home

Sunday Night Open Thread

For those not watching the Oscars, or tuning in afterwards, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

(If you're not into the Oscars, Season 2 of La Viuda Negra (about Griselda Blanco) begins tonight on Unimas, with English subtitles. A 2 hour recap of the first season is starting right now.)

< 2016 Oscars Open Thread | Monday Night TV and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A young woman is in the front (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:17:06 AM EST
    Row of the upcoming Trump event that CNN is covering. She has a big plastic tiara on her head. I'm just going to assume that a Donald Trump rally is the new place to hold your planning to embarrass yourself for life bachelorette party.

    I'll (none / 0) (#54)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    take Trump Rallies are Freak Shows for $200 Alex. If his campaign ever gets turned into a reality show can you imagine? It would have to be the reality show to beat all.

    Parent
    RIP, George Kennedy (1925-2016). (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:49:09 PM EST
    The longtime and versatile character actor, who enjoyed a nearly 60-year-long career in television and cinema, and won the 1967 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor as Dragline in "Cool Hand Luke," died in Boise, ID yesterday at age 91.

    He was a favorite of my mom (none / 0) (#147)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:33:18 AM EST
    I remember him mostly from 'Airport', one of the soapy movies that 'Airplane' spoofed. Mom loved both of those movies!

    Parent
    Kennedy's final onscreen role ... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    ... was in 2014, when he appeared in "The Gambler" as Ed, the ne'er-do-well grandfather of Jim (Mark Wahlberg) who, as Gramps reminds him, is unfortunately a chip off the ol' block.

    Parent
    I picked the wrong day (none / 0) (#162)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Mar 02, 2016 at 08:27:24 AM EST
    to give up watching the Oscars...

    Parent
    Well, it's (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 28, 2016 at 08:25:56 PM EST
    not Tuesday yet which is going to be a big day. Expect the neo-confederates to come out of the woodwork to vote for Trump. I see where David Duke has endorsed him.

    Jeff Sessions did too (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:32:58 AM EST
    Bleh!!!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:39:33 AM EST
    Sessions is a neoconfederate. I guess the dreaded waterfall of "establishment" endorsements that Priebus is afraid of have come to pass.

    Parent
    The 2 things to look for tomorrow (none / 0) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:20:13 AM EST
    in each party:

    GOP:
    Will Rubio fall into the 3rd in the delegate count? This is highly possible because Cruz could win both Texas and Arkansas, while Rubio could be shutout in the biggest delegate prize of the day in Texas if he can't manage the 20% threshold.

    DEM:
    This is obvious. Where can Sanders win other than Vermont? A win anywhere outside of Vermont will be viewed as a successful day. If he wins only Vermont, the news will be as bad as South Carolina.

    Parent

    The GOP meltdown: Drip, drip, drip. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:12:35 AM EST
    H-P CEO Meg Whitman, who served as Gov. Chris Christie's campaign finance co-chair during his abortive run for the White House, has publicly denounced his subsequent endorsement of Donald Trump, and has further called on Christie's donors and supporters to reject both two men "outright":

    "Chris Christie's endorsement of Donald Trump is an astonishing display of political opportunism. Donald Trump is unfit to be President. He is a dishonest demagogue who plays to our worst fears. Trump would take America on a dangerous journey. Christie knows all that and indicated as much many times publicly. The Governor is mistaken if he believes he can now count on my support, and I call on Christie's donors and supporters to reject the Governor and Donald Trump outright. I believe they will. For some of us, principle and country still matter."

    Good for Ms. Whitman.

