Thursday Night Open Thread

Congratulations to Mick Jagger on the birth of his 8th child.

I don't get why so many people are trashing him for having a child at age 73. He's got more energy than most people half his age and will probably live long enough to see his son go to college or start a band. More power to him. It's so Rock n' Roll.

Madonna is also getting a lot of criticism for her "twerking" during last night's Carpool Karaoke with James Corden. I liked it. She's 58 and enough of a philanthropist that people should just get off her case and let her do what she wants. At least she's not sucking up to Donald Trump like Leonardo di Caprio who met with Trump and the other Mrs. Trump (Ivanka) and gave him a copy of his foundation's plan for the economy and climate control -- along with a copy of his new film about it.

Time for El Chema, episode 3 (Telemundo.)

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Donald Trump: An American Tragedy | The Ever-Growing Toxicity of Donald Trump >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Spox Jennfer Palmieri won't back down. (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 02:41:27 AM EST
    After her public dust-up with Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway at Harvard University last week, Ms. Palmieri sounds like she's in no mood to be gracious, particularly when it comes to the subject of Trump's empowerment of the white nationalist movement. And neither am I, so speaking for myself only, good for her.

    From Ms. Palmieri's op-ed in the Dec. 7 Washington Post:

    "I know how to be a gracious loser. I could have let it go last week when Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump's campaign manager, challenged me to look her in the eye and say she ran a campaign that gave white supremacists a platform. I considered for a split second. I knew you were supposed to be gracious when you come for the post-election forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. But I decided this was a year where normal rules don't apply. Speaking the truth was more important.

    "'It did. Kellyanne, it did,' I told her. It's just a fact. Trump winning the election doesn't change that. To my mind, his win makes it all the more important that the truth be acknowledged."


    "I don't know whether the Trump campaign needed to give a platform to white supremacists to win. But the campaign clearly did, and it had the effect of empowering the white-nationalist movement. Trump provided a platform by retweeting white nationalists -- giving their views an audience of millions. Views previously relegated to the darkest corners of the Internet also had a platform on Breitbart, the website of Trump campaign chief executive Stephen K. Bannon.

    "'Before Trump, our identity ideas, national ideas, they had no place to go,' said Richard Spencer, president of a white-nationalist think tank that held a post-election conference in Washington. Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke said this fall, 'The fact that Donald Trump's doing so well, it proves that I'm winning.'

    "At Harvard, some on the Trump team crowed that we in the Clinton campaign and those in the press were foolish because we took Trump's words 'literally.' That's right. We did. You should take a candidate for president's words literally. You know who else took his words literally? White supremacists. The white supremacists who lauded Trump with cries of 'Hail, Trump!' Duke, who expressed confidence that Trump's decision to make Bannon his chief strategist meant Duke's ideology would have a prominent place in the West Wing. The students who mocked Hispanic athletes with chants of 'build that wall.' The man in New York City who threatened the off-duty female Muslim police officer last weekend.

    "It's also true that many of the more than 65 million people who voted for Clinton took Trump's words literally. Many of our supporters were sincerely frightened by his campaign's embrace of the alt-right. Hispanic families who voted for Clinton believe Trump will deport their parents or siblings because he said he would. Muslim supporters fear they will not be welcome in their own country because of Trump's proposed Muslim ban. Mothers and fathers of both parties supported Clinton because they didn't want their children growing up in an America where women and girls don't feel respected by their own president."

    Definitely worth a read.

    Happy Birthday, Kirk Douglas, ... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 07:44:59 PM EST
    "Yes, I know who Judas was. He was a man I worked for and admired, until he disgraced the four stars on his uniform."
    - Col. Martin Casey (Kirk Douglas), Seven Days in May (1964)

    ... who's 100 years young today.

    I've always enjoyed his work in... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 08:05:14 PM EST
    "Lust for Life" and "Paths of Glory."  Two of his smaller films perhaps, but he's at the top of his game.

    Another one that people forget.. (none / 0) (#40)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    The Glass Menagerie.

    I wonder why (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    The Villiam is never mentioned? In the Top 10?

    I gotta confess. I laughed until my sides hurt.


    Trump's cabinet has become... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by desertswine on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 09:22:15 PM EST
    the thing that nightmares are made of.

    Trump's Pick for Interior Secretary Wants to Sell of Public Lands.

    On the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, which tracks environmental votes in Congress, McMorris Rodgers has a lifetime score of 4 percent. Her 2015 score was zero. Another  climate-denier.

