home

Wednesday Open Thread

I spent the day battling Wall Street banks in court today.

Open Thread.

< NH Primary Thread | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • BTD for President! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 07:56:46 PM EST
    Oh, wait, sometimes he yells.

    DNC chair? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:29:49 AM EST
    I think he could get things in line.....

    Parent
    Doesn't matter, (none / 0) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    Trump calls people idiots & morons too.

    Parent
    ODonnell (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:53:22 PM EST
    Had Howard Dean and some others on thanking about the coming contests and the showed graphics for both NV and SC.

    On the NV graphic they reversed the numbers.  Bernie 50 Hillary 27.  Howard called him out for it.

    "Oh yeah, well, you know, that happens"

    SC was Hillary 64 Bernie 27.  They got that one right.

    And, the Rachael Maddow (none / 0) (#162)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    show seemed like an hour-long infomercial for Senator Sanders.  Trying so hard for the horse-race, and youth vote.  The Nevada caucus can't be polled, Miss Maddow says, so we need to spend a lot of time on it, it could go to Sanders, maybe.

    Parent
    What I don't get about Bernie Sanders is (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by vml68 on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:13:59 PM EST
    why he did not run for president in 2008.
    We were at the height of the Global Financial Crisis, people were furious with Wall St and if he wanted to break up the banks, that was a good time to step up.

    Also, unemployment was high, people were scared and it was a golden opportunity to push programs with more safety nets for the average Joe.

    Same thing for health care. Why now after so much time and effort was spent trying to pass the ACA?

    IMO, Bernie's time was in 2008 and he missed the bus.

    That was eight years ago. (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:50:51 PM EST
    A lot has happened in the ensuing period. Maybe Bernie Sanders sincerely thought that Democrats would take care of all that once, Barack Obama was elected and sworn into office.

    And guess what? Obama didn't take care of it. Rather, he appointed the obsequious Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary and the ingratiating Eric Holder as Attorney General, who then coddled and made whole the very same fat cats who created the mess in the first place.

    While I've been open about my support for Hillary Clinton, I'm not going to begrudge Sen. Sanders' presence in the Democratic primaries. The hard truths he's been speaking certainly needed to be said aloud.

    And admittedly, I'm really not sure that the mounting complaints of the middle class would've been given sufficient voice in this campaign, had Sanders not stepped up to the plate.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    A lot has happened. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:32:18 AM EST

    You betcha. A lot has happened on Obama's watch.

    Median income down.

    Home ownership down.

    College affordability down.

    Income inequality up.

    Labor force participation down.

    Perhaps the best part of the Obama era is all the racial healing.

    Parent

    Link Please... (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    ... because I remember extraordinarily high unemployment rates, the country on the verge of a depression, people life savings at WS a fraction of what they were, and in the economy in general in the crapper.

    But yeah, Obama certainly did not do enough to fix the faults created by GWB in regards to WS & the housing market.  I could not agree more that we needed, still need, more regulation in those sectors.

    I would love for this election to be about R & D economies.

    Parent

    Oh, get lost. (none / 0) (#161)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    Your hatred of Obama has long been both palpable and delusional, Abdul, and the racial chasm which exists today has been almost entirely of your party's own calculated and deliberate making. Go sell your sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity someplace else.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#172)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    Talk about ignorant chutzpah!

    All those negative things Amir blindly listed as, somehow, not being repaired fast enough by a Democratic Administration, after having been caused by his Party is nothing short of laughable.

    But, what's not so funny is his Party considers them as features & goals, not things that need improving.

    Parent

    Facts be facts (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    The last time I checked the country was at around 5% unemployment, the markets were climbing and gasoline was around $2.00'gallon when the Demos took control of both Houses of Congress in Feb 2007.

    A short  17 months later, 7/2008, unemployment was climbing, the markets were falling and gasoline was near $4.50 a gallon.

    A couple of things had happened.

    First the housing bubble collapsed just as the oil prices ballooned.  What caused this?

    "WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 (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.

    Snip

    'From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

    Snip

    Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

    In case you don't know, Clinton was Prez in 1999.a

    And loaning money to people who can't even afford to borrow at even the lowest rates is without a doubt a disaster in the making.

    Now fast forward to 4/2008. For the previous six months or so the Fed had been dumping money into the markets to keep them liquid and to stem the foreclosures. And it was working. Things didn't look good, but things looked under control.

    Oil prices started the year at around $93.00 and had increased a little bit over $5.00 to $98 at the beginning of April, then $12.00 in April to end at $110 and by the middle of July oil was at $146 and gasoline as $4.00 a gallon.

    Oil prices.

    Along with increased energy prices, everything that it affects jumped in price. The people who could barely hang on started defaulting and the spiral started.

    The dagger that was thrust into America's financial heart is oil pricing.

    And there is no doubt that it is Democrats who, by opposing drilling in America supported the speculators belief that shortages would occur and that they could safely bid the price up. And dear hearts, they did.  

    So that's what caused the collapse that elected a President who couldn't fix the problem despite having large majorities in both Houses who poured millions into the markets and whose predecessor, had popped the speculators bubble

    by opening up off shore drilling.

    Of course that didn't suit Obama who had said high gas was okay.

    So he acted immediately to stop the nonsense of a pro energy policy.

    Now  what else do we know? Well, remember turning loose Freddie and Fannie by Bubba in 1999?? Well, by 2003 it was apparent that things weren't running real well.  So Bush acted.

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10-- The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

    Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
    The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

    Of course the Democrats blocked it.

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

    Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.


    And the rest, as they say, is history.


    Parent
    Features and goals.. (none / 0) (#174)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    like natural selection weeding out the Untermenschen.

    Parent
    I don't begrudge Sanders for running for (none / 0) (#69)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:42:53 AM EST
    President now and feel the same way for anyone who wants to run. It does not bother me if there are 2 or 100 candidates in the primary. If someone/anyone feels they have what it takes to be President, then I say let them make their case to the people and let the people decide.

    As for your comment that Bernie might have thought that the Dems would take care of all that once they were in power, I say there is a reason Bernie does not identify as a Dem and as such he should have realized that the Dems way of "taking care of things" would most likely be way more moderate than his way.

    Parent

    I think the Draft Warren movement (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    showed him there is a hunger for getting the message out and getting something done about the rigged financial system. And he rightly assessed that Clinton was not going to address it in the same way he would.

    Parent
    Lehman collapsed (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:55:01 PM EST
    In September of 2008, after the primary was over.  It was more of an "anyone but Bush" year.

    People weren't frustrated with establishment Democrats as much because they weren't really in power.

    Parent

    It is a mystery to me how Sen. Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 11:01:56 PM EST
    is not an establishment candidate.

    Parent
    In a word (or three)... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:35:25 AM EST
    No Big Money.

    Parent
    Two words (none / 0) (#106)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    Not.Yet.

    Parent
    Jesus.. (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:52:26 AM EST
    He's the only one who brings Big Money into the conversation..

    Or practically the only one..

    I don't know why that should be such a touchy subject..

    We keep losing more jobs and more hope and more inspiration and imagination and keep building more prisons -- in large part because the American people bought so many of the Big Lies about the inevitabilities of the "changing economy", Free Trade and globalization..

    Conservative economicists love to talk about "self-correcting" mechanisms without it ever dawning on them that the Bernies of the world are nothing but a manifestation of another kind of self-correction and backlash that's related to the fact that we're moral, social beings more than we're just homo economicus and some faceless "electorate" to be coerced and manipulated.

    Parent

    he's not an establishment Democrat (none / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:39:56 AM EST
    Because he only recently became a Democrat?

    I don't really know.  But it's working for him.

    Parent

    Maybe because (none / 0) (#82)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    People are just hearing about him, so simce the brain works in mysterious ways, they can ignore his 30 years in Congress. ...

    Parent
    If people were to look into his work in (none / 0) (#107)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    the House and Senate over the last 25 years, they would easily understand that the things he's campaigning on now are not new to him - he's been an anti-establishment Representative/Senator working within the only established national legislative body we have since the day he arrived in Washington (and before he got there, for that matter).

    [and while I know you can no doubt scurry to the four corners of the internet to dig up any and everything that "proves" Sanders was as establishment as anyone, that's not really my point.]

    Given that on so many issues, Sanders and Clinton are in agreement, or near-agreement, what, then, makes one the establishment candidate, and one the anti-establishment candidate?