    If the Primary (none / 0) (#3)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:02:38 AM EST
    Voters give the nomination to Trump

    I see many Republican voters either writing in another name for President,
    And the Establishment quite possibly putting forth a independent candidate themselves

    The issue that thrust Trump upon us was illegal immigration, the GOP Establishment loves illegal immigration, they like cheap labor. By not putting forth any border security measures since having both the Senate and House opened the path for Trump and his wall. His supporters want border security.
    The Tea Party has had issues for years with the Establishment over the budget, Establishment loves to spend as much as any Democrat.
    So yes, the coalition will be fractured after this election, the Establishment will have to give on some issues or there will not be a coalition going forward

    Parent

    The truth (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:09:47 AM EST
    is the GOP has never had a coalition since the end of the Cold War. They have lost the popular vote every election since 1992 except 2004.

    Parent
    And no (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:12:07 AM EST
    the establishment is not going to put forth another candidate if you read people like Bruce Bartlett. What they are saying is that Trump going down in a landslide loss presents a unique opportunity for the moderates to take control of the party. They can say see we put forth your tea party candidate who embraced all the issues you hold dear and he lost.

    Parent
    If they physically try to oust (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:36:20 AM EST
    Trump, he'd just run as some third party candidate and undermine the vote.

    The way things look this morning, the nomination belongs to Donald or he'll burn this casino to the ground too.

    Parent

    lol. Since when has logic mattered? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:19:07 AM EST
    Bruce Bartlett: Obama is a Republican

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#7)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:22:44 AM EST
    Are you talking about?

    I can never comprehend much of what you write. Who is the Tea Party candidate that you speak of?

    Parent

    Trump (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:47:45 AM EST
    is embracing all the tea party ideals. Of course the tea party has pretty much become the GOP so I understand your confusion.

    Read this here

    I'm sorry I don't speak in wingnut welfare talking points but I don't see where it is hard to understand what is going on.

    Parent

    Lol (none / 0) (#9)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:55:53 AM EST
    Trump is the furthest thing from a Tea Party candidate

    He wants single payer, will not touch entitlements,
    He is a big spender waiting to happen

    Now , please show me that fiscally conservative Tea Party candidate.

    Rubio and Cruz are the fiscally conservative candidates running

    KING: You're not going to march with the tea party?

    TRUMP: I don't march with the tea party. But I'll tell you what, they have a good point, because when you see the kind of money that this country is -- to use a horrible expression, Larry, I know you've never heard this -- but that this country is pissing away, I can understand where they're coming from.

    When Trump referred to the country wasting money, what was he talking about? I don't know, but not the massive bank bailouts of 2008 and 2009. He thought those were terrific:

    Trump went on to defend the TARP bailouts: "If they didn't stuff the banks with money, we'd be in depression number two right now, Larry. I mean, we would be strongly in depression number two. So they did the right thing in putting money into the banks."

    Donald Trump hosted two fundraisers for uber-establishment candidate Charlie Crist in 2009, as Crist tried unsuccessfully to fend off a challenge from conservative upstart Marco Rubio. Trump was all establishment, all the time, as he also donated to Harry Reid to help him defeat Tea Party insurgent Sharron Angle in 2010.

    One more thing: Trump contributed $50,000 to help make Rahm Emanuel, the ultimate corrupt Democratic Party politico, the mayor of Chicago. That's turned out well!

    Parent

    Single (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:13:14 AM EST
    payer? Hardly. Not touching entitlements? Very much a tea party thing. I guess you don't remember the tea party mantra of keep the government's hands off my Medicare? The tea party is not fiscally conservative. Or maybe they are since fiscally conservative means spending lots of money just on things I like.

    Well, as far as that goes where was the tea party during the Bush Administration? Where was the tea party when Bush was running up the national deficit? Nowhere to be found were they? The tea party was not against bailing out the banks. They were only against Obama doing it.

    The tea party is basically a bunch of people who are upset about the browning of America. They do not care about budgets. They do not care about really anything. They more or less are just a bunch of knee jerkers where if Obama did it they're against it. Trump is the perfect tea party candidate.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:20:35 AM EST
    Yesterday on "Face the Nation", Trump said this:

    ===%%%

    "I mean, it could be that, it could be because I'm a believer in the Tea Party. I love the Tea Party, I love the people of the Tea Party," Trump said. "And you know, I have a lot of different likes and maybe dislikes. And I don't know why, but why is it that every single year I get audited and I have friends that are very wealthy and they've never been audited?"