    Now the headlines (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 10:08:45 AM EST
    are exploding with Russia helping Trump. The evidence has to be released to the public. But since Trump is influenced by a foreign actor what happens now? The GOP is too cowardly to do anything about it. Can we rerun the entire election?

    No, we can't rerun the entire (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 01:36:57 PM EST

    We'll just have to live with Russia running the country instead of Iran.


    "Instead of Iran"? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    Please elaborate.  It sounds like you want to make another baseless smear, but prefer to make a vague insinuation because you have absolutely no evidence to back it up.  The evidence about Russian interference is now out there, with more to follow, but tell us about this tinfoil Iran theory.

    Based on our foreign (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:19:02 PM EST
    policy any disinterested observer would have to comment that Iran has friends in high places...


    Wish someone would send me a jet full of money...


    "Any disinterested observer" - heh (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:40:44 PM EST
    Wingnut websites are not "disinterested observers".  Swing and another miss with yet another, tinfoil smear.

    But keep trying!


    Wanna play some 4 dimension chess? (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 10:54:25 PM EST
    Start by telling me why Russia would want Trump over Hillary?

    After all, she opted for a "reset" with them...Gave their Iranian ally the gift of being the big dog in region....Did nothing when Russia moved on Crimea...and has don't to support Ukraine and removed/failed to install missiles in Poland.

    But really, if you folks are dead set against interfering in foreign countries's elections...Why did you support Obama's interference in Israel.


    That's not chess - it's checkers (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:55:23 AM EST
    This has been discussed for months, now - you know how to use Google, right?

    Why Putin wants a Trump victory (so much he might even be trying to help him) - from before the time much of the evidence came to light

    Why Vladimir Putin's Russia Is Backing Donald Trump

    Why Russia Is Rejoicing Over Trump - Dropping threatening language from the GOP platform is just the sort of bonus Moscow expects from its man Donald.

    As for your latest attempt to push some false, wingnut smears to falsely claim hypocrisy, you'll need to try again.  But it's ironic, given the blatant hypocrisy of the Trump supporters claiming to value "truth".


    All of this is built on unnamed sources (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:57:55 AM EST
    idle speculation and obviously biased writers.

    Preibus just stated on FNC, again, that the FBI had investigated their email system and it had not been hacked.

    Perhaps the Demos were hacked because their security was bad. After all, Hillary's system was said to have less security than Gmail.

    Checkers?? You're playing poker with blank cards and a bunch of jokers.

    Again, everything Russia has done has been while Obama/Hillary was in charge. Now the Left's media and water carriers claim that it was done because Putin controls Trump.

    Look, I don't want to be too nasty, but that's just dumb.

    And when people suggest, as GA does in another comment, that Trump and Pence not be "allowed" to take office, well that's way over the line. That's
    just wrong. That's preaching revolution.


    Because they wanted an intel asset in the WH (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 09:48:08 AM EST
    Any disinterested observer (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:34:32 PM EST
    might predict that armchair and potty chair warriors will continue to fantasize about attacking Iran until a Republican frontrunner like Trump tells them what a stupid idea it is.

    Iran has (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:09:26 PM EST
    never been running the country however it's interesting that you see no problem with Putin running the country. Of course, we already knew how craven and cowardly Republicans are but thanks for proving it.

    There you go again. (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    I never said I would have no problems with Russia running the country...

    And seeing as how Russia and Iran are snuggling up together who runs us may be a case of them arguing over the spoils of war.


    So you'd have SOME problems? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 11:29:21 AM EST

    You mean there might be some positives to Russia running the country?

    Don't tell me. The Russians might help Paul Ryan and Ben Carson in their efforts to push for single payer through.


    If you're so sure Russia (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:49:00 PM EST
    and Iran are in love then not only would Russia be running the US but Iran would too. You'd get a two-fer with Trump.

    It is probably not that (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 01:57:53 PM EST
    the Republicans are too cowardly to confront Trump, but more that they plan to tolerate him as the "useful idiot."  Ryan and other House Republicans see their dream of killing Social Security and Medicare as coming to fruition.  If Trump balks too much Ryan et al will suddenly become courageous and find Trump's conflicts of interest and the Constitution.

    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    he should not even be allowed to take office nor should Pence. McConnell knowing the influence Putin has with Trump kept numb and therefore is complicit. There are probably a lot of other Republicans that are complicit with Putin. Perhaps an electoral wipe out in 2018 may have to be the only thing that solves this problem.

    It is all curious. (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    President Obama informed a Gang of 12, in secret, deputizing Comey and Jeh Johnson (Homeland Security), to seek " a show of solidarity and bipartisan unity" against Russian interference in our presidential election.