    I think it's about the money.  And the mindset.  And the issues where they don't agree.

    Parent

    I won't (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:11:46 AM EST
    Have to find anything Anne, as, I know you too will scurry to the ends of the internet and type some long rebuttal to to try and prove me wrong.

    But my, you are sensitive and willing to take any comment as an attack.  Yes, anyone who wants to do the work can go look him up and see his body of work - the good, the bad, and the ugly.  But thank you for that instruction on how to do internet research.

    My comment was that until now, most people did not know of, nor care to know, who the junior senator from Vermont was, so maybe that's why he seems like he's not part of the "establishment", even though, like most of Congress since the founding of the country, he's an old white dude who's been there for 30 years. (You know who else is the establishment?  Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon.  But not many people could name him, so i guess he, too, coukd run as "not the estsblishment") Sorry, someone who's been part of the legislative process for decades cannot claim the outsider mantle, especially when that same petson is also campaigning on his resume in Congress.

    I'd say Hillary is DC establishment.  But that isn't US establishment -a female lader still isn't the norm in this country.   They both are establishment in some ways.  But to argue that he is not is a joke.

    This whole "who is estsblishment and who isn't" is stupid.

    Parent

    Which kinda proves vm's point, doesn't it? (none / 0) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:45:23 AM EST
    In an "Anybody but Bush" year, Sanders's message could have resonated well.  

    And just because Lehman didn't collapse until September didn't mean people already didn't hate "Wall Street".  We were in a recession, remember?

    Parent

    No, it would not have resonated in 2008. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:06:43 PM EST
    Sanders is an independent and a socialist. Had he run, he'd likely have barely attracted 1-2% as a protest vote, at best.

    Parent
    I read vm's comment (none / 0) (#169)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:15:11 PM EST
    To be as if Sanders ran and Obama didn't, so I think the results would have looked different.

    Parent
    I know that Lehman filed bankruptcy in Sept (none / 0) (#63)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:27:28 AM EST
    2008. But, the housing market crash was already underway and anyone who was paying attention and had knowledge of the financial markets knew the sh!tstorm that was about to come.
    I would expect that Bernie with his focus on the banking system (and being a Senator, not some clueless average Joe) would have been well aware of what was about to unfold.

    The healthcare situation was no secret. He was also anti-war.
    For me, all these things made it the ideal time for him to step up, show some leadership and try to enact his vision for the country. My crystal ball (which is completely unreliable :-)) says that he would have had a higher level of support across the country than he seems to have now.

    Parent

    I Don't Think He Would Have... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:27:05 AM EST
    ... received the younger vote, that was all Obama.  Now after 8 years of increased tuition, student loans, lower paying jobs for college grads, and high unemployment rates for those grads, there is a large group of young people who don't want 4/8 more years of the same or similar.  I am not even entirely certain that the group of disenfranchised young people even existed back then, aka Sanders base, but if they did they were most certainly voting for Obama and no one was pulling young people away from Obama.

    I might even goes as far as thinking maybe Sanders didn't actually think he had a chance, but wanted to move the debate to the left, and with that he has been amazingly successful, so much so that he is actually competitive.

    Or, the 'hope & change' crowd has simply found the 2016 version, meaning that a lot of people who had high hopes for Obama still have those high hopes, and Clinton certainly isn't offering much in that area.  I am not even entirely sure what her message is, and while I will get flamed for this, all I can come up with is 'More of the Same', which isn't bad considering Obama has been a good President, but it's not going to get people who want and expect more, voting for her.

    Parent

    I tend to think that it is the "hope & (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:11:47 AM EST
    change" crowd looking for another "hope & change" candidate. Having said that, I certainly don't mean to imply that their concerns are invalid. Lord knows, if I was in my 20s, I would be firmly behind Sanders.

    I guess, being older, I am not that idealistic anymore. I have a better understanding of how the world works and what is possible. Nothing wrong with dreaming big but you have to know what can actually be accomplished.

    As for the "more of the same" meme...
    This is how I see it, Bernie is promising the moon knowing he can't deliver. Clinton is saying I would like to promise you the moon but knowing that I can't deliver, here is what I am saying I can/will do. I have long stopped believing anyone can hand me the moon, so I appreciate Clinton's message. What you see as "more of the same", I see as honesty and setting realistic expectations.

    Most of us here are pretty entrenched in our views, so I don't really want to get into a back and forth on this. Just wish the exchanges were a little less caustic.

    Parent

    I Agree With You... (none / 0) (#100)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    ...and I am basically between the two, I like the the message of 'hope & change', but old enough to realize that 'more of the same' is a pretty good option when I start remembering 2000-2008.

    It's the very reason I still haven't decided.  I am leaning Sanders but pragmatist Scott won't let me.  Also I am not sure I am ready to deal with a republican Congress and a Clinton Presidency, but who is to say Sanders wouldn't be just as much of a target or that the D's won't at least get the Senate ?

    Parent

    I am a big fan of Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:52:30 AM EST
    And this isn't the first time I've heard of him at all.

    But I have to admit, I'm terrified of what happens in the general election, and I'm terrified that Bloomberg will enter the race and we will actually end up with president Trump.  I'm also not convinced he can actually work with Democrats in congress, it's something that makes him a great "bargainer" in the senate, and not something I think will work quite as well as president.

    I had every intention of voting for him until the race actually got close.

    Sometimes I feel like a traitor to my generation.

    Parent

    CST, I think 99.9 percent of the people (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    here feel more-or-less the same way you do.

    You're not alone.

    Parent

    What will be interesting to me is (none / 0) (#138)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:25:56 AM EST
    to see whether the demographics we saw out of Iowa and NH are trends or one-offs.  

    My fear is not that Bloomberg will get into the race; my fear is that Clinton will get the nomination because she made the delegate math work for her, and won't do anything to shore up support in the areas where, so far, anyway, she is doing very badly.  And that she could lose to the likes of a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz.

    There are a couple things I'd like to see - neither of which will probably happen:  (1) I'd like to see Clinton and Sanders collaborate on a message that what matters to the kind of lives we're going to lead is keeping the GOP out of the WH, and (2) I'd like to see Clinton town-hall the issues of millennials, in a very open and non-scripted way.

    I don't know if this will make sense to anyone, but when I watch and listen to Clinton deliver yet another speech filled with low expectations, I hear a scold, a controlling parent.  What underlies her message is, "don't get your hopes up."  How do you keep a fire going when you keep pouring water on the flames?  Sanders is saying the only thing that's keeping us from getting what we want is letting others stand in our way.

    Her message doesn't resonate.  It doesn't inspire.  It doesn't energize.  It's going to be hard for her to change the message, because it isn't something that's in her comfort zone and she's notoriously clumsy at it.

    And it's going to piss me off if she loses, because there is a clear path to victory in the general, and I'm terrified that she won't be able to find it.


    Parent

    She has (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:39:09 AM EST
    taken questions from millennials in town halls and they just asks things like why does everybody hate you? Leaving me to believe that they really don't care about the issues that they profess to care about.

    What you see one way other people see another way. Perhaps it comes from living in a red state. However to me Bernie is a repeat of the unicorns who fart rainbows because he's promising things that are never ever going to happen even if by chance he is elected president and frankly with people still struggling to come out of the crash what he is proposing sounds like he's going to take more of what they've struggled to cobble together over the last years. All this makes voters less risk adverse in general right now and very much less willing to vote for someone like Bernie in the general election. Also he's painted himself in a corner. Trump ridiculed him for wanting to give the country away for free. As far as I know he had no response to that. So in order to get rid of the "free" label he's going to have to admit to raising taxes.

    Parent

    Except (3.50 / 2) (#143)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    You don't want Clinton so why are you scared? Your guy should coast through the primaries and the GE right?

    And made the delegate math work for her? That is how primaries are decided, and it's been in place for quite sometime.

    Parent

    Have I ever said I thought Sanders would (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    "coast through the primaries and the GE?"

    No, I haven't.

    What I have said repeatedly is that I expect her to be the nominee - I have said repeatedly that I will vote for her in the general election.

    As such, I have a vested interest in her running a campaign that propels her to a win.  I may be supporting Sanders through primary season, but because I know I'm voting for whoever gets the Dem nomination, I'd like both campaigns to be as good as possible.

    As for my comment about making the math work, the superdelegates are an entirely political creature, and can fk with the delegates earned via actual votes cast in elections.