    Parent

    Funny... (none / 0) (#40)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    Establishment loves to spend as much as any Democrat

    Might want to check those numbers.  More like Democrats couldn't spend what the republican establishment has even if they wanted to, which they do not.

    Parent

    Just blows me away (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:32:14 AM EST
    That clown Trump is going to be the Republican nominee. I just can't believe that party has come to this.

    This would all be easier to consume if I were a child observing this. Then when I grew up I could think back to how crazy things used to be, but the country grew out of it :)

    You live (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:40:37 AM EST
    in Alabama so it really shouldn't come as a surprise to you. I'm sure you deal with the Trumpsters on a daily basis where you are.

    Parent
    I really don't Ga (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:51:06 AM EST
    He's just ridiculous. And I do have a group of female friends here now, and they are all Republicans. They know I'm a Democrat. But I think instinctively they know to discuss him around me opens the door for me to point out how absurd he is.

    Spouse has had a few people talk about Trump to him and immediately how ridiculous Trump is is so obvious in the first sentences out in any military personnel discussion. Can you imagine that clown commanding forces?

    Parent

    No actually (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:56:14 AM EST
    I can't. I guess maybe hanging out in the military makes things different. My best friend in SC had two brothers in law go to a Trump rally. The only way I know people that are Trumpsters is through Facebook though no one has said it to my face they are Trumpsters. However I hear the comments at the grocery store and all kinds of places.

    Parent
    Even my rightie sister in TN hates (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    Trump. It is safe to go to her FB page again...for the time being.

    So I believe you that not all the AL folks are on the bandwagon.

    Parent

    One pushed the door open and peeked (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 05, 2016 at 01:08:06 PM EST
    At me through the crack on Wednesday morning. She told me we needed more businessmen in office. Her spouse is a businessman and holds a public office too. So possibly a double entendre. I stood there and mostly just blinked hard, and the door closed.

    Parent
    Postcards from Libya, wish you were here (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:57:37 AM EST
    Two days before, Mrs. Clinton had taken a triumphal tour of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, and for weeks top aides had been circulating a "ticktock" that described her starring role in the events that had led to this moment. The timeline, her top policy aide, Jake Sullivan, wrote, demonstrated Mrs. Clinton's "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish." The memo's language put her at the center of everything: "HRC announces ... HRC directs ... HRC travels ... HRC engages," it read.

    Part one of the New York Times story:
    Hillary Clinton,`Smart Power' and a Dictator's Fall

    BTW (none / 0) (#20)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:58:30 AM EST
    Government policies revolve around smart little phrases like "Smart Power." Sprinkle enough in a powerpoint and a new policy is born. Powerpoint and Excel are the realm of fantasy. They can make the most idiotic notions look real and realizable.

    Parent
    The 2 NY Times articles on Libya are (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:01:15 AM EST
    very interesting. Here are 2 quotes from the 2d article.

    "A cynical line would begin to circulate in Washington: In Iraq, the United States had intervened and occupied -- and things had gone to hell. In Libya, the United States had intervened but not occupied -- and things had gone to hell. And in Syria, the United States had neither intervened nor occupied -- and things had still gone to hell."

    "Libya, Mr. Ross said, "was farmed out to the working level. The inattention was not just neglect. It was policy. The president was like, `We are not looking to do another Iraq,'" said Derek Chollet, then handling Libya for the National Security Council."

    I suppose some or many of you will criticize or not agree with Hillary on some of this, but many of the things I saw in the articles are reasons that I like Hillary. She is active and engaged. She is not afraid to take risk. She seeks advice from Bill.

    Parent

    Interesting Morning Joe (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    They are hurt and confused and deeply deeply troubled by Donalds refusal to distance himself from David Duke and the KKK.