     McConnell quashed the idea, threatening to taint a disclosure with the claim that it was being done merely for political gain. Among the first Trump cabinet nominations was McConnell's wife for Sec. of Transportation.

    And, this was in September, so Comey was well aware of the Russian goal to favor one candidate (Trump) over the other, and help Trump get elected.  Yet, Comey needed to "investigate", once again, 11 days before the election with a "nevermind" two days before election day--based on a staff member's computer and emails he had not seen at the time.

    But, even more perplexing, is why President Obama sought out Congressional bipartisan support to confront such an existential threat.  Concern for our electoral process should have outweighed threats by McConnell. By a long shot.

      McConnell has been, for eight years, uncooperative, if not obstructive of everything and anything Obama tried or did. And, even if McConnell agreed, Trump would have made a similar claim.  Seeking bipartisan support, Obama should have learned by this time, is futile. Foreign interference was a job for the president.


    Please reconsider (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:01:38 AM EST
    your inflammatory words.

    What you are encouraging is revolution and treason.


    "Treason"? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 12:24:15 PM EST
    So you think Trump has a problem with "treason" for doing exactly what you're complaining about?

    Did you feel so strongly when he did it in 2012?


    You have to be kidding. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    You are the one promoting treason by wanting a foreign agent or someone controlled by a foreign agent installed as president.

    And you are encouraging idiocy (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    and the radical disengagement from reality by claiming the Repubs support single payer healthcare.

    Please consider cleaning out your own house before you point your finger at others.


    "Lock her up!" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 12:08:42 PM EST
    Apparently, the ignorance and stupidity exhibited by a chunk of the US electorate is contagious.  The Trumpers have now invaded Canada.

    NBC News reports (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:35:22 PM EST
    that Trump will nominate Rex Tilerson Secretary of State, and, very likely, will pair Tilerson with John Bolton, former UN Ambassador and right wing neoconservative, as Deputy Secretary.   The 64-year old Tilerson is the multi-millionaire head of ExxonMobil; a graduate of University of Texas Austin (BS civil engineering), and 2013 Russian Award of Friendship, conferred by Vlad Putin.  

    Bawhaaaaa (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    The President elect at the Army Navy game had to get in front of the mic at halftime of course. He said he loved the Armed Services, great people, but he's not sure it's the best football. WHAT A DICK!

    We didn't tell him he had to come. Nobody forced his ass to be there. Go back to your tower Donald.

    He knows more about football (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:15:01 PM EST
    than all the coaches.

    I tweeted it (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 04:23:20 PM EST
    And the deplorables are all over me cuz he did...he dissed the fricken soldiers and they can't deal with that. That isn't approoriatr war worship damn it. When you play for West Point or the Citadel football is your third priority, not your first. He's such a dick. His followers nothing but cult members.

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 05:44:38 PM EST
    He surprisingly did get a nice cheer from the crowd though



    It's going to be a loong 4 yrs (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 08:09:58 PM EST
    Where the Donald will continue to talk about himself and talk about himself and talk about himself. I'll wait and see how much they cheer next year.

    Patti Smith accepts the Nobel (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 11:20:10 PM EST
    for Bob Dylan and performs "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall.

    Writing for The New Yorker Amanda Petrusich said:

    She looked so striking: elegant and calm in a navy blazer and a white collared shirt, her long, silver hair hanging in loose waves, hugging her cheekbones. I started crying almost immediately. She forgot the words to the second verse—or at least became too overwhelmed to voice them—and asked to begin the section again. I cried more. “I’m sorry, I’m so nervous,” Smith admitted. The orchestra obliged. The entire performance felt like a fierce and instantaneous corrective to “times like these”—a reiteration of the deep, overwhelming, and practical utility of art to combat pain. In that moment, the mission of the Nobel transcended any of its individual recipients. How plainly glorious to celebrate this work.

    Thank you for posting this, desertswine. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    Like Ms. Petrisich, I too cried as I watched Patti Smith perform.Of course, many have things have made me cry since the election. I expect that to continue for at least four years. Hopefully, not more than four years.

    Heh (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 10:32:56 AM EST
    But I decided this was a year where normal rules don't apply. Speaking the truth was more important.

    I agree.

    Truth is important??? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    So you supported Trump, the guy who is constantly making up false "facts".

    Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate.



    Really? (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 11:11:26 AM EST
    While Hillary may not have said so herself:

    "While Clinton supporters circulated the allegations the last time she ran for president, they had no ties to either the candidate or her staff."


    That's parsing and reminds me of the old western movies where the bad guy, referring to Gene or Roy, turned to one of his buds and says, " Take care of that problem."