    Parent

    I don't necessarily disagree, Anne (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:52:47 AM EST
    But why aren't you advocating that Sanders have a town hall with people over 45 - he isn't getting his message across to them for some reason?   (And they are a larger share of voters than millenials).  Why is she the only one who should adjust?  Doesn't he want votes toi?

    You're a mom.  If your one of your daughters came to while they were growing up and said, "I want a car and I want it to be a Porche." I can't imagine you wouldn't have practiced resraint and said, "How about something more practical for driving around town  that you can afford?" and then you worked toward setting up a plan that was reasonable.  It also wouldn't have cut off the dream that, in the future, she could get a Porsche if she wanted, but it would take hard work and laying some groundwork, like saving money, getting insirance, building her credit, getting a place to store it.

    Are you saying that wouldn't be inspiring - working  together to find a solution? Are you saying a mom can't be inspiring by something mundane like this?

    Frankly, I don't get the burden we put on politicians to be "inspiring" anyways.  This is a job interview - when did inspiration become more important than competence, experience, and a proven ability to work within a fixed set of parameters snd people who don't agree with you?

    Parent

    But you know what wasn't underway? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    The groundswell of public activism against the institutions and organizations that were enriching themselves at the expense of the majority of Americans whose opportunities were being crippled and who could not get economic justice.  There was no Occupy movement until late in 2011; there was no Black Lives Matter.

    Edward Snowden hadn't happened yet.  We had yet to learn just how intrusive our government had gotten.

    So, while all of these things - the real estate crash, the Wall Street debacle - were all beginning to happen or underway, people didn't take to the streets about it until several years later.

    For one thing, they were afraid to; it had been quite clear that dissent was not considered to be patriotic or American.  The powers-that-be had done an excellent job of putting and keeping people in their place, of putting them in fear.  When people finally found their bravery again, look how they were treated.

    I don't blame Sanders for not stepping forward in this way before now; if we're going to blame him, or be angry at him, we might as well all take the blame for not stepping up when we "should" have.

    Parent

    I am not angry with him or blaming him. (none / 0) (#137)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:20:58 AM EST
    It is more curiosity as to why now as opposed to then. Sure, people had not taken to the streets then but for me the whole point of running for President (aside from ego, ambition, etc.)is that you have a vision for the country and you want to lead it there.

    Bernie's vision has not changed from then to now and it is not as if the country was in great shape back in 2008, so, just wondering why now.
    Anyway, I have taken up enough bandwith with my musings. But, appreciate your thoughts and everyone else's as usual.

    Parent

    Who knows? (none / 0) (#185)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    Maybe you're right that Sanders would have had a better chance in 08. But, that's a pretty thin reed to question the gentleman about isn't it? You could ask that about anyone who didn't run back then, right?

    But, I question your statement:
    ----------------------------------------------------
    "............anyone who was paying attention and had knowledge of the financial markets knew the sh!tstorm that was about to come."
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Lehman's bankruptcy filing, at first, wasn't considered as big a threat as what it, eventually, was shown to be. The Big Shots, certainly, thought it would create some negative volitility in the markets, but, they didn't think it was a systemic risk to the entire world's economic health. That's why they rejected the idea of bailing out Lehman. In fact, they thought it would teach the banks a lesson, and lead to them cooling some of the frenetic gambling taking place.

    It was only after Secretary Paulson found out what the TBTF banks were really doing, and, the full extent of how much interactive chicanery they were involved in (The Derivatives, and, all the derivativatives emanating from those derivatives) that he realized the world's economy would be destroyed within 48 hours if he couldn't get a Multi-Billion bailout commitment.

    This was on a Friday, and, without a commitment from the U.S. Government, the glabal economies would collapse when the markets opened on Monday. Yes, a complete mortal meltdown!

    Parent

    Hillarys time (none / 0) (#52)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 06:51:47 AM EST
    Was 8 years ago. And she couldn't seal the deal.

    She is 8 years older, the country has moved on.

    (She only holds the over 50 voter)

    And 8 more years of additional problems to address

    Parent

    You guys (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 06:58:18 AM EST
    make me laugh I guess these must be the newest talking points faxed out to the minions by the wingnut welfare brigade.

    How's your prediction of Rubio and Christie working out? It seems Christie is now officially gone and Rubio appears to be in the throes of death.

    It's looking more and more like y'all are going to get stuck with Trump, Cruz or the Right to Rise dough boy as your nominee.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#54)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:08:59 AM EST
    Exactly right. Hit the nail on the nose.

    Both parties are fed up with politicians as usual.

    They want outsiders.

    The consummate insiders, Bush and Clinton.

    The little Cuban fella is not done yet, but very damaged goods.
    Cruz will be trying to wear the Reagan mantle, don't know if he will succeed with that.

    Hillary lost all demographics, except for old people, old Democrats, who fondly remember her.

    If the Democratic Party thinks they can push Madame Sec over the top with Super Delegates, oh boy, what a miscalculation that will be. That will tear the Democrats apart, and create a 3rd party. Congratulations, you have your own Tea Party

    Parent

    So out of touch with reality you are (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:20:17 AM EST
    New Hampshire was to be a great state for Sanders. And on the surface it was. But registered Democrats split 49-49 between Clinton and Sanders in one of Clinton's worst states for demographics. And this is why your GOP nonsense is off the mark.

    You might want to stick with the GOP because you continue to show you know little about the Dems.

    Parent

    Any idea (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:41:18 AM EST
    When we start getting new polling from  NV & SC?

    Parent
    The Most Reliable Site (none / 0) (#77)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:20:38 AM EST
    to get polling data says that a big difference between Nevada, where the latest data gives Clinton a 50-28 edge, and New Hampshire is that only registered Democrats can vote in the primary in Nevada.  Hillary/Bernie split the registered Democratic vote 50/50 in New Hampshire.  The only state where Hillary doesn't lead by double digits currently is Wisconsin.  A Bernie nomination is still far fetched IMHO.

    Parent
    I would (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    imagine that the states that are going to be the best for Bernie next would be WI and MN. After that probably OR and WA.

    Parent
    PPP has one in SC & NC early next week (none / 0) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:54:35 AM EST
    That's all I know of in advance. Nevada is a caucus, and Dems and GOP aren't the same day, so it makes extensive polling there much less likely.

    Parent
    Every MSNBC show today (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:41:07 AM EST
    Is featuring experts from a Halperin "focus group", Halperin who is the new Frank Luntz, where he questions a bunch of clearly hand picked  Cruz supporters.  

    I hate our "media".

    I have no dog in this fight but it's insulting to think I am this stupid.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:56:19 AM EST
    I'm with you on the media hate.

    Parent
    I am really enjoying (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    MSNBC today.  Virtually every guest is rolling their eyes and guffawing at their ridiculous Bernie fluffing.   Comments like "have you actually seen a poll?"

    I recommend.

    Parent

    Ha ha (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:07:45 PM EST
    good. I'm glad somebody is finally making fun of their idiocy.

    Parent
    Halperin, Along With Andrea Mitchell... (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:05:31 PM EST
    ... Chuck Todd, and Nicole Wallace are the political 'experts' on the Today show.

    It's so mind-numbingly stupid that I actually laugh as it seems more like a parody from the Onion, than actual political analysis.

    Today they discussed how HRC get's back into the race after the crushing defeat.  Really, and they were all serious.

    They must hop from the Today show over to MSNBC.

    Parent

    Did not see this (none / 0) (#181)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:45:06 PM EST
    show, but did see one the other day where Chuck Todd was criticizing Mrs. Clinton because he could describe Senator Sander's campaign in a couple of words, but he couldn't do the same for the Clinton campaign.  Note to Mrs. Clinton, keep it simple or you lose Todd.

    Parent
    Truth (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:45:03 AM EST
    is Trevor doesn't even know much about the Republicans either since he was touting now declining Rubio and now dropped out Christie as possible GOP nominees.

    Parent
    Who was it that said (none / 0) (#117)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:56:27 AM EST
    the Jeb comeback story is already being written...just before NH voted and that story started to die again.

    Parent
    I hate (none / 0) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:12:46 AM EST
    to tell you but you are reading everything wrong in the D primary but oh, well, it won't be the first time you've been wrong. You'll see beginning oh, around March sometime how wrong you have been.

    Parent
    I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:55:51 AM EST
    ... but Sanders is collecting more campaign cash that Clinton.

