't tell me you understand.

    If you haven't been told where to "buy" your groceries and clothes don't complain about your local Walmart.

    If you haven't been told by someone's father you aren't really "right" to take his daughter to the prom, don't tell me about discrimination. You have no idea.

    So you have studied. Great! Too bad you were sold a bill of goods. Let me know when you have had some actual experience.

    Just understand that those dudes mowing your lawn would love to get a Green Card and join a union, even if that meant the border was closed. Right now they are 21st century slaves to a mind set that says they can starve at your leisure.


    Actual experience????? (none / 0) (#178)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 01:39:01 PM EST
    Like living there?  I have told you, please read next time, I lived in villages in Central America without modern comforts.  What a moronic thing for you to say.

    Ever since you tried to give traffic directions and estimates of traffic times in SoCal and showed how ignorant you really are about such things, it has been more than established beyond a shadow of doubt, that you say things without knowing what you are talking about.

    Try these facts about Northern European v. Southern European Culture:  slavery existed in the precious South far longer than almost anywhere else.  Mexico never had slavery--unless you go back to a time, hundreds of years ago, when the Irish were practicing human sacrifice.  

    Southern culture was inferior because of slavery; Southern culture was inferior more recently because of Jim Crow and the KKK.  And today, the youth flee the rural South.


    Actually slavery was practiced by the Aztecs and (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 02:59:35 PM EST

    The so-called Native Americans came across the Siberia-Alaska land bridge and filtered down and across the continents. Among the things they are noted for is human sacrifice, slavery and cannibalism. Their societies/cultures ranged from hunter gather tribes in the north to feudal kings and peasants groupings in the central and south.

    Everything was cool until the southern Europeans arrived. The southern Europeans were aggressive, had better weapons, including germs that the NA's had never been around before. The result was conquest, settlement and a feudal society based on what they had in southern Europe resulting in land owners with peasants huddled around the Catholic Church. But the NA's were marginally better off. No slavery, no cannibalism and no human sacrifice.

    Basically, nothing has changed to the south. They have gone from weekly revolutions to establishment of failed socialism experiments...Venezuela doesn't have toilet paper or antibiotics and Honduras is the murder capital of the world. Their exports are bananas and people.....who have flooded into America to the tune of 11 million or so. When called out they riot and fly Mexico's flag and demand the right to vote.   They seem determined to establish what they, or their parents, fled from. Poverty, chaos, crime and dictatorship.

    Slavery was introduced in the Caribbean as well as Central America and what is now Mexico. Long before the South was settled.

    And you are still in denial. Culture is everything. You may have lived in CA but you haven't lived in the South. You can't make a valid point without being nasty and make claims about a disagreement on the time it would take a visitor who flew into John Wayne to go somewhere. You want to count from your home. The visitor was flying in.

    Oh well. You just show how trivial you think.

    Try to stay focused. People are coming from outside the country. That tells you how the culture has failed to produce a society that can support/provide growth on a national basis.

    My solution is to close the border, give Green Cards to those here and let them apply for citizenship. This would bring them out of the shadows, join unions, demand higher pay and better working conditions.

    You want them to remain undocumented. Prey for criminals of all types and beholden to politicians.

    Let me see Mr. Undocumented Immigrant.. Do you want the border closed and a Green Card for you and your family or do you want the right to slip into the country and live in the shadows????

    I think we both know the answer.


    A mind is a terrible thing to waste (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 03:18:42 PM EST
    or as re-formulated--it is a terrible thing to waste one's mind.

    You know nothing about Latin  America.

    The Aztecs and Mayans were practicing slavery at the same time as the Irish.


    Your anti-Catholic (none / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 03:20:15 PM EST
    bigotry based on your arm-chair talk radio history is vomit inducing.

    You go back (none / 0) (#183)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 03:23:43 PM EST
    500 years to indict Latin American culture.

    But you won't go back 50 years to acknowledge the white sheets and burning crosses of your own state.

    If you define culture the way you do, the culture of your state is putrid.


    Heh (1.00 / 2) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 09:11:44 PM EST

    I provide details and policies I would like to see and you give insults and one liners.

    Whatta guy.

    Anti Catholic?? You've never heard of missions?? Oh well, as Gump said..

    The culture indicts itself based on the results.

    And you don't want Green Cards and legal status??? Higher wages and better working conditions.

    I do.

    Who is really trying to help??

    Jondee, you and MKS need to take some history classes.


    Interesting that Rush Jr (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    is an expert on what the people who came across the land bridge "noted"..

    Where's the primary sources for that?

    Or was that just more wild-swinging, Michelle Malkin-esqe hyperbole?

    To talk about an estimated 400 different tribes only in the context of cannibalism and slavery is propaganda with intent to demonize, similar to Nazis only talking about Jews in the context of loan sharking and profiteering and Breitbart pinheads only talking about blacks in the context of government social programs.


    What actual experience is it (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 03:25:43 PM EST
    that compels so many old fashioned Southern boys to grow up to defend-unto-death Yankee blue bloods born with a silver spoons in their mouths?

    I posit that it's the "traditional values", Southern peon culture that compels "respect", aka fear, and the desire to curry favor with, the biggest, loudest primate who commands the most real estate..