    And Hillary never intervened and said, "Hey! Knock that off!"

    And then we come to the Iraq war.

    "But Cavuto himself picked up the thread post-debate on Fox Business Network, unearthing the clip Trump referenced, from January 28, 2003 - Nearly two months before the Iraq War began on March 20. In the video, Cavuto asks Trump how much time President Bush should spend on the economy vs. on Iraq.

    "Well, I'm starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy," Trump said. "They're getting a little bit tired of hearing `We're going in, we're not going in.' Whatever happened to the days of Douglas MacArthur? Either do it or don't do it."

    Trump continued: "Perhaps he shouldn't be doing it yet. And perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations."

    And while that isn't a man demonstrating in the streets it is clear that he opposes the war.

    After the invasion of Iraq, and the subsequent fallout, Trump became a much stronger and far more vocal critic of the war.

    "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in," he said in an August 2004 issue of Esquire. "I would never have handled it that way...Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam [Hussein] didn't have."


    He saw "something" that most missed. ISIS.

    It took me until 2007.

    And while DIH's link can point put that some people said some nasty things, it omits the riots and damage caused by Hillary supporters.

    If we want to settle down and fix some problems then both sides have to shut up and let the past go.

    It ain't gonna happen. The Internet and cable news has made raging partisans out of all of us.


    I someone supposed to care ... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    ... what it "reminds you of"?  Is someone supposed to care that Fox News thinks Trump's statement means he opposed the war in 2003, when in reality, it doesn't?  You understand the meaning of weasily qualifiers like "perhaps", don't you?

    Trump makes things up that are completely baseless.  Her exaggerates.  He promises things that are literally impossible.  He states outright falsehoods constantly.  He does so on a scale that dwarfs any other politician.  But now you want to claim truthfulness and facts important to his supporters, while saying "let the past go" (i.e. forget all the lies Trump told).

    You're funny.


    He said what he said in 2003 (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:04:07 PM EST
    and you will say he was deliberately lying.

    I understand.

    The great unwashed and deplorables have shot your dog, ran off with your girlfriend and cancelled Xmas.

    Life gets tedious.

    And you are doing the same thing you accused the Right of doing and making the same wild claims...see GA 6's comment...many of them made.

    Why don't you folks try this? Trump wants to dump Obamacare.

    Why not counter with a single payer system?

    You know, have a real debate about a policy that everyone is interested in instead of calling Trump and other people names such as .... "climate deniers"  that no one beyond politicians and people making money off it care about.

    While Trump was supported, finally, by the Right that wasn't enough to elect him.

    He was elected by people wanting CHANGE.

    Carpe Diem


    His claim was false (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    Trump repeats wrong claim that he opposed Iraq War


    Jan. 28, 2003: Trump appears on Fox Business' "Your World with Neil Cavuto," on the night of President Bush's State of the Union address. Trump says he expects to hear "a lot of talk about Iraq and the problems," and the economy. He urges Bush to make a decision on Iraq. "Either you attack or you don't attack," he says. But he offers no opinion on what Bush should do.

    Cavuto: So you're saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us.

    Trump: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn't be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He's under a lot of pressure. He's -- I think he's doing a very good job.

    Trump said he was "totally against the war in Iraq." While he came to that position when the war became difficult, earlier on he was more accepting of military action. In 2002, asked if America should go to war, he said, "I guess so." Less than three months before the invasion, Trump said the president should be more focused on the economy, but he didn't speak against launching an attack.

    Trump didn't speak often about the Iraq War before it happened, but what he said did not add up to the sort of opposition he describes today.

    We rate this claim False.

    One of dozens of demonstrably false statements made by the Cheetoh.  His supporters, criticizing Hillary Clinton and claiming to stand for "the truth", is more laughable than Rush Limbaugh and Chris Christie publishing a book on personal fitness.


    BTW - He was elected by a minority (not a plurality) of people wanting change ... and their Russian comrades are laughing.


    BTW - I understand why you want to ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    ... change the subject and would prefer not to discuss Trump's mountainous record of false statements (after pretending to want "the truth").  I also understand why you now prefer to discuss policies you want, after your candidate and your fellow supporters ran a campaign of false attacks and smears against HC.  But don't pretend you speak for the priorities of the American people:

    Why don't you folks try this? Trump wants to dump Obamacare.

    Why not counter with a single payer system?

    You know, have a real debate about a policy that everyone is interested in instead of calling Trump and other people names such as .... "climate deniers"  that no one beyond politicians and people making money off it care about.

    Only 1-in-4 want Obamacare Repealed

    64% worried a great deal about climate change.