    2015
    Sanders $73M
    Clinton $112M
    Trump $12

    January
    Sander $20M
    Clinton $15M

    Sanders is killing it February, Clinton hasn't released any numbers, but after Iowa he received $3M in 24hrs and after N Hampshire $5.2M in 18 hours.

    Obviously there is a lot of other money that Clinton is receiving via S PACs, but the point is in small donations, Sander is doing better than Clinton and I think that is in some part a barometer of which way people are leaning.

    I think that, to answer Oculus' question, is why Bernie isn't considered establishment, even though he is.  His campaign is running on contributions from small donations, not million/billionaires and corporations, like Monsanto, to her S PAC.

    Parent

    You are forgetting (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    In January, she also raised $5 million for downticket Democrats.

    Bernie raised $0.

    Still trying to see where his "revolution" is coming from.

    You are also strangely not including the SuperPac money being raised for him (Nurses United raising millions), plus those dollars raised by Karl Rove's Super PAC to help tear down Hillary (and benefitting Bernie).  You don't think it's because they like Bernie, do you?  No, it's because they know he would be easier to beat.

    Oh, and a vast majority of Hillary's donations are small too.  Bernie leaning sites are pushing the data as "her money comes from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs" etc. but they are grouping individual contributions based on their employer.

    Might want to do a deeper dive than just the headlines.

    Parent

    Why Does Everyone of Your Posts... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:43:41 AM EST
    ... about Sanders just drip with loathing ?  He is, more or less a democrat, and you have said you will back him if he gets the nod.  You don't have to act like every time his name is mentioned the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.

    My comment wasn't about the dollars, it was about popularity measured by the donations to the campaign.  Yeah, I understand the rest, but it wasn't part of my argument.

    Overall in cash, Clinton has Sanders beat, no doubt.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#108)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    You are interpreting loathing for the candidate, as opposed to frustration by spin and half truths and that's what you posted.

    She has lots of popularity with donors too - individuals, not companies.  She also has lots of popularity with Democrats, and he is asking to be the DEMOCRATIC nominee, when he even really isn't one,  I think the party has kind of bent over backward to accommodate him, so while it's not surprising he isn't raising money for downticket Dems, I am calling BS on your implication that he is more popular based on one month's data of fundraising.

    Parent

    I Never Said She Wasn't Popular... (none / 0) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:59:32 AM EST
    ... only that in terms of donations she is second to Sanders, not even by much.

    Bend over backwards, like giving HRC 300 S Delegates, that kind of bending over backwards ?  Hardly.

    Not for nothing, but I will not be casting my vote on who generates more money for the party, while important, it's not on my top 10, or even close as I suspect that is true of most voters.

    Parent

    The superdelegate procrss is stupid (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    I agree.  But how anyone who is a Sanders supporter is not aware of them after the multiple discussions in 2008,  well I can't take their shock too seriously.

    An argument coukd be made that the Suoerdelegates are backing a Democrat for the Democratic nomination - Bernie hasn't done any favors for them, why should they pledge to him now?

    Parent

    Nice Try... (none / 0) (#145)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:37:56 AM EST
    ...but you were arguing about bending over backwards for Sanders and I pointed out they are banding over backwards for Clinton far more.

    I agree about them and that they were know, and that does ring true, Sanders is a DINO, if that is a thing.  But the party is clearly giving Clinton an advantage, and probably rightfully so.
    -------------

    Off topic, but I wonder why we have caucuses and super delegates in an age when voting is a fairly easy process.  The Democratic Party isn't all that democratic in regards to primaries.  Not making a case for anything, I just find it odd.

    Parent

    I personally (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:45:30 AM EST
    think it's too early to start talking about delegates since we've had 2 states only vote so far.

    Super Tuesday when we have a lot of states voting is when things get interesting and we get to get some useful demographic information.

    Parent

    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#157)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    See the 1982 Hunt Commission

    Parent
    No reason for Sanders to help down ticket (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:52:14 AM EST
    There is no down ticket under Sanders. He's the only person in his political party and has no intention of changing that approach. He failed to get elected when he chose other parties to run under so he settled in with (I)

    Parent
    In fact (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:34:48 AM EST
    Acvirding to Open Secrets, 94% of HRC's dinations have come from individual donors.

    Parent
    If (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:26:43 AM EST
    money was all it took Bernie would not be polling so bad in the next few states.

    You have to realize too that the National Review was advocating for Republicans to donate to Bernie. So don't assume that some of that money isn't from Republicans.

    Parent

    I'm a little worried (none / 0) (#102)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:38:38 AM EST
    About the complete lack of recent polling in Nevada.

    And I wouldn't assume those are Republicans at all, they have a pretty hotly contested race on their own side of things.

    Parent

    Clinton Won the Nevada Caucus in 2008 (none / 0) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    51% to Obama's 45% and Edward's 4%.

    D's had around 10,000 votes and R's had around 32,000.

    D LINK
    R LINK

    2014 US Census says:
    White     51.5%
    Hispanic  27.8%
    Balack     9.1%

    Parent

    she won (none / 0) (#113)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    NH in 2008 too...  I know, I know, it's New England.  But it's not 2008 either.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    and she came in 3rd in Iowa in 2008. Unless Bernie is doing a whole lot better with Hispanics than the polling has been showing I don't see him doing well in NV.

    Also apparently the way NV is done I have heard that no one is going to be polling it.

    Parent

    But Without Polling... (none / 0) (#122)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:01:25 AM EST
    ...it's all there is.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:20:05 AM EST
    2008 was a 3 way race.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    I kind of figure if they've got enough money floating around to give the Right to Rise dough boy 10 million they've got enough to throw a few hundred bucks at Sanders.

    Parent
    Hillary, Bernie and History - Gail Collins, NYT (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:39:34 AM EST
    If the younger voters who are flocking to Bernie Sanders don't share their elders' intense feelings about needing to elect a woman president right now, it's partly because Hillary Clinton helped create a different world.

    In the linked article, (none / 0) (#152)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    Miss Collins also posits reasons for Senator Sanders' being able to attract the youth vote, but notes as well, "on the other hand, he hasn't grown much as a candidate.  All politicians tend to give the same stump speech over and over, but Sanders is practically in the Marco Rubio category when it comes to repetition.  Clinton is nowhere near Sanders' class as an orator, but there can be something compelling to her willingness to just dig in and trust the audience to follow."

    I have noted earlier that Senator Sanders message is circumscribed on "millionaires and billionaires," with loops back to answer many indirectly related questions  This has served him well so far, but I believe he needs to be more expansive and address other national and international issues. I believe this would be especially true, if he were to face Trump in a general.  He could not count on a response as in the Democratic debates, such as I agree with what Secretary Clinton said, and add or subtract....

     Two debates in a row, he was asked, essentially, the same question on ISIS and the Middle East: even the second time his answer was shallow in description, and both times, his response was based what seemed a disproportionate influence of Jordan and its king.

    The Rubio Robot proved fatal (although, as Colbert says, his pledge that his disaster will never happen again, is like trying to get the Hindenburg up there again). And, the Rubio effect did not go unnoticed by the Republicans--and is probably ready to go for Sanders.

    Parent

    I was (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    wondering if the Rubio Sanders comparison was going to pop up anywhere.

    Parent
    Rep. Meeks (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    Schools dumb sh!t Andrea Mitchell on her bullsh!t "establishment" meme discussing the CBC endorsement.

    It was great.

    John Lewis (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    Asked to respond to Bernie touting his involvement in the civil rights movement-

    "I never saw him.  I never met him."

    Parent

    John Lewis (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    Is now being trolled by Sanders supporters online.

    One tweet said, "John Lewis must have Alzheimer's"

    Another says they are "...soooo done with the civil rights generation."

    Ooh, and my favorite:  "The old Kneegroes are done.  Shame on you #JohnLewis"

    There's also a Sanders-backing SuperPac, the National Nurses United who had a Q&A session on how supporters can talk to black women. It has since inspired the hashtag #HowToTalkToBlackWomen.

    Needless to say, this has not gone over well.


    Parent

    Great (none / 0) (#189)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:14:03 PM EST
    That should go over real well

    Parent
    I suspect (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    If Clyburn needed a reason..........

    Parent
    May I suggest there may be more (none / 0) (#195)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    creative ratfking going on here?

