Wednesday Open Thread

Our last open thread is full. Here's a new one, all topics welcome.

< Apple, the Feds and San Bernadino Update | ISIS Trainees Run Through Fire >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Charles Rangel to retire (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    After 46 years in Congress. He will retire at the end of the year.

    Texas Special Prosecutor indictment of Rick Perry (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    Ordered dismissed by highest criminal appeals court of Texas (by 6-2 vote, with one judge not participating), on two different constitutional grounds. Having skimmed the 52-page majority opinion and read the two dissents (available here), I think the (pro-defendant) majority had the better of the argument. Which is not to say that the decision is not also political.

    Yes, it does seem (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:04:45 PM EST
    that the majority leaned toward who the defendant was, but still, the criminalizing of political actions is a dangerous way to call the governor out. And, particularly, to tarnish the prospects as he sought higher office.  Rick Perry's record, in and of itself, was enough to do that. As has been shown, serious eye glasses not withstanding.

    But of course, the decision to dismiss ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    ... the indictments against former Gov. Rick Perry was entirely political. So, for that matter, were Perry's own actions in deliberately seeking to force the Travis County district attorney's removal from office, which were likely motivated by a personal desire to derail a then-ongoing criminal investigation into the activities of some members of his administration, and which led to his subsequent felony indictment for abuse of power.

    From the dissent of Appellate Judge Lawrence E. Meyers (and thank you, Peter, for the link):

    "After reading the majority's opinion, it seems clear to me that it has decided to employ any means necessary in order to vacate the two felony counts against Governor Rick Perry. The majority opinion has repealed more statutes and made more new law than Governor Perry did in the last session of the legislature when he tried to muscle out the elected Travis County District Attorney. [...] The majority is simply making a special exception for public officials in order to reach its desired outcome in this case." (Emphasis is mine.)


    "I also disagree with the majority's conclusion that the coercion-of-a-public-servant statute is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad. The only way the majority can get to this conclusion is by employing the overly broad definition of 'threat' that it does. But this strategy ignores both common sense and the requirement to utilize reasonable narrowing


    "While the majority has inaccurately concluded that the prosecution in this case is politically motivated, it, in turn, has not shown any compunction in scripting an opinion that establishes entirely new precedent solely in order to vacate the indictment against the former governor. Obviously it has traded the repercussions of a challenge in the political arena for the embarrassment of manufacturing an opinion that is not based on either law or fact. And, unfortunately, the concurring opinions only go on to further support the fairytale authored by the majority." (Emphasis is mine.)

    "The real shame of today's decision is that while ordinary applicants' requests to this Court for writs of habeas corpus are often unfairly rejected or their paths to relief narrowed, the majority has decided, for the second time in the last two years, to give special treatment to a government official. See Delay v. State, 465 S.W.3d 232, 234 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)."

    From the dissent of Appellate Judge Cheryl Johnson:

    "The opinion of the Court stretches constitution, case law, and statute beyond where I am willing to follow. This case does not involve separation of powers, many of the examples set out are inapposite, and the language used as to appellant differs from all other writ opinions."


    "In this case, it is alleged that a branch of state government, the executive branch, interfered with another branch of government, but the branch that was allegedly interfered with is not a branch of state government; it is a branch of county government. I find nothing in the plain meaning of the Texas Constitution that permits the executive branch of the state to interfere in the affairs of a different sovereign and then claim the protection of the state doctrine of separation of powers, which is intended to keep one branch of state government from interfering with the powers assigned to either of the other two state branches." (Emphasis is mine.)


    "Finally, as Judge Newell has noted, this case has been greatly affected by who it involves. In no other appeal I have read during the seventeen years that I have served on this Court has appellant been called anything other than 'appellant.' The constant references to 'Governor Perry' could well be seen by the public as an inference that appellant's position in life entitles him to special privileges and special treatment by this Court that others might be denied."

    As written, the majority opinion appears much less a reflection of Texas law and the legislative intent therein, than it is of the majority's own painfully obvious political motivations. It appears to me to have been drafted with a thinly-veiled intent to achieve a desired outcome of removing former Gov. Perry from harm's way, rather than allowing the due process of law to take its course by letting the special prosecutor present his case in a public courtroom. After all, we can't have Toto pulling back the curtain to expose the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, can we?

    And as such, since their decision also conveniently preempts a potential GOP right-wing political backlash against members of this appellate court at the polls, should they have otherwise allowed former Gov. Perry's criminal trial to move forward, the majority's specious opinion serves only to underscore and reaffirm my own firm belief that judges should not be elected by popular vote.

    Rick Perry is now out of office and his future prospects in politics don't look very promising, so I suppose I can take solace in that. But if ever there was a textbook case of a public official's abuse of executive authority for his own personal or political benefit, this was it. The evidence strongly suggests that Gov. Perry sought to compromise the operations of the Travis County D.A.'s office, in an effort to impede or obstruct an investigation. It deserved to go to trial.



    Was it someone's idea of a joke (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:03:41 AM EST
    To have Romney bring up Donalds taxes?

    Looks like Romney (none / 0) (#112)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:33:58 PM EST
    is trying to do to Trump what Harry Reid did to Romney.   And, as long as Romney is on the topic of income taxes, I wonder if he amended his returns after losing the election, in accord with speculation at the time.

     In an unusual move, Romney overpaid his income taxes, to the tune of about $500,000 by not taking the full deduction on charitable donations, including his tithing (about $l million) to the Mormons.  So doing adjusted his income tax percentage in accord with his public announcements.


    A name being floated for the Supreme Court (none / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 02:23:47 PM EST
    that will ruffle some feathers here.

    Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada

    Sandoval, besides (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 03:21:30 PM EST
    being a Republican, may not address concerns for religion balance.  He is Catholic, as was the late Scalia, but would still have Kennedy, Sotomayor, Alito, Roberts and Thomas in that category. Harry Reid has been a long time supporter of Sandoval, having recommended him for appointment as a federal district judge.  And, then there is Reid's judgment on judicial appointments---he was an original supporter of Scalia to replace Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Reid backed down fast, after a Democratic firestorm.

    Only yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 10:22:37 PM EST
    Husband & I were talking about former Interior Secretary and former Senator Ken Salazar from Colorado. Salazar also served here as Attorney General.

    What Sandoval & Salazar have in common...at least, on the surface is that both strong-resume individuals are Latino and hail from key Western States.  While I don't know much about Governor Sandoval, I am informed about Secretary Salazar, who has strong identification with this State.  Where they are rather different, of course, is their politic identity.  By today's definition, Sandoval would clearly be a moderate Republican; and, although Salazar has a centrist image, he is a solid Democrat.  

    From the perspective of the West, an appointment of one from our region has a lot of advantages.  So ... at the risk of seeming parochial, I'd add that the many-years image of a Supreme Court drawn solely from the northeast legal bunch has it's own brand of parochialism.  Lots of commentary in these parts about that aspect in recent times....


    Interesting ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    but he's become quite radioactive in Republican circles.

    As I understand it, no one running for president sought (or wanted) his endorsement.

    Although I believe he endorsed Rick Perry last time.


    Republicans should, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    however, rejoice with a Sandoval nomination. A win/win for them: If at some point, it looks like Mrs. Clinton will win the presidency, they can confirm; if, it looks like Trump, they can reject and wait for a Trump nomination.

    And, A Sandoval nomination would miss an opportunity to vividly demonstrate, no abstract thinking required, that an extremely qualified Democratic nominee, with a face and all, would go down in flames with a Republican presidential win.

     Earlier, I suggested Elizabeth Warren. Well qualified, Harvard Law professor, executive branch, and US. Senator.  Broader than, of late, appellate court experience. Maybe that senatorial experience would give something of a Hugo Black perspective to some issues. She would be a  nomination that brings home the stakes.


    I don't think he gains ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 03:55:00 PM EST
    anything from this with Republicans. Sandoval is on the wrong side of their wedged issues.  So it's just like choosing a Dem.

    The more I think about this the less interesting it seems.

    And I still think Obama will play the recess appointment card if a Republican wins the White House.

    So, again, what does he gain here?


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    Sandoval could be skipped.

    And, besides, elections (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:44:30 PM EST
    for the Presidency should mean something. Its the one time the American people, as a group, elect a single person to lead them in all the ways the Constitution meant him/her to lead. And, that includes submitting names for vacancies on the Supreme Court who The American People (through their choice for President) deem to be most  representative of their wishes.

    Caving in to a politically driven,  obstructionist Congress is just not a precedent we want to put forth.


    Sandoval says he (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    does not want to be considered for the Supreme Court.  The Sandoval balloon floated long enough to do its work--show that the Republicans will obstruct anyone nominated by President Obama, even a Republican. Clears the way for the president to nominate a progressive.

    If I'm not mistaken (none / 0) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    the recess appointment would only last 8 weeks under that scenario. Pretty useless.

    No (none / 0) (#57)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 07:05:09 AM EST
    A recess appointment woukd hold until the end of the Senate session, which ends January 3, 2017.