    It seems that, at least for the day, Donald has finally jumped the shark.  Does he think, Joe raves, this will help him on Super Tuesday?!?!  I believe he does Joe.  And I believe he might be correct.


    I'm sorry but I find this funny (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:32:59 AM EST
    It's total denial of who the base of the Republican Party  is and and what they think.

    They are not concerned beyond the fact that this will kill him in a general.

    Translation - you are going to win Donald, you don't have to keep being so GD honest.

    Parent

    Scarborough (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:42:41 AM EST
    knows better. He represented the panhandle of FL. Lots of people with the Kluxer mentality there. They're just upset that all the games they have been playing for decades are being verbally vomited out by Trump.

    Parent
    He committed the cardinal sin (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:47:32 AM EST
    Of honesty.  I just heard the best line yet from some NYTimes dweeb - "even  people who are racist don't like it when you talk about it"!

    Omg
    Question for Nick - how many racists do you personally know?
    Cause the ones I know have no problem with it at all.

    Parent

    Same here. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:51:07 AM EST
    The ones I know that are racists are loud and proud about it. Maybe in NY that's the way it is but in at least in the south it's not that way at all.

    Parent
    It's a Giant Game... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    ... but when they think they are in safe company, it can't be held in.

    They will ride around with giant confederate flags, but not one person will say why they really love the good ole days.  They will assume everyone of obvious hispanic heritage is here illegally, even though this land(Texas) was once Mexico.  They will pretend David Duke is the Devil, but go out and vote for the guy he is supporting.  The police say they don't profile, yet the numbers tell a different story almost everywhere.  They claim that voter laws are aimed at reducing a non-existent problem and every solution invariably ends up ensuring less minorities are able to vote.  The claim that religious freedom is great, but no problem backing a candidate who supports a religious litmus test to enter the country.

    It's a giant game of dog whistles, disingenuous rhetoric, and loads of faux outrage.  If it weren't, Trump would have been dead in the water after the Mexican rape and murder comment, and certainly would be a republican pariah after the David Duke non-sense, but in the party that hates racism, a racist is going to be there presidential candidate.  Nothing but a game to the party of Christ.

    IMO if they were loud and proud it wouldn't exist.  They are only loud and proud in the right company, which unfortunately for me, generally means in the company of other white folks.

    Try and find a self identified racist, they don't exist in any real numbers, but by some miracle, their policies and mentality is everywhere in the south.

    Parent

    Scott, they sound exactly (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    like the Hells Angels I worked with years ago in SF.  Individually I could have a conversation with most of them, but collectively riding around, in their perceived glory, they were a bunch of d!ck heads.

    Parent
    I grew up in the Big Bend (none / 0) (#107)
    by Amiss on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 04:52:34 PM EST
    Never felt that way. Perhaps further west toward Pensacola. (shrug) Don't feel you should generalize folks that way. I have spent much of my adult life in Georgia, they were holding open KKK rally' s there.

    Parent
    Wasn't Rosewood in Big Bend ? (none / 0) (#109)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 05:09:10 PM EST
    I'm not defending Ga (none / 0) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:26:55 PM EST
    at all on that account. There's still a large amount of hate groups here in Ga. Way too many sadly. They've expanded out past the Klan into other groups here in GA. They are especially bad in North Ga.

    The neo-nazis apparently are the most active group in the panhandle.

    Parent

    Nevermind (none / 0) (#120)
    by Redbrow on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    The fact that Trump disavowed the endorsement in no uncertain terms on friday.

    Nevermind that Duek clarified to Daily Beast that he does not endorse Trump because Duke hates Israel almost as much as progressives.

    Duke said he doesn't outright endorse Trump, because he is opposed to Trump's policy on Israel and torture, but he plans to vote for him and encourages others to do so as well.

    Nevermind former klansperson Duke distanced himself from the klan 40 years ago when he quit.

    Nevermind that Obama and Clinton have never been asked to disavow former Klansperson and Kkk recruiter Senator Byrd.