    A substantial cohort of the most virulent anti-Hillary trolls seem to be working from a script, echoing longstanding rightwing frames, referencing Vince Foster and Whitewater, thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories that predate the adulthood of Bernie's millennial supporters. It's no secret that Republicans are actively trying to tilt the election to Bernie, in a belief, mistaken or not, that he will be easier to defeat than Hillary.

    Look no further than this Bloomberg headline: Republicans Take Their Sanders Advocacy to the Next Level.

    We're working on tracing these suspicious and clearly coordinated online attacks to the GOP's billionaire funders and rightwing operatives, who have openly admitted to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to destroy Hillary's public image.

    And then there's this: Reddit User Claims He Was Paid to Troll Bernie Sanders Supporters.

    We've seen our share of trolls around here, some of whom we have even questioned as to whether they are being paid to write the garbage they're posting.

    The other day, there was a link to an article about Clinton push-polling in Nevada.

    We know this kind of thing goes on, but you have been relentless in suggesting that it is only happening on one side of this contest - and I think it's naive and disingenuous for you to not at least acknowledge that there may be no clean hands when it comes to trolling.


    Parent

    You shoukd work on politics (none / 0) (#197)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    Because you do love the spin.

    I was specifucally talking about John Lewis getting trolled because he dared challenge the idea that Bernie Sanders does not have the civil rights record he claims.

    I also added that one of Bernie's SuperPacs  (oh wait, he doesn't take SuperPac money. Oops) got caught trying to do something that came off as condescending.  

    Nowhere have I ever said that Hillary's camp doesn't do it too.  So, sure, as you're implying, we'll all just assume that this is just a great big plot by the Hillary camp, just to make her look better.

    As we approach baseball season, I'll put it this way - that was a swing and a miss.  But keep trying.

    Parent

    I have noticed that you never fail (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    to post a comment about this kind of activity being perpetrated against Hillary, which is in line with one of the truer things you said: you have never said Hillary's camp doesn't do it, too; you just stay silent on that one, don't you?  

    And for what it's worth. the Nurses United PAC isn't "Bernie's" PAC; he isn't associated with it in any way.  

    Two links for you to check out, here and here.

    [Oh, and I'll just warn you not to take the headline of that second link at face value; you will learn something about Sanders if you read the whole thing]

    But nice try with the "artful smear."  

    Parent

    Did you even read the first link (none / 0) (#200)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    Anne posted? Because, if you had, you would see that the suspicions are that it's right wing trolls spewing the anti-Clinton venom.

    Parent
    Oh well, nobody knows who that (none / 0) (#170)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    attention-seeking John Lewis is, or cares what he did, anyway.

    That was so fifty years ago.

    And Sanders lying through his teeth about working in the civil rights movement instead of for Goldwater, would be just like him.

    Parent

    I believe your issue there (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    Is with DfromH not me.   He also said he met the Clintons.  Both I of them.

    I expect it's a safe bet that Sanders tried to whip up a primary challenge to the president in 2012 might come up in the PBS debate tonight.


    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    the problem is that Bernie made himself out to be more important w/r/t to that than he really was. More than likely he was just one of many that were doing the same thing he was.

    Parent
    Yes. I've read several sources (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    stating -- and apparently from interviews with him or research provided by him -- that in Chicago, in the 1960s, he participated in the first-ever civil rights sit-ins.  

    The first civil rights sit-ins were in Chicago -- but in 1942 . . . when Bernie was a baby in Brooklyn.  

    Parent

    If you want cast Sanders in the worst (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:10:31 PM EST
    possible light, you might go further and mention the fact that he never met Fredrick Douglass or William Lloyd Garrison and never took part in the Abolitionist movement..

    Seeing as how the denial of human being's basic human rights and rights of citizenship are at least in part a civil rights issue.

    Parent

    If you want to ignore the point (none / 0) (#201)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    you need go no farther.  Seeing as how you already did.

    Parent
    Just Another Thread... (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    ...filled with what a yahoo or two is doing on online guised as political discussion, and not worthy of discussion.

    Christ no one even knows what party they belong to but it most certainly proves Sanders should not be President.

    No one is endorsing any of this cr@p, so stop implying that anyone here or the campaign is.

    Strange (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:22:25 PM EST
    People are creating a discussion in the online world fill with lies, disgusting comments, and outright libelous comments about a revered member of the Democratic Party, all because he didn't support the new flavor of the tech-savvy Bernie supporters, and it's not worth discussing. And now the excuse is 1) Hillary's team does it too, or worse 2) it is implied that it might be Hillary's people behind this kind of nefarious behavior.

    People start developing their personal narrative from this kind of stuff.  I mean, we've even had people here linking to the bizzaro and nonsensical post from Glenn Greenwald about how "Bernie Bros" is a made up thing - people actually believe that!

    So yeah, I think it's important to discuss these things in a broad sense.  If you don't want to discuss, that's fine - please scroll on by.

    No doubt (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:33:10 PM EST
    Some of the anti-Clinton vitriol comes from Repub operatives. They're not stupid, and they would prefer to run against a white male Socialist.

    But jeez-us if you don't recognize the bulk of this tone from 2008, my goodness.

    Anyway many comments threads are straight from Twitter you can pull up the young bros pages for yourself.

    The majority of it is absolutely Sanders supporters IMO.

    And once again, shoe (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:39:32 PM EST
    Of course I read it.  So what?  It's not a secret that there are right wingers out there trying to bump up Sanders and tear down Clinton - Karl Rove's SuperPAC is helping plump Bernie up - Bernie has benefitted a lot from this SuperPAC money.  This is old news. Why do you think right wingers are trying to tear HRC down?  Because they want to run against Sanders.  

    And it's not the story "I like better" - it's the story.  Period.  If you want your own little narrative - go for it.

    But I find it odd that I keep getting challenged because I don't balance out my comments when I write something not so flattering of Sanders, that I don't also write something unflattering about Clinton.  Strange too, because the people that keep challenging me don't seem to hold themselves to that same standard.....

    JB... (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:56:55 PM EST
    ... fine to discuss, but you in particular have been very careful to tie them to Sanders supporters.

    The notion that they are being discussed is funny, they are being used as clubs to prove something related to Sanders character.

    Even if that is true, it's not even a handful of people and most certainly not some organized plan coming from the Sanders camp which has been the implication and sometimes straight-up accusation.

    I think it would be a much better plan to ask why HRC is falling flat, again.  All this BS, even if true isn't accounting for what should have been a cake walk for her.  At some point her flailing is her own doing, not Sanders, not republicans, not Karl Rove, not the media, not MSNBC, not the other 1001 things/people/groups I have read.  

    I mean jesus, people keep acting like the voters play no role in this grand conspiracy to keep HRC out of the White House.  Maybe if she was a better politician she would be more popular among democrats and you wouldn't have to spend your days 'discussing' evil Twitterers.

    "When.. (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    I write something unflattering about Sanders"

    When?

    Try literally every single one of your posts.

    Nice try jb, but no cigar (5.00 / 4) (#216)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:38:48 PM EST
    It's not that you don't "balance" your comments by noting both parts of an issue, it's that you do, indeed, select the one that fits your narrative better, and continue to promote the notion that only that part is credible or legitimate. You totally ignore the information that discredits your theories of conspiracy by mean "bros". Sanders supporters on this site have not said it's no big deal if Sanders supporters elsewhere are attacking her with inflammatory language. You're just making that up. Your tactics are thoroughly disingenuous.

    I really don't even need to write this comment, because Scott already put it so well. Clinton's problems aren't because of some meanies on Twitter, they're problems with her own campaign.

    And, once again, jb, (3.50 / 2) (#212)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 03:33:47 PM EST
    I ask, did you bother to read the first link Anne posted re suspicions that the online attacks are actually coming from right-wing trolls?

    There are only two possibilities:

    1. You didn't read it
    2. You did read it, but choose to ignore it and persist in promoting the story you like better.


    NFL Rape Culture? (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 11:58:07 PM EST
    Mark Morford of sfgate.com (which used to be the Chronicle)  doesn't seem to like football

    Don't forget rampant sexism, barely veiled rape culture and of course, the epidemic of degenerative brain disease that has officially afflicted hundreds of players

    I agree about the brain disease and some of his other complaints about the bay area hosting the Super Bowl, but "barely veiled rape culture"?  That's a cheap shot.  

    Morford's rant isn't all that surprising.  Lots of haters in and around SF. Hard to get anything approved. They didn't want the 49ers stadium, they don't want the Warriors new arena, they didn't want the George Lucas museum.  