    Which would be less than 2 months (none / 0) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 07:18:03 AM EST
    as the suggestion was to use a recess appointment if the Republicans win the White House in November.

    Unless they go on recess before that (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 07:22:01 AM EST
    Theoretically, he could have done it last week as soon as McConnell refused to consider anyone - the Senate was in recess.

    Now, they are going to make sure they are never technically in recess for more than 3 days.


    brian sandoval (none / 0) (#8)
    by pitachips on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 03:55:11 PM EST
    I met Mr. Sandoval 10 years ago and having seen his rise through politics, I always assumed he would run for (and possibly win) the presidency.

    We need balance on the Court (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:10:46 PM EST
    The President should nominate someone to restore balance.  We presently have two right-wing extremists (in their legal philosophy, that is; i.e., Thomas and Alito), one otherwise-sort-of-normal right-winger (Roberts), one sort-of-normal conservative (Kennedy), three rather normal moderates (Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan), and one liberal (Ginsburg). All classifications are in my won idiosyncratic opinion, and stated relative to the run of lawyers. Even if you buy the standard line and re-classify the moderates as additional "liberals," there is still no one to balance the right-wing extremists. The only appointment that would begin to balance the Court would be an actual progressive or leftist lawyer (of course, one who is brilliant, 42-54 years old, and otherwise well qualified). If we could find one who was a Protestant (at least nominally) and from the mid-west or south, that would be even better. I throw out the name of Bryan Stevenson, for example.

    Bryan Stevenson (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:41:15 PM EST
    is incredibly impressive.  He would surely make Republican heads explode.

    Okay, Peter, I'm convinced. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:21:18 PM EST
    Forget Bryan Stevenson. I'm nominating you for the vacancy. It would be nice to have someone on the High Court with common sense who respects constitutional rights, due process and legislative intent, and isn't inclined to search for creative ways to scurry around or burrow under them.

    IMHO, our federal judiciary is in desperate need of de-politicization. When John Paul Stevens was first nominated by President Gerald Ford to the Supreme Court in 1975, he was considered an eminently reasonable jurist whose leanings were somewhat right of center. Fast forward some 35 years to his 2010 retirement, and he was a liberal champion whose opinions were often found well to the left of the High Court's median strip.

    Now, Stevens' own judicial temperament didn't necessarily change. Rather, it was the fact that by the time Associate Justice Samuel Alito took his seat in 2006, both the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary were listing decidedly starboard, and conservative jurists were increasingly becoming both activist and reactionary in nature. Judging by the sweeping arc of Stevens' own long tenure on the High Court, I agree with your assessment that an equitable equilibrium must be restored.

    It's hard to have any confidence in recent SCOTUS decisions such as Citizens United and Shelby County, when the political motives of the majority are so plainly palpable. I might not always agree with your decisions, but at least I could expect that your supporting written opinion would be well-reasoned and thoroughly grounded in the law itself. Sad to say, that hasn't always been the case lately.



    Very flattered, and thanks Donald, but (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:12:40 PM EST
    I'm about 15 years too old. (Mas o menos J's age.) Inter alia. Although it might be fun to work with (so to speak) my old law school friend Sam Alito.

    That's allright... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    I'd take lesser years from you or Jeralyn...it's not quantity we need Peter, it's quality!

    Third choice...Ron Kuby.


    I co-counseled a case with Kuby once (none / 0) (#183)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    Wild man (as lawyers go)!

    Being less than tactful (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    A death just helped restore balance to the Court

    I guess you disagree (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:47:23 PM EST
    with the point of my comment, then: that a moderate-liberal does not "balance" an ultraconservative extremist. Moderate-liberals balance moderate-conservatives. Only a true progressive might begin to balance the rightward tilt of the Court as presently constituted.

    Definition of "balance" (none / 0) (#48)
    by christinep on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 10:39:08 PM EST
    may be broader than the tempting picture that you draw.  For starters and for this seat in the immediate circumstances, an approximation of balance would be a satisfactory improvement at this point.  IMO, the real battle for balance (and the decisive shift that entails) probably could not occur prior to the next President's term when reason suggests that one or two opportunities for making the needed imprint should occur.

    An aside: The more that I think about it, naming an individual from outside the eastern geographic ranks (J. Kennedy being the exception) would be a breath of fresh air.  Go West, young man (and woman), Go West.


    I am just guessing (none / 0) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    And perhaps you would know better,

    But hasn't the 4 liberal judges vote in lockstep far more frequently than the conservative wing?


    No need to guess (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    The statistics show that you are correct. See last chart on this page. But it seems to me that this helps prove my point. The so-called "conservatives" are/were not a bloc, but rather break/broke down into three subgroups, ranging from ordinary conservative (Kennedy) to ultra-right (Alito, Thomas). The moderate-liberals are more similar to one another, and do not include any true progressives who would "balance" the farthest-right of the so-called "conservatives."

    And your point is -- what, exactly? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:44:20 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "But hasn't the 4 liberal judges vote in lockstep far more frequently than the conservative wing?"

    So what if they have, really? Perhaps you ought to actually examine the overall quality of the written opinions rendered by the "liberal" and "conservative" justices, respectively, rather merely taking note of their votes.

    This isn't a ball game, in which one assesses the outcome merely by the final score. It's about the law, and each case taken up by the Court comes with its own unique set of circumstances which led the parties to that point. Any legal arguments offered therein should be considered exclusively on their merits, and not be reduced to a mere extension of partisan politics.



    Gov. Sandoval is something of a protégé ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:01:48 AM EST
    ... of Sen. Harry Reid. He is pro-choice. He accepts marriage equality as settled law. He advocated for and got passed the biggest tax increase in Nevada history, in order to fund a landmark overhaul of Nevada's mediocre public education system. He has advocated for more diversity in the state's economy, as a means to wean Nevada from its overreliance on the gaming industry. He has championed renewable energy, embraced Obamacare, and unabashedly supports comprehensive immigration reform and the DREAM Act.

    Geez, this guy's obviously a Communist. What's Obama thinking?



    Let's not get too excited about (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 08:41:27 AM EST
    Sandoval. He may be what used to be thought of as a reasonable Republican, but it is quite doubtful that he would be the liberal justice the Court, IMO, very much needs.

    His support for women's reproductive rights is, at best, tepid. As to marriage equality, the idea of "settled law", as the current Court has shown us, is open to interpretation. And at some point the SC will hear a case that restricts equality in some way, most likely some kind of law that allows people to refuse service to LGBT people based on asserted religious belief. Sandoval could easily vote to uphold that law while not explicitly overturning equality.

    Let us have a clear and unabashed liberal appointee.


    It's now moot. (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:23:20 PM EST
    Noting that he was "incredibly grateful to have been recommended," Gov. Sandoval removed himself today from further consideration for the High Court vacancy.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    ... Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, and Ben Carson will be in Houston if they aren't already.

    4 more republican debates to go.

    I see Burger King is selling hotdogs, seriously WTF.
    The Most Detailed Analysis of Burger King Selling Hot Dogs You'll Ever Read
    Includes a Snoop Dogg training video.

    More From Texas.
    Texas academics told to avoid 'sensitive topics' if gun law goes into effect

    The faculty senate at the University of Houston prepared a slideshow for recent faculty forums warning that academics may want to "be careful discussing sensitive topics; drop certain topics from your curriculum; not `go there' if you sense anger; limit student access off hours; go to appointment-only office hours; only meet `that student' in controlled circumstances."

    This is complete bull:

    Amid the political horse-trading as Democrats tried to kill the bill and Republicans aimed to push it through last spring, the law was tweaked to give public colleges an ill-defined right to establish limited gun-free zones, while private institutions were granted the opportunity to opt out altogether.

    So far, all of Texas's major private universities have chosen to ban guns. The Texas Tribune surveyed 38 private Texas universities. One did not respond, 13 had yet to decide and the remaining 24 said they would opt out.

    Even conservative-leaning places such as Baylor University in Waco, the largest Baptist university in the world, last week announced it too would forbid guns on its premises.

    For the record, open carry went into effect in Texas and I have yet to see anyone doing it.

    They've already had 9 gabfests (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CoralGables on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    Please make it stop.

    Your home state of Wisconsin (none / 0) (#18)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:43:56 PM EST
    watches Texas, as the guns-in-campus-classrooms bill already was passed by the state Assembly and is on the state Senate agenda in a couple of weeks.

    With the pushback from UW campuses, Walker's state Senate leaders say that they have been persuaded to let the bill die.

    But, of course, they lie.

    So, there will be a lot of people Sleepless in Wisconsin, watching the Capitol to see if this and other travesties are approved after midnight, again.


    We have a law in place out here ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:34:30 PM EST
    ... precluding either house of the state legislature from meeting after midnight, except by two-thirds vote of concurrence of members of both chambers. Of course, the Speaker or Senate President always has the option of suspending the clock, so there are ways to get around it to create mischief.

    And in that regard, we also have a law stating that the content of a legislative bill must be expressly reflective of the bill's title, and that any bill up for Third or Final Reading must sit in its final form for 48 hours before its passage. This pretty much precludes the last-minute use of riders on unrelated measures as backdoor attempt to achieve a desired outcome.