    Good luck with trying to get your candidate or your Republican legislators to institute single payer system (paid for with a regressive tax).  Hate to break it to you, but that will never happen.  They wouldn't even discuss the issue in 2010 and they oppose it now.  Trump specifically disavowed single payer healthcare.  What they will do is repeal Obamacare and give people a few tax breaks and tell them to buy their own insurance, if they want to - and millions will be uninsured once again.

    You can't pretend single payer healthcare and access for all is important, while at the same time voting for people who specifically say they will oppose them.  You can try to do it, but don't expect any reaction other than laughter.


    I'm a realist. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    I knew about Trump 5 years ago.

    I agree. Donald will be fun. (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 30, 2011 at 11:31:33 AM CST
    And he has been fun.
    What Sienfeld needs to figure out is this.
    How many are laughing at Trump vs how many are laughing with Trump.

    Reply to This
    And how many (none / 0) (#8)
    by Politalkix on Sat Apr 30, 2011 at 12:18:03 PM CST
    are laughing at those who are "laughing with Trump".

    Parent | Reply to This |  1  2  3  4  5

    Who knows? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 30, 2011 at 12:48:10 PM CST
    But the fact remains. Trump has shaken things up. Stirred the pot. Spilled the beans. Called momma home.
    What that will accomplish I don't think anyone knows. In the meantime, let's just enjoy and see of any of his wild shots hit home. 11/2012 will tell us all.

    And I don't mind you pointing out his obvious faults, but playing the "I can see Russia" card on things that are clearly debatable is just a rerun of what the Right did on Obama and Hillary for the BS that was spewed about McCain and Palin.

    And take all the polls you want, but when people are asked if they wanna pay $5 a gallon for gas to save the earth....the answer is no.

    And without politicians to push the issue the real science will come out..

    Trump is also a realist. If the case can be made to replace Obamacare with a single payer system he will support it.

    Of course instead of worrying about my support, why don't you indicate your own rather than supporting a system that has clearly failed everyone but a select few?


    A realist who believes (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    adamantly in single payer system, but who only votes for Republicans..


    Is that what you meant to say?


    Because you support Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 03:51:46 PM EST
    You supported Trump.  You support Republicans in the House/Senate.  They will now control the House, the Senate and the Presidency.  The mess they make of the healthcare system (and all those who lose healthcare) is on you and the rest of their supporters.  They are adamnantly against it, and anyone pretending we're going to get single payer healthcare reform is detached from reality.

    BTW - They aren't "clearly debatable".  Trump makes false statements on a regular basis.  He's made faaaaaarrrr more than anyone else.  When you or any of his supporters claim to care about truth and suddenly want to focus on the issues you pretend to care about (despite voting for candidates who oppose them), you're being hypocrites and have absolutely zero credibility.


    The examples I gave you are clearly (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 10:40:28 PM EST

    But you don't want to be of service to mankind by supporting a single pay system. You want to see the Repubs fail so you can feel good.

    There. I've defined you.


    Sorry - you don't get to define me (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 07:01:20 AM EST
    Particularly when you can't even tell the difference between false, wingnut smears that have been debunked many times and "debatable points".  You can't pretend to place importance on a single payer system while consistently defending, supporting and voting for Republicans who oppose single payer.  It's hypocritical and laughable.

    There ... I've defined you.


    You don't get to define anyone, Jim. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    "I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag."
    - Molly Ivins (1944-2007), journalist, author and humorist (1944-2007)

    Nor do you possess the credibility and standing to accuse others here of suborning treason and being unpatriotic, given that the leaders of your own Republican Party so obviously placed their faith in the success of a Russian cyber-intelligence operation to subvert our recently-concluded election, and are now both cheering and defending its intended result.



    You are right Donald. You have defined yourselves (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:02:07 PM EST
    In my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 10, 2016 at 02:11:17 PM CST
    he should not even be allowed to take office nor should Pence. McConnell knowing the influence Putin has with Trump kept numb and therefore is complicit. There are probably a lot of other Republicans that are complicit with Putin. Perhaps an electoral wipe out in 2018 may have to be the only thing that solves this problem.

    Nor do you possess the credibility and standing to accuse others here of suborning treason and being unpatriotic

    I don't accuse. I just quote what has been said.

    We have had an election. The Electors will act on 12/19. On January 20, 2017 Trump will be sworn in.

    Now let's examine the word "suborning."

    bribe or otherwise induce (someone) to commit an unlawful act such as perjury.

    Now let's go back to GA's comment:

    In my opinion he should not even be allowed to take office nor should Pence.