    Football is now where (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:28:41 AM EST
    boxing was in the early 1970s.  Ali v. Frazier.  Ali v. Foreman.

    And, football may suffer a similar decline.

    Parent

    I hate football (none / 0) (#115)
    by Coral on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    wish Americans would begin to appreciate soccer.

    Parent
    I'm an old United fan myself.. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:01:52 AM EST
    I think to some extent you almost have to have played the sport to really appreciate it..

    I still go to youtube and watch the Best of Best, Law, and Charleton about once a month..Not that I'm living in the past..;-)

    But the the women's world cup was certainly exciting wasn't it?

    Parent

    You can (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 07:56:26 PM EST
    tell it's primary time around here because the threads are going well over 200 lately.

    True. But twitter is abruptly silent. Exhaustion? (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    Maybe it has something to do (none / 0) (#128)
    by itscookin on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    with their new comment squad?

    Parent
    Knoxville (none / 0) (#5)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:08:20 PM EST
    The Bruce Pearl culture continues. . . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    "I am Charlotte Simmons." (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:30:50 PM EST
    Yep. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:36:40 PM EST
     But Charlotte wasn't the governor's baby mama. . . .

    Parent
    We need a new chancelor (none / 0) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    a new AD and a new coach.

    This *&&%& has got to stop.

    And kudos to the fine young man who stepped up and helped when he had to have known what the results would be.

    Parent

    NYT: Charles Blow: Stop Bernie-Splaining (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    For instance, Sanders says that his agenda will require a Congress-flipping political revolution of like-minded voters, but so far, that revolution has yet to materialize. Just as in Iowa, in New Hampshire there were more voters -- or caucusgoers -- making choices in the Republican contest than in the Democratic one. That, so far, sounds more like a Republican revolution. If that trend holds for the rest of the primary season and into the general election, not only would Democrats not be likely pick up congressional seats, they could lose more of them.


    the correct URL for Charles Blow's piece (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:12:08 PM EST
    I would (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:39:09 PM EST
    say that type of thinking is not confined to only African American voters. You could say a lot of it is just how it is in the south in general with a lot of voters.

    Parent
    No title (none / 0) (#96)
    by FreakyBeaky on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    I cannot tell you the number of people who have commented to me on social media that they don't understand this support. "Don't black folks understand that Bernie best represents their interests?" the argument generally goes...But from there, it can lead to ... an exasperated "black people are voting against their interests" stance.

    Not to jack the topic, but you could replace "black" with "working class" and get another exasperation common on the left, one that seems relevant to Sanders' stance. I dunno, I just get the feeling some folks, if you will, don't see their interests exclusively in economic  terms and are kinda conservative ... and vote that way.

    Parent

    I sent this to some of my ... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:30:57 AM EST
    Bernie supporting friends.  Because I thought it accurately explained why candidates like Sanders don't get the black vote.

    And also suggested some arguments NOT to use when debating the issue.

    They really didn't take it in the spirit it was intended.  The reactions were something like this:

    "#$@# Wall Street @#!@# revolution #$*@ Clinton.  And the horse you rode in on!"

    Parent

    I guess (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    That's more Bernie-splaining.

    Parent
    How important is this? (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:48:20 PM EST
    I like Coates (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by lilburro on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    but he didn't make an argument for Sanders per se. Michelle Alexander made an anti-Clinton argument today in The Nation that was pretty blistering, and I can't blame her.

    Both stop short of an endorsement. In fact, Coates wrote a piece "Against Endorsements" after he announced his vote today:

    It is important to say this not just as a writer, but as a black writer. Too often individuals are appointed to speak for black people. I don't want any part of it. Black voters deserve to be addressed in all of their beautiful and wonderful complications, not through the lens of unelected "thought-leaders." I was asked a question. I tried to answer it honestly. And that's really all I have.

    I agree with him. I think it's up to the candidates to make their arguments, and win votes with their words. We can try to hold a candidate to what they say; you can't hold a candidate to what someone else projects upon them.

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:44:50 AM EST
    with Alexander's piece is the fact that Bill Clinton has been out of office for 16 years and she's basically letting George W. Bush and Obama off the hook.

    Parent
    I Agree Somewhat... (2.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:10:17 AM EST
    ... but I really don't like BC policies being tied to HRC.  That is really unfair.  Just as his policies were not hers, hers are not his.

    But her attending an execution is simply frightening:

    Just weeks before the critical New Hampshire primary, Clinton proved his toughness by flying back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little conception of what was about to happen to him that he asked for the dessert from his last meal to be saved for him for later. After the execution, Clinton remarked, "I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I'm soft on crime."

    I mean damn, good job proving you aren't a softie, jesus.

    Parent
    Where does it say (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:17:28 AM EST
    SHE attended this?

    Parent
    Ummm.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector


    Parent
    yea but (none / 0) (#125)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:04:13 AM EST
    "Clinton proved his toughness"

    It looks like they are talking about Bill here.

    Parent

    Corrected... (none / 0) (#131)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    ...he was executed in 1992.

    Parent
    Bill? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:18:11 AM EST
    O.K. (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    That was funny.

    Parent
    Well, it's an interesting case to consider (3.50 / 2) (#14)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:06:08 PM EST
    among journalists, as Coates is a journalist -- and this action violates the profession's code of ethics.

    Oh, wait; he says he is a historian.

    (He's not.)

    Parent

    He said he was going to vote for him, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Anne on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:17:19 PM EST
    and said it was not an "endorsement."

    Yet, Mr. Coates said he would not be helping to elect Mr. Sanders by making an appearances and that he would have preferred not to reveal that he planned to vote for him.

    "I'm not going to make any calls. I'm not going to volunteer. I'm not doing anything," Mr. Coates said. "I answered the question because I was asked the question. But, I just want to be clear. I reject the term supporter. I reject the term endorsement. I'm a voter."

    Is he allowed to be a voter?

    Parent

    Journalists certainly can vote (none / 0) (#21)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    although a few read the ethics code otherwise.

    But to publicly announce one's vote and claim it is not an endorsement is telling about Coates, isn't it?  

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#156)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    His article, itself, indicates his position.  Sanders' supporters are well aware that he needs to work hard to secure minority votes.  It would seem more effective, not to mention, positive, to speak of the Senator's record and his plans for the future.  And, how they compare with Secretary Clinton's.  

    Parent
    I don't see Coate's state of residence mentioned (none / 0) (#191)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    Is it NY?

    Parent
    He's neither. (3.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:27:12 PM EST
    Coates is yet another "progressive" member of the professional commentariat with a great big chip on his shoulder, who like his brethren won't rest until he's so thoroughly trashed his own side's candidates that progressive voters once again sit on their hands as more right-wing Republicans are elected, thus ensuring for our country a dependable supply of insensitive and tone-deaf white people in power that he can bitterly complain about.

    ;-D

    Parent

    shoephone, please show (none / 0) (#140)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    how my statement is incorrect as to the SPJ Code of Ethics.  Or Coates' training as a historian.  Or . . . ?

    Parent
    Not very. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 08:55:07 PM EST
    Endorsements don't seem to change minds much.

    Parent
    What if Sharpton, Jackson, Oprah, (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:15:47 PM EST
    or John Lewis publicly announced at this point a vote for Sanders?

    Parent
    I don't think Bernie (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:18:48 PM EST
    Should want and endorsement war with Hillary.  It would not end well for him.

    Parent
    Let's naively assume Sanders isn't seeking (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:23:28 PM EST
    endorsements. Assume prominent people of color merely reveal prior to South Carolina primary for whom they intend to vote?

    Parent
    Doubt either matter much generally (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:29:15 PM EST
    But this one might-


    Rep. James Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat and influential South Carolina leader, said in an interview today that he may soon endorse one of the two Democratic presidential contenders after previously pledging to remain neutral.

    Clyburn, who did not make a public endorsement ahead of the South Carolina Democratic primary in 2008, said that he is getting pressured to "take a stand" on the 2016 race for the White House.

    Clyburn didn't say definitely if he was leaning toward endorsing Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. He plans to discuss an endorsement this weekend with his close family, who have exerted the most pressure on him, and has ruled out an endorsement before next week, according to a source close to the congressman.

    "I have a wife and three daughters, so you figure it out," Clyburn said, laughing. "They are my family, they are my consultants."



    Parent
    Claire???? (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 11:05:02 PM EST
    He needs to get off the fence (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:32:53 AM EST
    Clyburn is to shrewd to chance a boost to Bernie's campaign.