    Wisconsinites might eventually want to consider similar provisions, as a means of mitigating the possibility for legislative sleights of hand to occur at the last moment when the public's back is turned.



    Not gonna happen anytime soon (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    as the Walkerites' gerrymandering, voter suppression, and so much more means that they will control the legislature for a long time ahead.

    The state Dems screwed up a decade ago, ignoring pleas to stop the Madison-Milwaukee infighting and focus on organizing to win legislative seats in time for redistricting.  Wisconsin is gone.


    Here, in Tennessee, (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    the "guns everywhere" insanity gets, unintentionally, funny from time to time.

    I moved here from a post-civilization part of the country, and when I'm asked by my friends up North if Southerners are really "as nuts" as they keep reading about I send them copies of stories like this one, so they can decide for themselves:

    Like most Red States, Tennessee also has been gripped by the "Guns Everywhere" psychosis. One by one, all the places where guns have, traditionally, been banned fell by the wayside, as expected. Eventually, the list of "no guns allowed" places was reduced to a very few, very sensitive, locations. And, that's when the Absolutists came out in force. Their creed, which they proclaimed louder and louder became, "No gun restrictions should mean exactly that, NO GUN RESTRICTIONS.........anywhere."

    Soon, we were left with only places like school playgrounds. Surely, school playgrounds would be left exempt, but, you know how that dispute would end. Of course, the NRA took precedence over 1'st graders.

    But, to show that there's at least a scintilla of sanity left in Tennessee, those brave protectors of the Constitution exempted one location from the "no guns allowed" rule.........The Legislative Building, itself.

    Of course, when questioned about the blatant hypocrisy in that ruling, not a singe member expressed even a hint of duplicity, or.....of irony.


    I Think... (none / 0) (#86)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:56:12 AM EST
    ...but I am not positive, the only official gun free zones are municipal buildings and anyplace in which gross receipts for alcohol are over 49%, aka as bars.  But you can take them into places in which you can bring your own booze, which are generally in areas where booze can't be served, and there are a lot of them and includes anything from honky tonks to fine dinning.

    It makes no sense, but they did have the common sense to let business owners decide, which is why private colleges have opted out.  They can post a sign and open carry isn't allowed, but I believe concealed is.   Which as far as I can tell, or at least where I go, is most of them.

    What is truly remarkable, this has been in effect since Jan 1st and so far I have not read about one incident in a city of millions.  The one good thing, is they don't play with violators, brandishing is a felony and loss of permit.

    Keep in mind the debate tonight is at Houston Community College, which means that it's open carry.  I could walk around campus with a .44 openly displayed if I had a concealed permit, and I can't imagine a debate supersedes state law.  But I can find find anything specifically addressing the issue.


    A question, (none / 0) (#92)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:28:58 AM EST
    While shaving this morning I heard on the TV that a college, or colleges, were considering permitting students to carry concealed weapons in their classrooms.

    Did you hear that? And/or was it in Texas?


    Texas became open carry... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:38:33 AM EST
    Last I heard the major Texas educational institutions are freaked out.

    Here's a Guardian story about it.Texas academics told to avoid 'sensitive topics' if gun law goes into effect about it.


    Check the Original Link in This Thread... (none / 0) (#102)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:56:24 AM EST
    ...that has been approved but does not go into effect until the next school session, August.  I believe a teacher/professor can get fired for even asking if anyone is carrying.  

    Other states that allow guns on campuses:  Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin.

    Another link.

    The good news is you have to be 21 to get a concealed permit, so basically some juniors and most seniors can carry.  But it's going to drive staff and students away, especially the good ones that have more options.  I would imagine it will also drive away foreign students, which are very good for the bottom line.

    No one wanted this but the clowns who got elected.  Not the police, not the students, not the staff, and I would imagine a lot of parents aren't down with it either.  That is easily verifiable in that no private college has said they will allow, and many have said they will not.  That is in my original link.


    Uhh, "campuses" and classrooms (none / 0) (#119)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    is muddling the issue, considerably.

    For example, yes, Walkerites legalized guns on campuses in Wisconsin -- but NOT in buildings.  So, guns can be in cars on campus parking lots but cannot be carried into buildings and classrooms (and offices, also the sites of attacks on faculty).

    Texas -- from what I read on campus blogs, fora, etc., that I follow -- is the only state to allow guns everywhere and anywhere on campus (but yes, effective in August for the Fall 2016 semester).

    Also, there are millions of frosh and sophs who are aged 21 and older.


    There Are Older Freshman... (none / 0) (#132)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    ... I was 23 when I started.  Think it depends on the campus, UW-Milwaukee I was younger, but UT-Austin I would have be an older freshman.

    I would say most freshman and sophomores won't be able to carry.  But here is the odd thing, the minute they can legally drink is the minute the state says they can pack concealed heat.


    Thanks Scott; I'm losing it, lol (none / 0) (#122)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:32:15 PM EST
    Things could be worse.  Michigan has no prohibition against open carry in schools.  Last year some jerk attended an Ann Arbor high school concert, in a packed auditorium, openly carrying a gun.  People freaked.  Cops were called and couldn't do anything.  The pro carry crowd is pushing the idea that this wouldn't happen - i.e., no one would panic - if they were allowed to carry the same weapons concealed in the nine places, like secondary schools, where it's now illegal.

    You can't carry a concealed weapon into daycares, dormitories, hospitals, casinos, or schools. But strap in on your belt in plain sight and you can strut into any of those places.

    It's getting weird.


    Right... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:29:39 PM EST
    ... just last night I was at my neighborhood gas station.  They have a locked case with pipes, including glass pipes, along with knives.  I know crack pipes and knives, what could possibly go wrong.

    I walk in and the clerk is showing a guy a large knife.  I could tell the clerk was uncomfortable, I was uncomfortable, and I am pretty sure me sitting back in line like 10 feet made the guy uncomfortable.  I was looking at the large beers in ice and thinking that is what I am going to toss if this guy goes nuts.

    Not like a gun and I wasn't that uncomfortable, but there is no reason to sell knives at a gas station IMO.  

    I have yet to come across an open carry, but I know two guys at work who carry in their brief cases, even though they aren't suppose to.  I don't mind as they are both in the hallway that leads to my office and they are country boys and not nitwits, so if something goes down I am pretty sure they would, at the very least, distract long enough for me to lock the door and jump behind my file cabinet which I purposely filled the bottom with files for cover, even though its mildly inconvenient.  Plus it's my ace, a person in my chain of command packing heat at work, that might come in handy some day.


    I just got (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    a call from Ted Cruz's keep the Promise Pac. Boy did I have a good time messing with their heads.

    I would have told them ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    "I've kept it. It's totally safe."


    "The promise. It's under lock and key."

    "I don't really--"

    "That's what you're calling about, right? To make sure I kept it."

    "Sir, I'm calling for Ted Cruz."

    "Shhh ..."


    "Oh, right, it's a promise not a secret.  Well, I can secrets too.  You got any of those?"

    "Sir, I'm not sure--"

    "I'll double lock those.  The secrets.  Promises:  Single locks.  Secrets: Double locks"

    And so on ...


    Well (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:06:33 PM EST
    I told them that I was an independent voting in the GOP primary here in GA and I was voting for Trump and that I loathed Ben Carson and Marco Rubio. I told them I was "neutral" on Cruz. LOL.

    I'm still a 19-year-old male (none / 0) (#22)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    Libertarian for Rand Paul, for most pollsters' calls.

    What a coincidence! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:38:39 PM EST
    I'm occasionally a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party who's predisposed to quoting RCP Chairman Bob Avakian at length. That usually ends those calls pretty quick.

    no wonder (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 06:52:01 PM EST
    the polls are so screwed up these days!

    WaPost article on Clinton server/emails/FOIA case (none / 0) (#28)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    This article has some good information.

    "The FBI and the department's inspector general are continuing to look into whether the private setup mishandled classified information or violated other federal laws."

    "Meanwhile, former Clinton department aides Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan and Philippe Reines have returned tens of thousands of pages of documents to the department for FOIA review, with releases projected to continue into at least 2017."

    "The State Department also has asked the FBI to turn over any of an estimated 30,000 deleted emails deemed personal by Clinton's attorneys that the FBI is able to recover in its investigation of the security of the private email server."

    The IG (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:06:14 PM EST
    has been trying this forever. It's going nowhere. It's about FOIA requests but this type of stuff is coming from people like Grassley. The people who actually have seen those emails think there's nothing to it. It's the same email about a NYT times story about drones. I mean how many times can you attempt to spin the same story over and over again.

    Things are really bad for the GOP these days it seems if this kind of thing is where they are putting all their hope.


    Ga6, it's the FBI that would concern me if (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Green26 on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 10:53:17 PM EST
    I was Clinton's lawyer. It's not Judicial Watch and the FOIA request/lawsuit that is potentially dangerous.

    "The FBI and the department's inspector general are continuing to look into whether the private setup mishandled classified information or violated other federal laws."