    The only way that could happen, outside of natural death, is through a revolution. Revolution is war.

    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason


    Treason (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:12:54 PM EST
     is what Trump did Jim. Me stating what Trump did is not treason. You are the one that supports a foreign dictator having a puppet as POTUS.

    GA, Trump was elected (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    You are suborning  revolution to keep him and Pence from being sworn in.

    That's war.

    US Code says that's treason.

    Look, I know you are disappointed. Be an adult.

    You can make wild claims but you have no sources.

    What agency?

    Who in that agency?

    When was it done.

    Why did the FBI lie and say the RNC's email system hadn't been hacked?


    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:40:37 PM EST
    asking a foreign country to intervene in an election like Trump did and he did it publicly is treason. You can deny it all you want and apologize for it all you want but it is what it is. I'm stating facts. The CIA is saying he's a Putin stooge. Are you accusing the CIA of treason also?

    What you are advocating is rule by a foreign dictator. I'm against that. I would call that patriotism.


    Of course you didn't never noticed (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 07:51:26 PM EST
    the treasonous implications of people like Roger Stone talking about "blood in the streets" if Clinton was elected..

    You never noticed when Governor Matt Bevin
    talked about Clinton's election leading to bloodshed..

    That's war.

    That's treason.

    And you're still FOS.


    Trump (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    has been giving aid and comfort to Russia. He and many Republicans have taken Putin's side over the side of the US.

    This is pretty clear. You can side with America which I do or you can side with Putin which is what you and many Republicans are doing.


    Can you please link to where (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:29:28 PM EST
    he did what you claim?

    He did say Putin was a strong leader.

    That's a fact. That was also true of Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, Churchill...etc.

    It's a description. Not a term of endearment.


    He asked (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:42:53 PM EST
    Putin to intervene in the election by hacking Hillary's emails. Let's not forget that Putin probably has blackmail material on the entire GOP since he hacked into their emails too only he did not use them to attempt to influence an election. I'm sure they will probably be worthwhile later on and it seems that since the GOP doesn't even want to look into Putin's meddling they must be afraid of something.

    I'm still waiting. (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 07:17:38 PM EST
    Trump (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 05:16:01 PM CST
    has been giving aid and comfort to Russia. He and many Republicans have taken Putin's side over the side of the US.

    How about a link??


    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 07:58:24 PM EST
    a link about him asking Putin for help link

    He's nominating Putin's buddy Tillerson for SOS. Russia is very excited about that link


    Lol (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:08:52 PM EST
    Asking for help in finding Madame Sec's deleted e mails, lol.

    Keep trying.

    There is no reason The Donald will do anything other than what he feels is in Americas best interests.
    Americas best interests are in The Donalds best interests.

    Sorry, there is no Putin "problem"

    Only on the pages of this blog, and perhaps the media that is still so pissed The Donald got elected.


    There are a ton (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:12:33 PM EST
    of links below. His son met with the Kremlin. You are a tool and a Putin apologist too. You would rather believe Trump than believe the people who are sworn to defend this country against domestic enemies.

    So? (none / 0) (#84)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:17:03 PM EST
    How many people, heads of state did Bill Clinton meet with while Madame Sec was in office.

    They run a global business, they have met people from EVERY country.

    OMG, every country will now control The Donald.

    Get off of the ledge, now.


    Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:25:11 PM EST
    a bipartisan group of senators disagree with you. And frankly how do you know? Trump refuses to release his tax returns. He could owe a ton of money to the Russians and we know for a fact that the Russians financed his hotel in Canada that went bankrupt. Which is he going to show more favor to? The people of this country who most of them he apparently despises or the people pulling his financial strings? You can't seen to do much better than imagine Trump is loyal to the US where the evidence points in a different direction. If Putin has control of Trump's finances you better believe he's going to be doing whatever Putin tells him to do.

    Perhaps you can answer the question as to why Putin wanted Trump elected and helped him then if he's not going to get anything out of it?


    Because Madame Sec (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:30:14 PM EST
    Stuck her 2 cents in Russian elections, and Vlad did not take kindly to it.
    So he got even.
    And that alone would be enough to do it.

    Madame Sec accuses Russia of having fixed elections, Putin just turned the tables, showed how the DLC fixed the primary for Madame Sec.

    Thats all there is kiddo, stop getting yourself into a lather


    It had everything (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:34:43 PM EST
    to do with the sanctions Hillary put on Putin. The sanctions are killing Russia and weakening Putin's financial hold on the country.