    Parent
    I think so too (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    Then we'd have to conclude that ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:41:43 PM EST
    oculus: "What if Sharpton, Jackson, Oprah of John Lewis publicly announced a vote for Sanders."

    ... Sharpton, Jackson, Oprah or John Lewis are likely just as desperate for the public's attention as Ta-Nehisi Coates.

    ;-D

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by shoephone on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:10:13 PM EST
    I doubt he's "desperate for attention" considering that he won the National Book Award for nonfiction in November, and is currently a finalist for the National Book Critics Award.

    He's pretty darn famous, Donald--much more famous than anyone posting comments in these threads. You may want to test out a different insult for him.

    Parent

    Right.. (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:31:16 PM EST
    And if anyone wanted to see someone like John Lewis's life's work blotted out and consigned to the scrap heap of superficial attention seekers, they could've gone to one of the sites Jim likes to link to.

    Parent
    John Lewis (none / 0) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:18:58 AM EST
    must release the transcript of his speech to GS before we give him any credibility. That's the way it works, right?

    Parent
    I heard that after it finally dawned (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    on GS that he wasn't Hillary's valet, they made him go through the metal detector three times..

    Yes, by all means, why would anyone be against making the content of All these speeches, including Lewis's, accessible to the public?

    Parent

    I would bet (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:55:42 AM EST
    All the money in the world that most people in the country have never heard of him, nor care what he thinks.

    I mean, he's no Susan Sarandon....

    Parent

    Most of the country knows (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:31:50 AM EST
    more about Kim Kardashian than they do about FDR, Robert Oppenheimer, or Henry James..

    You think thats somehow something to glory in and be smug about?

    Parent

    It's mot smug (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:38:28 AM EST
    But nice try. Never short on insults, are you?

    Sorry you don't like facts.

    Walk around today and see how many rand people you meet that know who Coates is, what he wrote about Sanders a few weeks ago, and the impact of his "non-endorsement"

    Parent

    Most people don't know who John Lewis is (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:49:31 AM EST
    or care what he did..

    What was the point of that remark?

    Some sort of pre-sentencing indictment of his credibility and character?

    Parent

    The Congressional Black Caucus (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:55:18 AM EST
    Which includes John Lewis will officially endorse Hillary today

    Parent
    But don't (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:07:18 AM EST
    you know she's DOOMED. She'll win two more states and she'll still be DOOMED.

    Parent
    Do you love it? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by smott on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    CBC "rushes to defend Clinton" with their endorsement.
    WaPo does need their horse race.

    Parent
    CNN too apparently (none / 0) (#85)
    by mm on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    Chris Cuomo spent the majority of the morning bewildered and confused about why blacks would support the Clintons.  

    Parent
    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:15:52 AM EST
    is so in the bag for Sanders lately. Last night they had three AA pundits discussing Hillary's support for the crime bill in the nineties without mentioning Sanders actually voted for it. This morning while interviewing the when  the Mayor of Atlanta(AA supporter of Hillary) pointed this fact out, Cuomo dismissed the as being "in the past".

    Parent
    It's the same nonsense (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:13:23 PM EST
    That I'm seeing even today on how she voted for the Iraq War and "Senator" Obama did not.

    Parent
    Clyburn (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:57:31 AM EST

    On the neutral list was Rep. James E. Clyburn (S.C.), the No. 3 House Democratic leader and  the most prominent South Carolina Democrat, who has since then said he is considering backing a candidate and that candidate, he suggested, is likely to be Clinton.



    Parent
    Of course it will be Clinton (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:02:51 AM EST
    2 for 2 on being fact free (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:01:26 AM EST
    It's not a "pre-sentencing indictment" of anyone.  (What a BS term that is in this context, BTW). It's a FACT.

    Since you are so flummoxed by my comment, even though it's pretty clear, I will leave you to your little insults and conspiracy theories.

    Parent

    John Lewis.............. (none / 0) (#196)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    wasn't he the guy who was a prominent & vocal supporter of Hillary's back in 2007/08........until Obama's polls started to rise and he dumped Hillary to join the Obama bandwagon?

    It is what it is, it's politics, for god's sake.

    I just don't get all the anger and vitriol here. I mean, reaching on-line to find some idiotic comments from some idiotic commenters?

    Really?

    Parent

    As for the idiotic part (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:27:29 PM EST
    John Lewis is an honest to god civil rights hero.   He got the krap beaten out of him more than once.
    At least once on national tv.

    To talk about him the way those tweets did is a disgrace.   And well worth discussion here IMO.

    It's par for course for the Bernie Bros that keep being excused and rationalized here.


    Parent

    Who's excusing it? (none / 0) (#205)
    by shoephone on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    I don't see anyone excusing it.

    Parent
    As for the idiotic part (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:28:25 PM EST
    John Lewis is an honest to god civil rights hero.   He got the krap beaten out of him more than once.
    At least once on national tv.

    To talk about him the way those tweets did is a disgrace.   And well worth discussion here IMO.

    It's par for course for the Bernie Bros that keep being excused and rationalized here.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#198)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    He was a prominent and early Obana supporter who got into it with Bill over his remarks about the SC primary.  That some thought were racially tinged

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    you are confusing Clyburn with Lewis. IIRC Lewis was a supporter of Hillary until Obama's campaign strong armed him and threatened him with a primary opponent if he didn't switch.

    Thank Ye Gods this kind of stuff is not going on this time.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#199)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    That was Clyburn I was talking about I think

    Parent
    The point being, of course (none / 0) (#206)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    That sime will go so far as to denigrate a true Anerican hero because he didn't support their preferred candidate.

    Guess what?  Harry Belafonte endorsed Sanders today. I don't understand his reasoning, but whatever.  Cool.

    But trolling John Lewis is mot only stupid for your candidate, it just makes you (general you, not YOU you) look like a complete a$$.

    Parent

    I dont think (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:49:50 AM EST
    Celebrity endorsements mean much.  I think political endorsements mean somethings, especially on the more local level.  Are they the be-all, end-all?  No, but if they dudnt matter, candidates wouldn't court them so much.

    That being said, the Congressional Black Caucus will endorse HRC this morning.

    Parent

    Oh, and so will (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 07:53:50 AM EST
    Harry Reid's hand picked successor in Nevada, Catherine Cortez Masto, a former State AG, who is running for his Senate seat.

    (It must be true.  I read it on Twitter)

    Parent

    Yes, but Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#194)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:51:57 PM EST
    put Trump over the top in Iowa, right?  

    Parent
    Probably important (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:14:05 PM EST
    To his Twitter followers who are still pissed about the reparations thing.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:41:34 PM EST
    that's what it seems like to me. Trying to have it both ways with the social media crowd.

    Parent
    On the issue of reparations, I'm w/Sanders. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    To be sure, reparations would admittedly represent a formal acknowledgment of the federal government's complicit role in furthering the proliferation of slavery during the early years of our nation, when the world's demand for cotton went through the roof and Southern planters expanded operations accordingly.

    But my big fear is that reparations would likely entail a one-time cash payout to individuals, which would then be touted by Republicans as their primary excuse to not do anything else to assist the struggling African-American underclass.

    We need to make a sincere effort to further expand educational, professional and social opportunities in this country for African Americans, which have certainly withered under a sustained conservative assault over the last 40 years. Unless corresponding and restorative progress in those realms accompany said reparations, cutting checks to individual members of the black community won't amount to anything substantive over the long term.

    Indeed, it may even prove to be strikingly shortsighted, should the white majority in this country then determine collectively that our longstanding obligation to right an egregious wrong has now been fulfilled as a result of those cash payments.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:09:57 PM EST
    In a speech in SC tonight come out strongly for Medicare and Social Security.  Says there will be no reductions no raising of the retirement age .  Nobody is going to touch Medicare or Social Security.

    This is something new in the R side.

    He certainly (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:43:04 PM EST
    knows his audience. Lots of elderly retirees in SC. Wonder how it is going to play out with other Republicans though.

    Parent
    I doubt Southerners (none / 0) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:05:55 PM EST
    were ever against Medicare and social security. They went along with it because the other things their Republican politicians gave them "trumped" their own well-being....racism, xenophobia, anti-gay bigotry, anti-same sex marriage, gobs of faux religion, you know the list.

    Trump is smart. He was going to have to do it later anyway; doing it in the South means he can't be accused of double crossing them when the campaign leaves his Southern stronghold.