    The same way share-croppers and slaves had to curry favor with Massa for generations.

    The same way they still have to curry favor with a pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die "jealous God."  


    So why (none / 0) (#148)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    Has California and NY lost residents in their states.
    The only increases they have had are new immigrants, people that have resided there for years are leaving.

    Culturally inferior?


    It is not my theory (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Wed Dec 07, 2016 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    Please read more closely.

    But I do see you value people who have resided  here for years over new immigrants.

    This is similar to what Michael Barone wrote about the Electoral College being a good thing because otherwise California would rule all, and that was bad because California has so many Asians and Latinos.  What you say sounds similar.



    I value (none / 0) (#166)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 05:53:17 AM EST
    The fact that their rights have been ignored. Sanctuary cities , harboring criminals here illegally, when they should be deported violates the right of every American citizen, their country is supposed to provide safety instead of harboring   criminals for political reasons.
    Otherwise, what good reason can a city have for not turning over to the Federal government anyone here illegally that has committed a felony?

    You see that's the problem (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 06:39:26 PM EST
    You think they're all criminals which is not true. Sanctuary cities protect dreamers and a lot of honest Hispanics from harassment.

    Bulsheet (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    I have said before I would hide Dreamers and their parents in my home if need be.  Send your goons, I don't care.

    Get lost.  My values are different than your values.  Thank God!


    Sanctuary cities (none / 0) (#196)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:33:09 PM EST
    Are under political pressure ONLY because they protect criminal felons.  PERIOD.

    If Democrats gave up that ill thought out protection, what argument would be left? They make it easy to attack the sanctuary city policy because of the additional criminal acts committed by the illegal felon after they should have been deported.

    The Donald (much as I expected) has already hinted no one is getting deported, other than the criminals. Ann Coulters head must be exploding. But that was to be expected


    Do you really think the use of ... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    ... the word "PERIOD" (caps no less) makes your silly claims more credible?

    Hint - it doesn't.


    that's not how (none / 0) (#199)
    by linea on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:42:04 PM EST
    sactuary is explained here in my city. i am told it simply "bars police officers from inquiring into a person's immigration status" when investigating crime and dealing with vulnerable victims. which is right and proper. and extends certain essential social services without inquiring of status.

    When Repuclican politicians (none / 0) (#201)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:57:45 PM EST
    refer to sanctuary city, it is only because of criminal acts committed by illegal felons that should have been deported.

    See Kate Steinle, and other unfortunate victims like that

    San Francisco death: Kate Steinle's family files lawsuit
    By Ray Sanchez, CNN
    Updated 12:46 AM ET, Sat May 28, 2016

    (CNN)The fatal shooting of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier last summer -- allegedly at the hands of an undocumented immigrant deported five times from the United States -- became a focal point of an angry national debate over illegal immigration.

    On Friday, her family filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, San Francisco County's former sheriff, the federal Bureau of Land Management and the man who allegedly fired the deadly shot.
    "Kate's death was both foreseeable and preventable had the law enforcement agencies, officials and/or officers involved simply followed the laws, regulations and/or procedures which they swore to uphold," the lawsuit said.

    they are saying (none / 0) (#203)
    by linea on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 09:10:27 PM EST
     my city will lose federal funding. this is the actual law:

    4.18.015 Inquiries into immigration status.

    (A) Notwithstanding Seattle Municipal Code Section 4.18.010, unless otherwise required by law or by court order, no Seattle City officer or employee shall inquire into the immigration status of any person, or engage in activities designed to ascertain the immigration status of any person.

    (B) Seattle Police officers are exempted from the limitations imposed by Subsection (A), above, with respect to a person whom the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe: (1) has previously been deported from the United States; (2) is again present in the United States; and (3) is committing or has committed a felony criminal-law violation.

    Trevor, since Jim (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    attempted to talk history, take this into account: Spanish was spoken in California and much of the Southwest well before English--by more than a hundred years.

    These "immigrants," the Asians and Latinos, that you and Michael Barone do not like are often third and fourth generation Americans.  Trump has a lesser "American" pedigree, if you count ancestors who were born here, as I believe his mother immigrated here.  


    I know (none / 0) (#195)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:29:04 PM EST
    La Raza has publicly stated that they will take back California, one Mexican at a time

    I've discovered that ... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    ... when certain people make fact-free, link-free, evidence-free claims about what they claim other people or groups are saying, they're usually either misrepresenting that group, or they're just making it up.

    Also known as (none / 0) (#202)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Dec 08, 2016 at 09:04:10 PM EST

    At least by those that can read and research


    If anybody's stealing (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    votes it's the GOP these days. Remember this is the same party that thought poisoning the water was just fine and dandy.

    That would be yet ANOTHER lie (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Tue Dec 06, 2016 at 10:06:31 PM EST
    There is absolutely ZERO evidence to back up your latest tinfoil lie.

    Heh (none / 0) (#205)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 12:47:12 AM EST
    Jim, can you recommend a history lesson that doesn't involve coloring inside the lines with crayons?

    I doubt it.

    "Reconquista" - heh (none / 0) (#206)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 08:02:39 AM EST
    Repeating tinfoil, rightwing conspiracy theories is not "research", Trevor.  Those of us who can actually read and research know the difference.