    The DLC fixed "nothing". Hillary got 3.5 million more votes than Bernie but yes, I know getting more votes doesn't matter to you. That's another conspiracy theory put out there by Putin that you're shopping. Thanks for proving you really are a Putin stooge for repeating his propaganda.


    If you think (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:15:27 PM EST
    there's nothing there then why don't you support an investigation? Why is the GOP so afraid of an investigation? I know it's because you really do know that Trump is a tool of Putin and you're afraid for it to be out there for everybody to see all the proof.

    An investigation of what? (none / 0) (#86)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:22:57 PM EST
    They have done one, the CIA cannot confirm that anyone in the Kremlin was connected to the hacking.

    And if they did, it was because Putin had it in for Madame Sec, she publicly questioned the elections in Russia, and Putin was not pleased. Putin doesn't get mad, he gets even.

    And , as I have stated again and again, The Donald will act in Americas best interests. What possible reason would he not?

    Get off the ledge


    The CIA (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:28:40 PM EST
    says they are Russians with ties to the Kremlin.

    Donald will not act in America's best interest. You can see that already with the appointments he is making.

    A bipartisan group disagrees with you Trevor and says it needs to be investigated. Trump spent 18 months saying that he will promote the White Nationalist and Neo Nazi agenda. Are you saying that agenda is in the country's best interest?


    There is no link (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 07:47:27 PM EST
    Nor will there be.
    Delusional. Just delusional.

    The Donald will do what is in the best interests of the United States. Period.

    There is not 1 reason for him to do otherwise. NONE


    So you (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:10:39 PM EST
    don't believe the CIA and believe Donald Trump? I'm sorry but McCain and Graham and Corker believe it too. They have seen the evidence of Putin enabling Trump. Why is the GOP fighting an investigation of something this important? You and your stupid fool friends spent reams talking about emails that Putin even put out there for you to discuss but we can't investigate something as important as Russians interfering in our election.

    I'm all for Obama releasing everything they have on the Putin Trump relationship.

    Here's another link

    Donald's ties to Putin have been extensively reported.

    His son met with the Kremlin in Paris back in October link

    The pro Putin agenda of Trump has been out there and reported by a variety of news organizations.

    There is every reason for him to not have the best interests of the US because he owes money to Russians and we all know that it's all about him.

    Why is the GOP avoiding looking at this? What are you so afraid of Trevor? It's because you know that it's true. Trump has long and deep ties to Russia.


    That quite an assumption to make (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:05:04 PM EST
    to just assume that Trump knows what course is in the best interests of the United States.

    Every President (none / 0) (#80)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:10:35 PM EST
    Makes decisions on what they feel is in the countries best interests.

    The idiocy that The Donald will take his instructions from Putin is laughable,
    The Donald and Putin will come to agreement where mutual interests are served


    That's what I'm afraid of (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:18:32 PM EST
    well (none / 0) (#88)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    We agree then. I am so scared of what President Obama did with Iran, giving them billions of $ to finance terrorism and upset the Middle East.
    But I also realize that Obama thought he was doing for Americas interests, he was just flat out wrong.
    Iran will not abide by the agreement, and will eventually get nukes anyway.
    But in the meantime , we just enabled the Iranians  to significantly create mayhem and mischief in the Middle East

    Trevor (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:31:29 PM EST
    mayhem and mischief has been running in the middle east since the Iraq War. It completely destabilized an entire region. Yes, I know Trump plans to attack Iran and have a massive ground war there.

    Delusional (none / 0) (#92)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:34:30 PM EST
    The Donald will not get us into a war.

    His focus will be on the US economy, cut back business regulation, and spend a ton  of money on infrastructure, to juice the economy.


    You're delusional (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:37:38 PM EST
    It's going to be his jobs program. The GOP has been wanting a ground war with Iran since the late 1970's and they will not be denied. He's not going to be able to spend money on infrastructure because his own party is going to nix that one. Yes, he wants to add 9 trillion more to the national debt and raise taxes on the middle class while giving himself a free ride in the tax department. We know only the little people pay taxes according to Trump.

    They won't like it (none / 0) (#95)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:42:40 PM EST
    But they will do it.

    If successful, with business being unshackled by a myriad of regulation, a booming economy will lead to a re election of Trump and the Republicans in Congress.

    So much for fiscal principles,

    But The Donald isn't a Republican , he is a populist


    What specific (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:50:44 PM EST
    regulation do businesses need to get rid of? Safe work place? Dumping garbage in rivers? Harassing employees?

    Actually the economist is predicting a loss of 3.5 million jobs due to Trump's policies. He even lied about the number of jobs that he was able to save in Indiana. He paid 7 million for 3-400 jobs. LOL. I guess they will take that for now and then move the rest of them in a year or two.