    Parent

    New (none / 0) (#27)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:03:44 AM EST
    CNN National poll out  
    Trump 49%
    Rubio 16%
    Cruz 15%
    Carson 10%
    Kasich 6%

    Clinton 55%
    Sanders 38%

    also this

    If Donald Trump won the Republican Party's nomination for the presidency, would you definitely
    support him in the general election in November, probably support him, probably NOT support him,
    or definitely NOT support him in the general election in November?

    Definitely support him 25%
    Probably support him 27%
    Probably not support him 13%
    Definitely not support him 35%
    No opinion 1%

    This question was asked of the 51% of Republicans who do not support him for the nomination. So that probably translates to about 18% of the Republican electorate will definitely not support him in the general election.

    I know it's just a low sample National poll, but I have seen those kind of "never vote for" numbers in several other polls.


    This is going to be (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:07:18 AM EST
    A general election against Hillary Clinton with the balance of the Suoreme Court at stake.

    IMO anyone who expects republicans to stay home WHOEVER is the nominee is misguided.    They will vote for the nominee.

    Parent

    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:20:08 AM EST
    count on them voting for Trump nor would I count on them not voting for Trump. Right now there's a lot of them that are saying they are not going to vote for Trump. They may change their minds and they may not. Just anecdotal but it seems the supreme court doesn't register with Republicans outside of evangelicals.

    Parent
    It will register (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    By November.  Trust me.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:46:13 AM EST
    you have to realize that there are those that think Trump is not a conservative and to those people the supreme court is not a concern. They think he'd appoint another David Souter. They still might show up and vote for him but they're not going to be voting based on the supreme court believe me.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    After months of hearing how a vote for Hillary is a vote to repeal the 2nd amendment, tax your church and force you to marry a gay person we will see if they do.

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:53:14 AM EST
    plays into in general Republicans showing up not exclusively voting on the Supreme Court though.

    I'm quite sure they're going to throw every bit of mud they can think of at her. They're going to scream she's a socialist who is going to take your children away from you. She's going to ruin the lives of men all across America I'm sure they're going to say too. She's going to turn your children gay. You can probably come up with a ton of things they are going to scream. It's what they do. The question is how many people is this going to be effective on. No one knows at this point.

    Parent

    While I agree Somewhat... (none / 0) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:01:49 AM EST
    ... I don't think conservatives trust Trump enough to make the SCOTUS a real bugaboo.  And there is a really good possibility that he could ensure a D majority in Congress.

    There is just way too much video footage of Trump supporting D's or D policies for him to earn their trust.  And I think the idea of voting for Trump scares the S out of a lot of conservatives.

    I also think Trump will pull a lot of opposition voting from people that might not otherwise vote.

    Parent

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    Trump's sister, a federal judge and strongly pro-choice (and has ruled in a partial abortion case against conservatives),  whom Trump has saud woukd 'make a fine nominee for" SCOTUS.

    Obviously, it's his sister, but the conservative heads exploded when he said it.

    Parent

    Ask yourself this (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:35:51 AM EST
    If you are a right winger.   Or even what currently passes as a "moderate", meaning you are willing to allow government to,  in some form, function, and you have the choice of Hillary who you absolutely know would fu@k you and Donald who might fu@k you, you go with Donald.  It's not even that hard.

    This election is going to be about the court in a way and to an extent we have never seen.   Death panels will be remembered fondly.

    Parent

    I Stay Home... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:02:00 PM EST
    ...if my choices are getting F-ed or maybe getting F-ed, then at the very least, I didn't play a part in screwing myself or my values, over.

    I think GWB memories and the buyers remorse of a voting for 'pseudo conservative' are still fresh in a lot of conservative's minds.  They would rather give it to HRC than vote for another wanna be conservative who will almost certainly damage the brand worse than GWB.

    Parent

    I Would Think... (none / 0) (#57)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:43:54 AM EST
    ... there are so many skeletons in his closet that the oppo research team is probably a small army and their only problem is trying to organize the mountains of it, most effectively.