    Why is the FBI looking into whether classified information was mishandled or violated other federal laws? I wonder where the classified information came from when it was emailed to Clinton. Who created it or took it from where? I agree that forwarding a newspaper article on the drone program is not a big deal. There is chatter that the FBI is looking at where the classified information came from, i.e. the original source.

    I see that others are speculating about whether any of those who will be deposed in the JW/FOIA lawsuit will take the 5th. It's not just me. As I said, if they don't take the 5th, that will be a strong indication that they don't feel vulnerable from the FBI investigation.


    You obviously (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:49:38 AM EST
    did not read the link below. Tomorrow you will be barking in front of the White House that Obama needs to hand over his birth certificate and put down the Koran.

    Even if you believe the FBI is looking into something they have said that Hillary is not part of their investigation. So yes, I know the GOP is in dire straits and they are shopping this to the press hoping against hope that something anything will come up to save their bacon but however you need to realize that you are just wasting your time on this. However it is good for making the GOP look bad. I guess you've forgotten all the Benghazi conspiracy theories that went down the drain in short order. This is just another BS conspiracy theory being shopped by the GOP.


    Try this one (none / 0) (#32)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:22:49 PM EST


    By Mark Hosenball

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. spy agencies have told Congress that Hillary Clinton's home computer server contained some emails that should have been treated as "top secret" because their wording matched sections of some of the government's most highly classified documents, four sources familiar with the agency reports said.....

      The State Department has already acknowledged that the emails contained top secret intelligence, though it says they were not marked that way. It has not previously been clear if the emails contained full classified documents or only some information from them

    You realize (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:29:48 PM EST
    That as the head of the State Department, she had the authority to deem something "top secret" or not, right?

    Green (none / 0) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:12:07 PM EST
    and Trevor seem to have gone the rabbit hole. The same one Larry Klayman has gone down. I guess any day now we will find them in front of the White House barking for Obama to put down the Koran.

    Or we'll find them on AM squawk radio, ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:36:57 AM EST
    ... redefining the U.S. Civil War as an unlawful federal government intervention in the free market economy in the Southern states, which ultimately cost over 5 million African American residents their jobs.

    Actually (none / 0) (#53)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 06:09:35 AM EST
    It is the other intelligence agencies that believe that their top secret documents had paragraphs lifted out of documents, and typed into a e mail.

    Now Madame Sec top lieutenants will be questioned on this, will they fall on their sword for Madame Sec?

    Madame Sec can classify information, but if some other Agency classifies information, Madame Sec CANNOT de classify it.

    These 22 e mails were top secret at the time they were sent,
    But as Madame Sec likes to say, the e mails were not marked Top Secret.

    LOl, Of course they weren't, it is illegal to send top secret information in a e mail.

    The FBI will be recommending prosecution , whether or not Loretta Lynch follows through or not is another question.


    No (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 06:37:59 AM EST
    they don't believe that. What they are saying is that they want to retroactively classify them according to FOIA.

    I guess you have forgotten that the FBI has written the same letter to Condi Rice and Colin Powell.  


    Stop Making Things Up (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 06:49:31 AM EST
    Read the article

       The two reports are the first formal declarations by U.S. spy agencies detailing how they believe Clinton violated government rules when highly classified information in at least 22 email messages passed through her unsecured home server.

        The State Department has already acknowledged that the emails contained top secret intelligence, though it says they were not marked that way. It has not previously been clear if the emails contained full classified documents or only some information from them.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 07:00:23 AM EST
    they are saying that they are retroactively being classified top secret not that they were top secret when they were sent. They are saying the same thing about Condi Rice and Colin Powell. They are being stamped that so they can't get out on FOIA requests. You're the one that is making things up.

    According to the law Hillary has the right to classify things when they come in. Only the IG has the right to RETROACTIVELY classify things.

    Yes, I know the GOP is in desperate straits and you're wishing and hoping against all facts that there's something here but there is nothing here.


    Please (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 07:08:23 AM EST
    I give up.

    They are saying that specific paragraphs were lifted word for word from top secret documents, and placed in a e mail.

    Those 22 documents were NOT retroactively classified.

    I am open to changing my mind though, please show me where those 22 e mails labeled Top Secret, and NOT being released , were retroactively classified, other than in your posts on Talk Left


    You are the (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 08:08:52 AM EST
    one making things up, from your link
    However, the agency reports found some emails included passages that closely tracked or mirrored communications marked "top secret," according to the sources, who all requested anonymity
    you go from some "passages" that closely "track or mirror" to lifting specific paragraphs word for word, that is quite a leap.

    I bet stuff like this

    A suspected U.S. drone crashed in northwestern Pakistan near the Afghan border and Taliban fighters have gotten hold of the precious debris, Pakistani intelligence officials said Sunday.

    The unmanned aircraft crashed Saturday night near Jangara village in the South Waziristan tribal area, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. The village is located near the border with North Waziristan.

    The officials said they learned of the crash by intercepting Taliban radio communications but don't know what caused it

    closely tracks some classified report also.

    This whole secret thing is a ridiculous Kabuki dance,

    The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad did not immediately respond to request for comment on the reported crash. The U.S. normally does not acknowledge the covert CIA-run drone program in Pakistan.

    But U.S. officials have said privately that the attacks have killed many high-level militants -- most recently, al-Qaida's second in command, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, and its chief of operations in Pakistan, Abu Hafs al-Shahri.

    No, (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 07:14:36 AM EST
    they are retroactively attempting to classify things. Even the intelligence committee that has seen these emails say there's nothing classified in them. And if Hillary didn't classify them when they came in and she's ultimate arbiter of what gets classified according to the law there's nothing there. You and the GOP are attempting to circumvent the law in order to make a case against Hillary. Remember all the bogus information the same people put out regarding Benghazi? I'm frankly shocked they're still able to fleece you but if nothing else the GOP base has proven time and again they're willing to be continually fleeced.

    No, Ga6 (none / 0) (#73)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:04:30 AM EST
    1. The FBI does not appear to be focusing on reclassification. They seem to be looking at other things, like whether various laws were complied with.

    2. The latest information, in the cited article, indicates that other agencies do believe some information of theirs was classified.

    3. The comparison to Powell and Rice is not applicable. There's no indication that the FBI is looking at them, or their emails. Powell's secretary forwarded him 2 emails from ambassadors, and he said there was no issue with them. Rice's situation is different too. Neither of them had set up their own servers. None of them had tens of thousands of emails going to them outside of State servers.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:38:31 AM EST
    FBI sent letters to Colin Powell and Condi Rice. Are you conceding that they are targets of a criminal investigation? The comparison is 100% the same. You just simply cannot admit it. It's all about retroactive classification. Hence the letters to Rice and Powell about their email.

    See FL Joe's comment above and no, the articles do not back up what you are saying.

    I know the GOP is completely desperate at this point and are attempting to throw the kitchen sink at Hillary but we've been through this rodeo before. Judicial Watch spent 15 years on "filegate" and had people like you believing there was something there. You can continue to allow yourself to be fleeced regarding this or you can move on. It's your choice. It's a nothingburger and wishing and hoping it's something is not going to make any difference.

    Diane Feinstein said the emails are probably going to be released next month. Right now they are just going back and forth over this.


    Ga6, please provide a citation for FBI letters (none / 0) (#133)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    being sent to Powell and Rice. I haven't seen that.

    I have seen that the FBI contacted Powell last year. I have seen that the State Dept says 2 emails forwarded to Powell by his secretary, who had received them from ambassadors via the State.gov address and were not considered classified by them, are Confidential (the lowest tier of classification). Powell has said the 2 emails were "innocuous". I have seen that the State Dept has said that 10 emails sent to Rice's staff were or should have been classified.

    By contrast, I have seen that over 1600 of Clinton's emails are now deemed classified. Saw another article saying 1730.

    Are you really trying to compare Powell/Rice to Clinton? That's pretty funny.

    Take a look at AG Lynch's comments to Congress yesterday. She said the investigation is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents (FBI agents and lawyers). I saw an article that said she said the FBI criminal investigation was ongoing, but I didn't see a quote from her on that statement, i.e. the criminal part. She said Obama does not get briefings on ongoing investigations like this.

    And don't bother calling me a Repub. Have never been one and never will. Am supporting Clinton, and did 8 years ago too. Feel free to refer to me as the head of Wingnuts for Clinton. Ha.


    Heres' (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:01:39 PM EST
    Ga6, you said the FBI had sent letters (none / 0) (#201)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:39:30 PM EST
    to Powell and Rice. Where's your citation for that? I know the FBI has talked Powell, and I said that in a prior post.

    Let's see your proof that the FBI sent letters to Powell and Rice--or just admit that you were wrong.


    Ground control to Major Tom: (none / 0) (#106)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:03:34 PM EST
    Green26: "The comparison to Powell and Rice is not applicable. There's no indication that the FBI is looking at them, or their emails. Powell's secretary forwarded him 2 emails from ambassadors, and he said there was no issue with them. Rice's situation is different too. Neither of them had set up their own servers. None of them had tens of thousands of emails going to them outside of State servers."

    Your circuit's dead, is something wrong?