    Interest rates are going up and are going to go up even more if Trump does what he says he is going to do. And the GOP just passed a bill that is going to cause major layoffs in industries.

    2/3 of the economy is consumer spending and if Paul Ryan gets his way people are not going to have money to spend on anything due to their medical insurance costing them around 1,000 a month. Or maybe everybody will just go without insurance and let you foot the bill. Hospitals are already saying they are expecting a decline of 5 to 7% which means layoffs there. Then there's other parts of healthcare like medical appliances etc. that people will not be buying. I don't think you fully understand what the GOP has in store for the country.


    Please find the quotes (none / 0) (#71)
    by vicndabx on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 06:41:24 PM EST
    Where a US president publicly praised those who had actively opposed stated US policy.

    I point these things out not to belittle or make you feel like $hit. I do so in the hopes that you will see reason and communicate this reasoning to your peers that support the GOP.


    So you're saying Trump committed treason (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 08:53:31 PM EST
    ... when he called for a revolution in 2012 when Obama won?

    Wow ... treason is grounds for impeachment.

    Guess there's a reason you won't answer that simple question.  


    I love it (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 10:56:54 AM EST
    the "Support The Troops" back bench water carriers are now admiring the foresight of those who opposed the Iraq invasion..

    Thank goodness (1.00 / 2) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 07:18:36 PM EST
    And that will be the last and only thing I'll say to you today

    One question I have is (none / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 03:57:35 PM EST
    how much the opioid scourge effected this past election.

    One of the other main differences between 2012 and 2016 in the Rust Belt is the big increase in the number of opioid addicts..

    More proof that taking drugs won't automatically turn you into a thinker of depth and profundity like Thomas De Quincy and William Burroughs?

    Well, my expectation would be that if you (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    are an addict, your motivation for things that are not "opioid" related - like voting - would diminish.

    I did read that the "Democratic support in the Rust Belt collapsed as a huge number of Democrats stayed home".


    That's the voter suppression scourge (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Towanda on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    . . . although, of course, thw media's election-nght statements about low turnout overall were wrong.

    But in some demographic groups, such as Affrican Americans in Michigan and Wisconsin -- meaning, Detroit and Milwaukee -- either voter suppression worked . . . or the vaunted "Obama coalition" didn't work, as Obama only can get out the voters for Obama.  Plus, Obama cancelled out on the major rally in Wisconsin that was supposed to kick off the general campaign.

    And, of course, Sanders so poisoned the party in the primaries that millennial voters went third party far more in Michigan and especially in Wisconsin (where the Obama visit could have had huge impact in countering the Sanders poison).

    Probably all were  factors, and far more than opioids.


    In other words, (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    a troll.

    Gotta be a remedy for that.

    trumps own words (none / 0) (#12)
    by linea on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 08:19:20 PM EST
    revealed himself to be a person who despises or is strongly prejudiced against women, illicitallty sexualy fondles women, and is a sexual voyeur of young girls. this is my opinion of his actions of barging into young girl's dressing rooms and his comments of "grabbing women by the pvssy."

    but i agree as a political argument calling him a "racist, evil, meanie" was ineffectual particularly in a race where trump was promising to bring back industrial jobs to middle america and hillary was viewed as the (disengenous) poster child for globalism.

    Viewed by some (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 08:53:18 PM EST
    ... in a race where trump was promising to bring back industrial jobs to middle america and hillary was viewed as the (disengenous) poster child for globalism.

    Then again, you don't cater to ignorance but fight back against it.


    It (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Fri Dec 09, 2016 at 09:33:08 PM EST
    was impossible to ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room, nobody listened to that wonky policy stuff anyway.

    Trumps campaign was built on lies, bigotry and demagoguery. It's a hard push to think that ignoring that would be a good way to fight it.


    Hillary Clinton would (none / 0) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 02:28:09 PM EST
    most certainly won if not for the Comey letter. Nate Silver.

    I wonder (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 04:37:43 PM EST
    if Comey has ties to Putin also or if he's an independent actor. Either way he needs to pay a price for what he did by helping to install a Putin puppet as POTUS. He certainly knew that Putin wanted Trump because he was in the meeting where the CIA told the story.

    Jim and Yman (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 11, 2016 at 09:38:58 PM EST
    Stop hogging the thread and sniping at each other. I've cleaned the thread some but don't have time to keep reading. You will both go in time out if you don't stop

    Jim, get your own blog if you want to dominate the discussion. There's no reason for you to post 10 or more comments in a single thread.