    Parent

    You are (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:46:32 AM EST
    correct. They even aren't against Medicaid except that they want to control who gets it. It's all about deeming who is worthy or unworthy in their eyes.

    Parent
    The Repubs I know (none / 0) (#184)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    were never against Medicare and/or Soc Sec.

    There were, and are, a few of the Libertarian bent that claimed that SocSec was going broke and Medicare was actually Medicaid.

    Our governor came out with a Medicaid expansion called "Insure TN" and the terminally dumb Repub leadership has blocked it.

    Most of the opposition's support comes from the really bad experience TN had a few years ago under a Demo governor and something called TennCare.

    Never the less there will be a broom moving about Nashville this year. Folks are just pi$$ed.

    But the claim was always a good whipping boy by Democrats who always called my Mother just before an election and claimed that if she voted for a Republican her Medicare and SocSec would be gone.

    In her later years it would scare her to death and I would have to console and reassure her.

    May the people who do such things rot in Hell.

    Parent

    lol, BTD. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 09:39:49 PM EST
    LGF (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 10, 2016 at 10:47:55 PM EST
    wildlife refuge standoff

    I'm starting another thread to keep up with this breaking situation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, where the FBI is apparently trying to bring the four remaining militia members into custody tonight.

    The live audio feed is being hosted by a lunatic who supports these crazy people in their crazy endeavor. Nevada assemblywoman Michele Fiore is on the phone trying to keep them calm, but it should be pointed out that she's been irresponsibly encouraging these people since their occupation began.



    Rough stuff. I listened to the first six minutes (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 02:52:46 AM EST
    For whatever reason, perhaps the hour, this takes on the character of Tragedy-cum-Farce.  The four players, with no lines left but shouting, encircled by their armored chorus chanting, "F--- You!  F--- You!  F--- You!"

    Parent
    Cliven Busted (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 08:33:47 AM EST

    BREAKING: Cliven Bundy arrested in Portland Wednesday night on federal charges for the 2014 standoff in Nevada with federal agents.
    1:17 AM - 11 Feb 2016

    MORE: Among the charges Cliven Bundy faces is conspiracy to interfere with federal officers. The same charge his sons face for OR takeover.



    Parent
    true (none / 0) (#45)
    by vsanta002 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:43:28 AM EST
    this is so true...

    mysite

    Site Violator (none / 0) (#49)
    by Nemi on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 05:51:08 AM EST
    Site violator. (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 06:44:04 AM EST


    Today I learned (none / 0) (#84)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    Iowa has more people than Nevada.

    And SC (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 09:56:09 AM EST
    Has more people that Iowa and NH put together

    Parent
    Not surprising (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:04:39 AM EST
    Nevada is mostly desert.

    But I was surprised to find out the New Hampshire's population is just a little more than Washington DC (during a workday, where DC's population jumps 79% during the day).

    Parent

    Northern New England (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    Is pretty much all rural.  They might have water, but it's cold up there.  And not the dry kind of cold either, the damp, bone chilling kind.  Plus all of the New England states, with the exception of Maine, are small.  The combination of rural and small will lead to a very low population.

    I guess I just thought that the Las Vegas area was bigger than it is.

    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:41:59 AM EST
    And I'm just speculating here, Vegas seems so big because it's always crowded with visitors?

    Parent
    probably something like that (none / 0) (#121)
    by CST on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    Also there's just a sense that those states are "so big" they must have some people somewhere.

    But yea, the west is also just vast and empty in a way that we don't really have back east.  For all I just said about New Hampshire,  Nevada has about twice as many people - in 11 times the space.

    Parent

    Most western states have a whole (none / 0) (#168)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:14:38 PM EST
    lot of empty space. California has a huge population, but Oregon and Nevada and Idaho and Montana, etc., do not.

    In Oregon, for example, around half of the state's population lives in the Portland metro area.

    Parent

    Same out here in Hawaii. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:51:52 PM EST
    Our state is overwhelmingly rural. The island of Hawaii, where I live, is over twice the size of all the other Hawaiian Islands together. Yet our population is only 19% that of the island of Oahu, which itself is only about 14% the size of the Big Island. About 1 million people, 70% of the state's population, live on Oahu and of that number, over half reside in Honolulu and Kapolei along a 35-mile stretch of the island's south shore.

    Parent
    Per the latest U.S. census figures from 2013, the estimated population of the Las Vegas metropolitan area is 2,027,028. That number reflects the whopping 275% increase in permanent residents since 1990, when 741,459 people called Vegas home, making it the fastest growing city in the country over the last 25 years. Vegas further attracts an eye-popping 42 million visitors annually so on any given day, there are probably close to 3 million people in the Las Vegas Valley.

    Parent
    And Vermont is about the size of El Paso (none / 0) (#118)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    Debate day is nutz (none / 0) (#103)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 10:40:08 AM EST
    in Wisconsin.  Secret Service essentially shut down access to much of the neighborhood, as well as much of the campus . . . as if the worst weather of the winter isn't already making it miserable for pedestrians.  It will be interesting to see how hardy the protesters will be, with a below-zero wind chill along Lake Michigan.

    Jeb did himself no favors in the Carolinas (none / 0) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    when asked why he wanted the Broncos to win the Super Bowl over the Carolina Panthers:

    "I know that y'all probably maybe had some leanings toward Carolina. I was for Denver, not because of the Broncos, but because Peyton Manning wrote me a check."

    He continued putting his foot a little deeper by taking what can be viewed as a veiled shot at Cam Newton by saying, Peyton Manning is the adult in the room.


    At least he didn't say Goldman (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    wrote him a check.

    Parent
    Ouch (none / 0) (#135)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    Jeb's dry sense of humor ... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:27:31 AM EST
    does him no favors when he's quoted like that.

    But it's beginning to work on the stump.

    Parent

    Off Topic... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:29:27 AM EST
    ...this is just plain odd.  

    Darren Goforth a Harris County cop was killed while pumping gas, his mistress witnessed the shooting, but that was not released to the public.  He was married with two kids, where is gets strange, so far two investigators have been fired for having affairs with the witness to the shooting, both slept with Goforth's mistress.

    She was not identified in the original statement and now they are saying he wasn't actually pumping gas.  Like the whole tale was made up and now they have investigators sleeping with the only witness to the shooting.

    Now a third cop is being investigated for... sleeping with Goforth's mistress.  She must really like the police.

    This is also putting quit a dilemma on the prosecutors of capital case against the shooter as two of the men have lied about the affairs, men investigating the shooting and sleeping with the only witness.

    LINK

    Technical question (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    If your mistress is sleeping with at least three other people, is she really "your" mistress, or just your "whatever night might be available"?

    Parent
    Yeah...I think Mistress might be a (none / 0) (#180)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:39:11 PM EST
    euphemism here....something is going to be exposed,and it is not going to look good for the cops.

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    Fairly or not, your comment reminded of Bette Davis' wickedly b*tchy characterization of an unnamed starlet, supposedly "All About Eve" co-star Marilyn Monroe, of whom she had said during an interview with a Hollywood reporter, "She's the original 'Good Time Was Had by All.'"

    Parent
    Sounds like a new show on Netflix! (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:36:44 AM EST
    I Would Rather Not Have My City... (none / 0) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    ...and county police be viewed like the Manitowoc cops from Making of a Murderer.

    Like THIS and THIS and THIS.

    Parent

    special place in hello (none / 0) (#153)
    by thomas rogan on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:48:13 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is fond of constantly reminding her supporters that she is a long-time advocate for closing the gender wage-gap, even though, when she was Senator between 2002-2008, she paid her full-time female staffers 72 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts according to an analysis by the Washington Free Beacon in April of 2015.

    A lie (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 11:59:03 AM EST
    by Reince Preibus.  The truth is out there.  But you don't want the truth.

    Parent
    Factcheck.org (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    Pretty much says the Free Beacon and Priebus fudge their facts by not including the entire staff. The median income for men and women on her staff according to Pew Research were identical and her staff had twice as many women as men.

    Parent
    Since Yesterday... (none / 0) (#192)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    ... you claimed:
    It is sad that Democrats are so saddled with the overarching personal ambition of Hillary Clinton and with her baggage.  She needs to go.  Then others (like Elizabeth Warren who is lying in wait) can come in.

    I am going to go out on a limb and say you are a republican troll.

    Parent