    A private, non-government server is a private, non-government server, regardless of whether it's owned and operated by Yahoo!, the Republican National Committee or the Clinton Family Foundation. But that's ultimately beside the point, since the use of private email for government related business was never expressly prohibited at the time these emails were received or sent, whether it occurred during the Bush administration or the time Hillary Clinton headed the State Dept. under President Obama.

    And so, once again, given that your increasingly specious opinions cannot be considered actual evidence of anything other than your own fevered imagination, you're making declarative statements that allege criminal wrongdoing without providing any real facts to support your baseless contentions.

    But just keep clicking the heels of your ruby slippers together repeatedly, like Glinda the Good Witch told you to do, and I'm sure you'll eventually arrive back in Kansas -- likely by stagecoach to Dodge City, where Marshal Dillon, Doc and Festus can commiserate with you about Mrs. Clinton's emails over a bottle of whiskey at Miss Kitty's saloon.

    So, have fun, and hopefully one of these days, you'll finally remember your mother's admonition about running with scissors.



    Donald, are you saying 2 innocuous emails, (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:50:15 PM EST
    which had come on State.gov from 2 ambassadors, and then forwarded by Powell's secretary to him and are now thought by State to be Confidential (the lowest classification), are the same as over 1700 emails involving Clinton on her home grown server (some of which are at the highest classification)?

    Talk about a circuit problem.


    Actually, Ga6th (none / 0) (#82)
    by christinep on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:37:20 AM EST
    The Repubs & their associates are still looking for Vince Foster ....  Old made-up "scandals" die hard with these guys.  

    What we ought to do right now is start placing bets on the next scandal-to-end-all-scandals routine from the Repubs?  What "scandal" and ... will it mysteriously be blared from the usual suspects before or after HRC is sworn in as the next President of the United States?  

    Finally: These phony rumor-mongers never did seem to understand the lessons of Crying Wolf so often....


    Feh (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    I don't even know why I'm responding to the wingnut welfare brigade. Facts don't make any difference. I remember all too well they made up their set of "facts" regarding Whitewater and every week it was Bill Clinton is going to be indicted over Whitewater. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's the MO of the welfare brigade.

    I appreciate your efforts (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by mm on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:30:58 AM EST
    We are living in times now where all the major republican presidential candidates routinely and matter-of-factly refer to the former Secretary of State as a common criminal.  Never do you see any of our star media personalities even so much as blink an eye much less challenge them.

    Last week during the Scarborough/Mika sponge bath with Donald, one of the hard hitting questions Joe asked, "do you think Hillary will be indicted".

    This goes on all the time - it's relentless.  And then these same media stars look into the camera and wonder why so many people don't trust Secretary Clinton.

    I've seen this movie before and I think it's important to push back as much as possible.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:36:16 AM EST
    fortunately Hillary herself has started to push back on some of the stuff. Of course, Comey comes out and makes an announcement it completely discredits the entire pundit class. Heading will be exploding all over the place.

    Yes Judicial Watch (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by smott on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    Ground Zero for Clinton Conspiracy Obsession....

    Things (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    getting really bad for the GOP these days I see.

    I don't (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    know why I'm even bothering to reply to you since I know I'm not going to stop you from trying to spin conspiracy theories but here is an article that explains it. It's about record keeping and then you have to realize that this is being put forward by the crackpots at Judicial Watch. Why are you buying into conspiracy theorists who think the OKC bombing was done by the government and Timothy McVeigh was framed for it?

    Johnson & Johnson loses big lawsuit (none / 0) (#35)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:37:14 PM EST

    A Missouri jury has awarded $72 million to the family of an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer, which she said was caused by using Johnson & Johnson's well-known baby powder and other products containing talcum.

    I wasn't following this case but from reading this article, the evidence sounds weak.  I wonder if it will hold up on appeal?

    Per the American Cancer Society: (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:55:13 PM EST
    "It has been suggested that talcum powder might cause cancer in the ovaries if the powder particles (applied to the genital area or on sanitary napkins, diaphragms, or condoms) were to travel through the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes to the ovary.

    "Many studies in women have looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of the ovary. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase. Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk. But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely on a person's memory of talc use many years earlier. Two prospective cohort studies, which would not have the same type of potential bias, have not found an increased risk.

    "For any individual woman, if there is an increased risk, the overall increase is likely to very be small. Still, talc is widely used in many products, so it is important to determine if the increased risk is real. Research in this area continues." (Emphasis is mine.)



    Rumsfeld's Law: (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    Absence of evidence proves nothing.

    The jury seems to have taken that to heart. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    Her Family Was Asking for Much Less... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:00:17 PM EST
    ...but they gave them a million for every year of her life, which to me is really weird.

    Clrification... (none / 0) (#107)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:04:36 PM EST
    ...they awarded her $10M in damages plus a million for each year she lived, 62.

    Weird... (none / 0) (#136)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    ... in that if there product would have killed her sooner, the award would have been less.

    Yeah, that might not bode well for the family (none / 0) (#169)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    on appeal.  

    Finally an indictment in the Jessica Chambers case (none / 0) (#37)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    Chambers was the Mississippi 19yo who was doused with gasoline and set on fire.  

    I'm a little surprised this case hasn't received more media attention. No one seems to know why this happened.  One rumor I heard was Chambers might have been a confidential informant against a drug dealing gang.  Sometimes young people get caught with small amounts of drugs and then get pressured by law enforcement to go undercover.  When their cover is blown, it usually doesn't end well for them.    

    There (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 24, 2016 at 08:16:40 PM EST
    was a lot about it at first and then when the case went cold it seems the news went on to other stories.

    Where in the stories (none / 0) (#77)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:11:31 AM EST
    did you see anything that indicated Miss Chambers was a CI or involved with the drug trade?

    Right... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:15:56 PM EST
    ... it specifically mentioned that she had a romantic relationship with the suspect and the DA specifically stated, "Chambers' murder was not related to gangs or drugs".

    Different places on the internet (none / 0) (#131)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    Nothing remotely convincing but all are interesting. Here's one that goes over some of the rumors including the drug/CI angle.  

    The DA seems to think the suspect is a gang member who was friends with Chambers but the murder wasn't gang or drug related.


    Why Spread Rumors... (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:32:51 PM EST
    ... your link clearly states are untrue.  It doesn't make sense.  Now you are linking to them, really ?  All this time I though you were the guy who didn't like lame unsupported accusations, I guess that is just for police, women are fine.

    I find the confidential informant strategy (none / 0) (#167)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    used by law enforcement in certain situations very interesting.  60 minutes did a piece on that topic a while ago

    Apparently, young people caught making a small marijuana sale are sometimes pressured into being CIs which can place them in very dangerous situations.

    I was careful to call the Chambers/CI rumor, just that, a rumor.  Perhaps I could have started another thread about CIs.  Would that have made you happy? I was also careful not to say the accused is guilty of murder. I only said he was indicted and reported to be a gang member. It wouldn't surprise me if he had nothing to do with her death.

    I'm not sure what your implication is about my posts relating to women but I'd love to hear it.  


    Worse... (none / 0) (#173)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:19:45 PM EST
    ... the two LA cops who were forcing women to not only be CI's but to have sex with them under thread of letting people know they were informants or jail.

    2 LAPD officers are charged with sexually assaulting women while on duty

    Luis Valenzuela, 43, and James C. Nichols, 44, face more than a dozen felony charges, each stemming from allegations they preyed together and alone on four women from late 2008 to 2011, according to a complaint filed Tuesday by the county district attorney's office. They are accused by prosecutors of forcing some women to have sex and others to perform oral sex. Valenzuela also is accused of assaulting one woman with a gun.

    The charges carry a possible punishment of life in prison.


    Just unsure why you mention a rumor when you knew it to be BS.  Just because you stated it was a rumor doesn't nullify mentioning it, especially after providing the link that stated it was untrue. I had never heard it until you mentioned it.


    I don't know that it's untrue (none / 0) (#177)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    The DA said the crime wasn't related to drugs but I'm not convinced he knows that.  

    Really ? (none / 0) (#185)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:49:33 PM EST

    Trying to find a path for Rubio (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 08:24:23 AM EST
    His original plan...3-2-1 was 3rd in Iowa, 2nd in NH, and 1st in South Carolina. Instead the 3-2-1 became 3-5-2.

    Throw in Nevada and he's 3-5-2-2. If Rubio doesn't knock it out of the park at tonight's GOP gabfest, the very best he could be looking at when polls close on Tuesday could be something ugly like 3-5-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-2-2-2-2-2-2.

    I can see why Kasich is holding tight until the winner take all states kick in. Kasich may win a state before Rubio takes one.

    The reality (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 08:54:27 AM EST
    is Rubio is done. He's going to get wiped out on Super Tuesday. Cruz at least has Texas. I'm not sure where he can win because if you've got someone like Trump polling 1st in a state like MA I have to wonder if Cruz can do anything in a state like MN. Maybe he can win CO but with all the evangelicals there who seem to be pretty much in the Cruz Trump camp I'm not sure what he can do there.