    Cruz has an ad out which plays a circus tune that is entirely Trump quotes, two of them with Trump stating he is very pro-life and another with Trump stating what a great candidate Hillary is.

    Can't find the ad, but this is one clip in the ad.  Of course the ad left out how Trump hates abortion.

    Parent

    You would be right (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:54:32 AM EST
    Heavy equipment needed to excavate  it.

    Will it matter?

    In a general?  You would think.
    In the primary?  IMO no.

    I would just say it's good to remember that the only candidate who's  unfavorable numbers are probably higher than anyone but Donald.   Hillary Clinton.   There is great resistance to Hillary Clinton personally that he will try to exploit.  I've said I think Hillary would win.   But he's pretty good at what he does.

    Good to remember Hillary doesn't just motivate just democrats like Donald doesn't just motivate republicans.

    Parent

    Favorables (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    don't seen to be a factor this year. I guess 16 years of who you want to drink a beer with or go to a BBQ with is something people are sick of. It's the only positive I ever hear about Bernie is his favorable number however it doesn't seem to be moving voters.

    Parent
    He Certainly Moved... (none / 0) (#62)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:17:08 PM EST
    ...primary republicans, but these are people whose choices are famous, crazy, not ready for prime time, craziest, and Kasich.

    Excelling in that bunch isn't that hard.

    I don't know, but I can't imagine HRC not winning fairly easily, but like last round, they will make it a nail bitter just to sell ad space.  Right now the press seems to be turning on Trump, but they will back off again and like 2012, all the sad faces at Fox will only be because they believed the hype and not the reality that Trump/Romney never had a chance.

    Parent

    Belive it (none / 0) (#38)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    or not the Supreme Court nominees are probably not among the biggest issue concerning voters. There is a certain amount of loathing for Trump that crosses party line easily.

    IMO there are plenty of Republicans that would rather spend the next four years obstructing Hillary than supporting/defending Trump.

    Parent

    Christie Whitman's statement (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    The other day, former New Jersey's former Republican Governor Christie Whitman declared that she would vote for Hillary Clinton in the event that her party nominated Donald Trump.  Whitman--also a well-liked moderate Repub & fairly decent EPA Administrator (note: "moderate" is used in a relative sense, of course)--may represent the older longtime Repub women who traditionally supported conservation measures, supported pro-choice generally, lived as activists in their community, etc.  

    While I have no real evidence to support the view that a percentage of educated Republican women may not vote for Trump (and actually move to Clinton) my "gut" tells me that the latest alpha-male fiasco of juvenile r-rated name-calling may effect this female demographic in a way that is "the last straw" motivator.  Partisans typically can swallow a lot--see myself as an example of a Democrat who would be able to give a wide berth to my party should it verge to the extremes--but, as Whitman indicates, a number of her female friends have said that they would follow suit in the situation she described.  IMO, the open characterization throughout the media and throughout the political world today that the Republicans have descended to a school-yard, childish brawl in their primary process may say to certain Republican women that the embarrassment for them & their children is too much.  It is a good possibility because the Repub boy-fight to be Alpha Male might not be so appealing to the mothers nearby.

    Parent

    Well not (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 10:23:27 AM EST
    Erick Erickson
    "I'm absolutely not going to vote for Donald Trump, even if he's the Republican nominee," Erickson told David Axelrod
    He wouldn't lie to us would he?

    Parent
    Yes he would (none / 0) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    Here's the point.   He says this.  Fine. The fact I I have seen literally dozens of Trump detractors rail against Donald with unbelievable venom and then at the end, when forced to, admit they will, in fact, vote for the nominee.

    Hooray for Eric if it's true he is a outlier.

    Parent

    I really suggest (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    The Chris Christie interview from yesterday's THIS WEEK on ABC.

    He really explained this in the starkest and most realistic terms I have seen.    After being hammered by George with everything Donald every said, everything Christie ever said about him and then a generous helping of logic Christie explained it very clearly.