    Kasich probably can at least win his own state which Rubio doesn't even seem to be able to do if polling on FL is right.


    New Q poll from Florida today (none / 0) (#69)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 09:38:41 AM EST
    Trump 44
    Rubio  28
    Cruz   12
    Kasich  7
    Carson 4

    I should mention (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 09:42:21 AM EST
    Q polls don't rate very high on my list. That said, this one has Rubio closer to Trump than any Florida poll this year.

    If it's a Q poll (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    Trump is probably polling over 50% and Rubio is at 20%.

    Texas may end up being (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:04:49 AM EST
    A bigger story.

    Two of the 4 RCP polls (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    Are tired.  One Cruz +8 one +12.

    Donald has been ahead in FL for a while.   If he wins TX it will be a story.


    Interesting bit (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    Donald is spending zero on ads in the super t states.   Not even in TX.

    Free media.


    Texas (none / 0) (#85)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:55:15 AM EST
    does appear to be getting tight, and a win for Trump would indeed be huge news, devastating for Cruz who has very little chance of winning anywhere else, but then again I just saw a new Monmouth Poll with Cruz up 38-23 so who really knows.

    I Don't Watch Much Network TV... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:05:31 AM EST
    ... but so far I have seen exactly one HRC ad and about 5 Rubio ads.  I may have seen a Cruz ad, but I can't remember if it was on the TV or online.

    There just hasn't been much and so far no dark imagery, just uplifting messages.  There is never much in the way of Presidential ads, but the Congressional and state ads get pretty slimey.


    leading up to NH (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:19:15 AM EST
    I saw a ton of Rubio ads, and a ton of anti-Rubio ads and not much else.

    Who knows (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:06:43 AM EST
    The TX Gov refused to predict a Cruz win.

    Just sayin

    It's fun to watch.  If Cruz loses TX by .01 points he will have more time to spend with his family soon.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    we're all wrong and Rubio and Cruz are soon to be dead with Kasich leading the head to head with Trump. LOL.

    I've heard (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    There really IS a path for Bernie.

    YEah (none / 0) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:33:47 AM EST
    if you're on board with the wingnut welfare crowd.

    Yep (none / 0) (#97)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:40:04 AM EST
     at the debate Cruz pulls out his concealed 9mm and shots Rubio dead before turning the gun on himself, Trump breaks down in tears forever, tarnishing is tough buy image thus tanking himself in the polls.

    You know what's (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    sad? That's almost believable this year in the GOP primary.

    Well Except for the Part... (none / 0) (#111)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    ...where Cruz actually manages to hit something.

    Panda Truthers


    The Cruz family may (none / 0) (#115)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:42:51 PM EST
    The New Texas Governor... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    ... makes Rick Perry look like the Dalai Lama.

    Abbott is straight up crazy.


    It was just said on teevee (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 09:16:25 AM EST
    That Rubios plans toning his to, again, go after Cruz.

    'Swhat they said.  How Donald and Marco interact tonight will be instructive.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 09:21:38 AM EST
    sounds like a death match where they might take each other out and Donald has to do nothing but stand there and watch.

    I wonder if Trump will go birther on Rubio.


    ... of being uncircumcised, for all that I care about this Carnival of the Damned.

    Rubio could likely prove Trump wrong there (none / 0) (#142)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:43:22 PM EST
    since he was originally raised as a Mormon. Perhaps Trump held off on that idea to help Cruz with the Mormon vote in Nevada.

    I'm wrong there (none / 0) (#143)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    Rubio was not a baby when baptized a Mormon. Trump may be keeping his powder dry on this one until the Utah vote.

    He wasnt baptized (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:04:23 PM EST
    They attended LDS servuces fir a few years, but he was baptized a Roman Catholic and returned to being a Catholic when they left Vegas. He received 7ved first communion, was confirmed, and was married in the Catholic Church.

    In his book (none / 0) (#166)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    he says he was first baptized Catholic, and then baptized again later in the Mormon church along with his mother and sister.

    The (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    only realistic plan for Rubio  is to somehow deny Trump enough delegates to clinch, improbable but not impossible.

    IMO (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:13:07 AM EST
    He is now running for VP

    That (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:30:59 AM EST
    seems to be the beltway story for sure.

    You know what they say (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    About "stopped clocks"

    The real intrigue, IMO, is (none / 0) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    what Trump has offered Kasich and/or Carson to stay in the race? Gonna be, virtually, impossible for Rubio/Cruz to even have a shot if they stay in till the end.

    One more thing. I took this morning off to do some stuff around here, and the TV sound has been on all morning. The fawning, worshipful promotion of Donald Trump is truly something to behold. My suspicion that the so-called Media made a conscious decision to back Trump seems to have been confirmed. I read the head honcho for CNN was being interviewed, and he stated that when he saw the ratings go bonkers early on whenever Trump was on he made a snap judgement call. He put 450 additional personnel on to take full advantage of Trumps TV appeal. He even joked about his channel becoming "All Trump, All the Time."

    Pretty much explains my biggest complaint. With the vast amount of oppo research available on Trump, you're going to have to look for it to find out about it. The Media is on total lockdown..........protect Donald at all costs.


    That's (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:00:31 PM EST
    when you start going around the media and buying air time.

    I mentioned yesterday (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:08:11 PM EST
    I have heard reliably that Donald has promised Dr Carson a cabinet post..  
    To be created.  Something like Secretary of Thinkin About Stuff

    IMO he was always running for VP (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:54:25 AM EST
    It may be the only correct prediction I have made in a year!

    I don't think (none / 0) (#113)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:39:14 PM EST
    I give him that much credit.

    Bummed Berners.... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 11:48:25 AM EST
    will still have a very good reason to go to the polls in November in 20 states, as the dominos continue to fall and the dumbest war we've ever waged finally comes to a close.

    Turn the lights back on, the party is just getting started!

    Could give Gary Johnson a boost too...maybe he'll crack 2% in the popular vote.

    Theoretical question (none / 0) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:41:37 PM EST
    If,by a miracle, Donald won the nomination.   Then he comes out for the national decriminalization of pot.

    Would you think about getting on the train?


    Good question... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:52:13 PM EST
    I'd have no choice but to give it some thought...but I think I'd still pass on The Donald...there is just too much stench on him that not even the sweet aroma of the sacrament can cover it up.

    Waited 20 years, can wait a little longer.  Now if federal prohibition was actually effective in reducing supply and quality, that would be a different story...but it's basically legal now with how easy it is to get the greatest marijuana grown on planet earth.  And the gummies, I got blessed with a package of Colorado Gummies just this past weekend and oh my goodness.

    Now if Donald proposed federal prohibition repeal and an open borders immigration policy and an effective Wall Street regulation/castration plan and an...oh never mind;)


    Interesting answer (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 12:56:14 PM EST
    I suspect many would be less nuanced

    I suspect you are right... (none / 0) (#118)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    such a proposal from Donald would probably be an independent and not too keen on Hillary Democrat voter bonanza.

    Maybe Hillary will have the courage to beat him to the punch...such a proposal from her might get me off the Jill Stein train, as there is far less stench on Hillary than Donald.  


    She will not (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    I have no idea if Trump will do that re pot.  But he has a history.  You can't say it's not "something he might do".

    I think if he is it he will try to run to the left of Hillary in many ways.  Foreign policy, I voted against the war. Just an example, anyway, I think what people need to understand is that once Donald has the nomination there is nothing he can say that will keep republicans from voting against Hillary.  Up to and Including decriminalization.  If that's what it takes.
    Donald will do anything to win.   And will be praised for it.  

    Buckle up


    Buckle up. It's going to be a Trumpy ride... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    Yep... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    though Trump may be the easiest to beat, he's also the hardest to run against...cuz ya just don't know what he'll do or say next.  

    He could run to the left of Hillary on several fronts, and the scary part is it might not even be a total con-job.  I think we may end up seeing him adopt some of Sanders positions, such as a tax on Wall St. trades.


    I think so (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    It's weird to think an election would be between a hawkish democratic woman and an isolationist republican man.

    That one fact should make pundits toss their notes and their lunch.

    I think Donald would go straight after that young vote wary of Hillary.


    Donald (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    is hawkish though in a lot of ways moreso than Hillary. He's to the left and far to the right of Hillary on foreign policy.

    I expect it will be a topic (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    Tonight since Donald just said he would not take sides in the Israel v Palestine thing.

    I guess (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:09:08 PM EST
    we'll see how that one plays though I'm guessing his voters will just change their mind about Israel and go along with Trump and whatever he says.

    absolutely (none / 0) (#127)
    by CST on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    he's primed and ready.

    If Dems do their job right though, there are some wedge issues there begging to be exploited.

    Like his comments on torture.  Or his actual business and hiring practices.

    There is stuff there that could drive that wedge.  But it's going to be more complicated with Trump because he positions himself as a populist.

    That being said, he will lose a lot of indies/moderate Republicans.  Of that I also have no doubt.

    Really he remakes the math, and it's hard to see how it will shake out.  But I do expect minority turnout will be very high.


    If you are saying (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:51:49 PM EST
    Without demographics on our side we might be screwed, I think I agree.

    Also (none / 0) (#130)
    by CST on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    This is where Bernie needs to really come through for the party and campaign his butt off in the General.  And I actually think he will.

    The more Bernie... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    and less Bill on the stump for Hillary, the better I think.

    I could see Bill being a lead weight around Hillary's neck once the general rolls around...it kinda prevents Hillary from highlighting Donald's chauvinism and views on women, when he can just throw Bill back in her face.  Also on criminal justice, where I think Trump is awful, but so was Bill.


    Sure, kdog. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:10:08 PM EST
    kdog: "I could see Bill being a lead weight around Hillary's neck once the general rolls around...it kinda prevents Hillary from highlighting Donald's chauvinism and views on women, when he can just throw Bill back in her face."

    After all, who better to call attention to another man's infidelity, than a thrice-married serial philanderer and adulterer who fathered a child out of wedlock with a woman who would eventually become Wife No. 2, while he was still married to Wife No. 1?

    I would've thought that most of the country had already made it very clear back in 1998 that they were generally repulsed by the GOP's obvious hypocrisy on this particular issue, when congressional Republicans ran in the midterm elections on a virtual platform of impeaching President Bill Clinton over his 1996 dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and ended up losing seats, while Mr. Clinton's corresponding approval ratings soared above 70%.

    What would prompt the public's attitude to change 18 years hence? If anything, I'd offer that most Americans are probably even less appreciative and tolerant of moral scolds who make exceptions of themselves. If that's where the Republicans want to go, then I'm certainly not inclined to stop them -- but they can't say afterward that they hadn't been warned.



    Actually (none / 0) (#189)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    It opens the door to attack Hillary

    For slut shaming  and attacking the victims of the sexual preator

    Not the feminist thing to do....Now at least

    Back then it was allowable to attack female victims of Democrats, to protect the Dem politician


    Are you kidding (none / 0) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    Even the Republicans don't want to go there. How's it going to play when the GOP wants to turn those same people into birthing slaves? Sure go for it. You guys are very slow learners it seems.

    That is (none / 0) (#195)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:18:52 PM EST
    The only reason Hillary stopped the sexist attacks on Donald

    She opened herself up to attacks

    Another reason why Bernie is winning with women under 30


    Women (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    under 30 voting for Bernie seems to have nothing to do with that and more to do with free college and income inequality. They also have not been out in the job force long enough to deal with the Mad Men attitude in a lot of companies.

    She doesn't need to attack Donald. He does it all by himself. She had no part in what he did to Megyn Kelly.


    But (none / 0) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:24:06 PM EST
    you have no answer for the fact that the GOP want the people you seem to be so worried about being used as birthing slaves do you? LOL.

    Do you think the under 30 crowd is going to vote for that?


    Birthing Slaves? (none / 0) (#204)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:42:33 PM EST
    You do realize that 40% of women are pro life

    Oh Dear....really (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:24:41 PM EST
    Throw Bill back in her face?

    Infidelity occurs....and as far as I know he is still the most globally beloved President.

    In her face how? Uhhhh...because she didn't cheat back? Because she chose to salvage and save the marriage. Being President will require much tougher choices and a lot more salvaging what can be salvaged and saving what's worth saving.

    I'll take that leadership in a heartbeat!


    I'm not talking infidelity... (none / 0) (#187)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:56:12 PM EST
    I'm talking about the sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations. Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddick...no one cares about infidelity.

    It's a small part of Hillary's problem with millenial women voters...amongst the young hardcore feminist set, there is a special place in hell for people who don't support alleged victims of sexual assault unconditionally.


    Send Bernie to ... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    college campuses in swing states.

    Have Bill bounce between Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri.

    And send Obama to Virginia and North Carolina.

    Adjust depending on what other red states look flippable.


    Why limit Bill to the South? (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:07:59 PM EST
    He's still incredibly popular.

    I'm sending him to three states ... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    he carried in '92 and '96 and Dems haven't won since.

    And Missouri is not considered a Southern state. It's a border state.

    And I suggested it could be adjusted if more states become flippable.


    I don't know... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    I'd send Bill on a 6 month Clinton Foundation tour of Africa or something...keep him far away from any potential voters who paid attention from 92-00.

    Too much of this campaign is about fixing those 90's "Third Way" errors in conservative policy, the last thing Hillary needs is a walking talking reminder on the stump against a wild card RINO like Trump.

    The strategy that might have sunk Gore in 2000 is a winner in 2016, imho.


    The Guardian is reporting today (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:16:01 PM EST
    That an old sexual assault claim has resurfaced against the Donald.  The woman dropped it because her boyfriend was in a contract dispute with Trump, but now she said she's standing by her story.

    No idea if it's true or not, but certainly wouldn't let him go after Bill....


    Spoken (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:39:08 PM EST
    like a true Nader fan. You can complain all you want however he left office with very high approval ratings.

    Yes he did... (none / 0) (#164)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:57:24 PM EST
    it took a little time for the chickens to come home to roast...that's why I said the strategy that many blame for sinking Gore (ignoring Bill) may be a winner today...a lot changes in 16 years, namely of issue here the prison population, the great recession, worsened income disparity.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#160)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:37:40 PM EST
    "....Trump may be the easiest to beat, he's also the hardest to run against...."  I believe that the 'hardest to run against part' owes to his weak and scared Republican opponents. They are more at ease in attacking each other and leaving Trump skate.

    Trump, it is true, can get away with almost anything, even shoot the Pope on 5th Avenue. But, he is vulnerable when he can no longer count on ratings-hyped media if they come to the delayed realization that they have courted Il Duce 2.0  and if Trump can bank on just his cohort of racist, nativist and angered followers. And, if his  ersatz "strength"  that he says what he means and means what he says can be effectively pierced.

    Yes, he tells it like it is, that day.  Gearing up for his debates with Mrs. Clinton, he was against the Iraq war and George Bush was a liar.  Except, when confronted with an 2002 interview with Howard Stern during a CNN Town Hall, if he supported the Iraq war he said "Yeah, I guess so." And, admitted, too, that yes, he might have said that. As for Bush's lies, he backed off with the usual, some have said that.  

    Another example, near and dear to the winger hearts, is the "mandate" of Obamacare. He said he liked the mandate; he didn't want people dying in the streets. Three days later, "I don't like the mandate, personally, because that sort of means mandatory."  And, of course, his great compassion of not letting people die in the streets (or sidewalks) is overlooked by all--has he ever heard of Medicaid? Emergency Room coverage for indigent?

    Tonight, it would be surprising if Rubio, running against Trump, will ever call Trump on anything in fear of Trump ridiculing his pumps.  With the slightest attack, Rubio fears that he will wilt into a puddle of Poland Spring. Paxil or not.

     Cruz may try something, now after being in a bromance with Trump until lately, but he is a dead man walking preparing to spend more time with his family, and the not so warm embraces of his children.

    Mrs. Clinton will need to re-calibrate for Trump: a cocktail of Benghazi tolerance for the impaired, wonkish details,and cutting wit as wielded against Rep Dick Armey, who was living up to his first name, when he pledged, in 1993, to make the hearings on Hillary-Care "exciting."  Hillary replied, "I'm sure you will do that, you and Dr. Kevorkian."


    What (none / 0) (#163)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    people are ignoring is the fact that while a lot of these things are working for the GOP base we have no idea how it would work in a general election.

    But you are right. His opponents certainly look like big time cowards.  


    Good legislation is still (none / 0) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:17:45 PM EST
    Good legislation even if a psychopath signs it into law.

    Picked up Josh from HS today. He does his best Trump impersonation as he gets in the truck. "You can vote for a Canadian, a Cuban, or an American....natural born, who ya gonna vote for?" Spreads his hands, cocks his head, and shrugs.


    for all certain commenters and others (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by CST on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:32:06 PM EST
    like to tout the "diversity" of the GOP options this year (and years past), it's not lost on some of us, that once again, the white guy will get the nomination.

    It doesn't matter how many candidates you prop up if the people who make up the bulk of the party won't vote for them.

    IOW, you don't necessarily have to be racist to support Trump, but he sure is #1 with racists.


    Another nomination from the White House (none / 0) (#138)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    makes another nomination by Obama to catch me off guard.

    Carla Hayden to head the Library of Congress.

    Who would have guessed that the Library of Congress has never had a female in charge? The Senate will probably refuse to confirm her since this is an election year.

    Historians did not need to guess (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    as they knew this.  And it has been discussed . . . so, you need not guess that this is well-received.

    (But I'm betting that women have managed the LoC gift shop, anyway, because it long has been one of my favorites for great shopping.)


    My librarian friends (none / 0) (#158)
    by Suisser1 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:26:09 PM EST
    are all thrilled by this news. Not only a woman, but an actual librarian.

    The senate confirmed (none / 0) (#168)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    President Obama's nominee, Dr. Robert Califf, as FDA Commissioner (89 to 4).   What was thought might be a relatively uncontroversial nomination became a discussion of the agency, including the opioid prescription drug epidemic. And, some Democrats opposed Dr. Califf, a Duke University cardiologist, on the basis that he had been a consultant to drug companies and received research funding from drug companies, making him too close to those he will be regulating.  A good point, a really good point, but, really, not an uncommon one. Drug companies provide major funding for drug research.

    Conspiracy Talk (none / 0) (#144)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    There is a growing murmur that BUSTED, Mr. Roboto and Kitchen have or will form a cabal, not to win, but to prevent Pumpkinhead from winning. And usher in a brokered convention where, well, I don't think they've worked it out that far.

    Not only this is probably harder than one of them just beating him. Pumpkinhead will figure out what they're doing pretty fast. And make it look silly and undemocratic. And probably gets votes from that.

    A brokered conventions (and I'd love to see it) should only happen if the voters (after sustained contests) really can't seem to pick someone out of three or more candidates. It's not something you should try to make happen. And you probably can't.

    They should just try beating him instead.

    On CNN this morning (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:01:35 PM EST
    A conservative blogger (Matt Lewis?  From RedState?) Said the Whigs did this in 1836? And he hoped it woykd happen.  Rubio and Kasich concede Texas to Cruz, Cruz and Kasich concede Florida to Rubio, and Cruz and Rubio concede Ohio to Kasich, and so on, deorivung Trump from getting to the magic number if delegates,  forcing a brokered convention.

    That seems like it plays right ... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    into the type of messaging Pumpkinhead loves.

    It would be much easier just to try a traditional multi-pronged attack.

    No one has tried that against him.

    Such attacks usually work.


    The only (none / 0) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:11:22 PM EST
    problem with that scenario is right now Rubio is losing Florida to Trump.

    I don't (none / 0) (#162)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    know if the planned it, but it is sure is working out that way re: the Fl-Ohio split, other than that they more or less get in each other way.

    It's not to likely that Rubio gets Fl, but Kasich may be able to steal Ohio and if Kasich/Cruz/Kasich can siphon off enough delegates in the proportional or hybrid states it might just be good enough.


    Karl (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    Rove says time is running out to do anything about Trump.

    You would think if they were serious about doing something with Trump they would at least get Ben Carson out of the race.


    I say at least try ... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:27:14 PM EST
    the traditional way you win an election.

    By beating the front runner. I know it's a novel idea. But it just might work.

    I'm still rather stunned that there was no Bush campaign in the Bush campaign.

    But BUSTED, Mr. Roboto and Kitchen seem just as bad.  They're reminding of this.


    I know (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    It's really simple however my 2 cents is that the GOP has been coddling these racist voters for so long that pointing out this kind of stuff from Trump is not going to do any of them any good.

    But it's not like any of them are going to win anyway so you would think they would at least TRY.


    My other conspiracy theory ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:48:28 PM EST
    is the GOP has been wanting this group to STFU for a while now.

    And they figured this was a good year to give them the nomination. Dems are strong. Clinton looks hard to beat.

    They do what they can to help ensure that Pumpkinhead's loss is Barry Goldwater level embarrassing. And then they never have to listen to this wing of the party again.

    Pumpkinhead isn't really a Republican. So he doesn't tarnish the brand.

    Once this is sorted, they can go back to their original plan of pulling in Hispanics and building a electoral college majority again.


    People (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    like Bruce Bartlett have said as much. They are actually cheering on a win by Trump because they want to eliminate the tea party control of the GOP.

    Of course, it ... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:19:10 PM EST
    didn't work so well with the Goldwater wing.

    They just wormed their way in. And sixteen years later they took over the party.


    The (none / 0) (#205)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:47:59 PM EST
    problem with that is they run the risk of losing a serious chunk of their voting bloc, possibly for several cycles. I just don't think telling them "you should have voted for Jeb!"  is going to talk many of these angry (some would say deranged) voters back into the fold.

    There is a deep and broad hatred of the "establishment" among Trump supporters that will not disappear if he loses in the general.


    If Republicans Were Capable... (none / 0) (#186)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:56:00 PM EST
    ... of learning from their mistakes, Trump would be firing people on NBC, and GWB would have been a one pump chump and dump.

    The notion that the crazies will simmer down if Trump loses, is completely off.  But I do like a good conspiracy...


    They'll continue to shout ... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:03:43 PM EST
    but the GOP will no longer even need to pretend to listen.

    Like the Dems did with the far left after McGovern. Sanders may be the closest they've come to listening since then. And only barely.

    That's two generations of not listening. If the GOP could get that they'd be pretty happy.


    "They" (none / 0) (#180)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:34:13 PM EST
    have absolutely no leverage over Carson or Cruz, they don't even seem to have any sway over Kasich or Christie before him.

    Sorry, Mr Turd Blossom, the time for doing something about Trump (at least on a strategic level) was sometime early last fall when it became obvious that Trump wasn't going away and Jeb!, the chosen one, was floundering.  


    I know (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    and it is pretty hysterical in a lot of ways.

    but (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    if the numbers keep falling like this from Monmouth
    Donald Trump dominates the Old Dominion, earning the support of 41% of likely GOP primary
    voters there. Marco Rubio is currently in second place at 27%, followed by Ted Cruz (14%), John Kasich
    (7%), and Ben Carson (7%)
    there is no stopping the Donald.

    I thought Rubio had a chance in VA, ouch.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#181)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:41:59 PM EST
    those numbers do not surprise me. That is why I was very doubtful about Rubio in Virginia. But man Cruz sure is fading a lot faster than I ever thought he would.

    Trump is going to rule in the GOP primary in the old Confederacy.

    I talked to a friend of mine in SC today. I said I laughed and laughed about what happened in SC. She said yeah, I know. She said she is not going to vote for Trump. She will either vote for Hillary or stay home. She said all her racist in laws went to see Trump when he came to town. I said yeah, I can totally see some family members I have voting for Trump too.


    Now (none / 0) (#188)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    CNN is reporting
    Marco Rubio's campaign is preparing for a contested Republican Convention as one option to take the GOP nomination...
    Laying it out for his donors
    Rubio's top adviser, used a Power Point presentation and took questions from attendees to lay out the two courses that Rubio's quest for the GOP nomination could take in the coming months

    First the delusion
    The first showed the number of states and delegates Rubio would need to clinch the nomination outright before July's convention.
    Then the desperation
    The second was the scenario in which none of the candidates gain the simple majority delegates needed to clinch the nomination before the convention,

    Mr. Roboto, (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    let us dispel, once and for all, with this fiction.

    And, let me add, let us dispel with this fiction.


    The constant use (none / 0) (#200)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:30:03 PM EST
    of juvenile nicknames for candidates for the Presidency is childish. (This holds true for you as well as others)

    yeah...childish and fun! (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:42:22 PM EST
    Domo arigato Marco Roboto.

    One month out from the start ... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:15:25 PM EST
    ... of baseball season, Major League Baseball has banned "back slides," the kind of rolling block slide out of the base path employed by the L.A. Dodgers' Chase Utley during last year's NLDS Game 2 with the New York Mets, in which he broke 2nd baseman Ruben Tejada's leg on the play.

    From now on, if an umpire determines that a baserunner is not making a "bona fide attempt" to reach base, but is instead deliberately targeting an infielder with the intent of initiating physical contact between the two and breaking up a potential double play, that official shall rule both the runner and the batter out.

    IMHO as a former player at the high school and collegiate level, that's good. Baseball is not supposed to be a full-contact competition, players do not wear protective gear or padding to mitigate any potential injuries that might result from such high-impact collisions, and too many of them at all levels of the sport have been seriously hurt.


    Sounds good but I'm not quite sure (none / 0) (#174)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    what a legal slide is now?  Can the runner still slide directly into the fielder as long as he can reach the base with his hand?  That's basically what Utley did but he slid late and wasn't low to the ground when he made contact with Tejada.  What if he slides earlier?

    In one of my leagues you have slide directly into the bag.  In my other league, we play with the rules and equipment of 1886, you can pretty much do what you want but you're supposed to act like a gentleman.


    Hand touch slide... (none / 0) (#191)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:09:26 PM EST
    makes no sense on a force play...I'd say that's not bona fide.

    Sounds good to me too...you can still break up a double play, just slide hard at the bag, not the player 3 feet off the bag.


    Here's what it says on ESPN... (none / 0) (#198)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:22:59 PM EST

    Under the rules change announced Thursday, a runner must make a "bona fide slide," defined as making contact with the ground ahead of the base, being in position to reach the base with a hand or foot and to remain on it, and sliding within reach of the base without changing his path to initiate contact with a fielder.

    Sounds like players can still slide off the bag as long as they can reach it and stay on.  I have a feeling the "stay on" part is going to be tricky.


    Interesting... (none / 0) (#202)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    We will have to wait till the pennant race to see how this plays out.

    The head first and hand slides are so popular now...I'm a pop-up slide man myself unless the play necessitates a head first to dodge a tag.


    So (none / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 25, 2016 at 03:21:35 PM EST
    David Duke is now saying that voting against Trump is voting against your heritage I guess if you are white. The GOP just gets more bizarre by the minute it seems.