    Shorter
    Donald is going to be the nominee.   I don't want Hillary to be president.    

    Jeff Sessions makes 2.   After tomorrow stand back.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    but you also have Christine Whitman coming out and yanking her endorsement of Christie saying that if Trump is the nominee she's voting for Hillary.

    39% of the population will never ever vote for Hillary. The question is is that the max or can they up the number? Romney was able to up the number 8 points against Obama. Is 47% going to be the max again? Seriously doubt it since Trump is not nearly the candidate Romney was.

    Parent

    Meg Whitman (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:13:37 AM EST
    He discussed that with George

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:15:56 AM EST
    this is Christine Whitman the former governor of NJ though Meg Whitman also started trashing Trump all over the media too.

    Parent
    I guess he's lost (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:17:51 AM EST
    The Whitman vote.

    Parent
    No candy sampler for him (none / 0) (#53)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    Both Whitmans (Christie & Meg) (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:18:36 PM EST
    IMO, the straightforward statement by the former NJ Governor that she & unnamed female friends would not be voting for Trump--but, would vote for Hillary Clinton--is suggestive of a broader issue that the Repubs might face among educated married women Repubs with children.  How they view the descent of the race into open-brawling (and the message to their children that it sends) may well be very different that the message about Alpha Male that the schoolyard behavior sends to Repub males.

    Parent
    Enough testosterone (none / 0) (#125)
    by sallywally on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:27:47 PM EST
    already.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:11:52 AM EST

    In addition to the 14% of Democrats who won't support Clinton, 27% would "support her with some reservations" and 11% would "only back her because she is the nominee."



    Parent
    Ha! who deosn't have reservatons? About any pol? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    She's not asking for undying devotion - a vote will do.

    Parent
    I've said it before (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:28:06 PM EST
    I'm not voting for Prom Queen or a BFF.

    Parent
    Trump is (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:14:57 AM EST
    reaching that magical 50% now it seems.

    Parent
    With 5 candidates (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    Actually, similar numbers show up in '08 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:16:49 AM EST
    and '12 exit polls, according to the (Conservative) Bruce Bartlett piece I mentioned somewhere else.  Those conservatives voted for Obama instead of Dubya.

    According to exit polls in 2008, Obama ended up with 20 percent of the conservative vote. Even in 2012, after four years of relentless conservative attacks, he still got 17 percent of the conservative vote, with 11 percent of Tea Party supporters saying they cast their ballots for Obama.


    Parent
    Truly astounding that that many Repubs (none / 0) (#83)
    by Green26 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:49:18 PM EST
    would support Trump, but at least those numbers seem to indicate that Clinton should get elected fairly easily in a race against Trump.

    Parent
    Good Analysis of Clinton versus Trump (none / 0) (#45)
    by RickyJim on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:01:43 AM EST
    Link
    I think it is correct that who does best among independents will decide the race.

    The only independents who would vote for Trump (none / 0) (#85)
    by Green26 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:53:29 PM EST
    would be ones who truly hate or can't stand Clinton. I just can't see how true independents would support Trump. Maybe they wouldn't vote. It looks like even some Repubs aren't and won't be committed to Trump if he's nominated.

    Parent
    Listening to Marco (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:10:29 PM EST
    I almost believe....

    still, if your catch phrase is "it's not to late", it might be to late.

    Funny thing about Rubio (none / 0) (#80)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:25:30 PM EST
    He seems even more boyish & not-ready-for-prime-time as he tries to imitate the Trumpian name-calling schtick.  From the clips shown, imo, Rubio seems ever the whiny little boy.

    Parent
    If you're choosing between (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    Trump and the imitation Trump, my guess is they choose Trump. I don't expect the Trumpy style Rubio to make up any ground and it may turn off many of his own on the fence voters.

    Parent
    The Idiom.. (none / 0) (#96)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:29:50 PM EST
    Putting on his big boy pants.

    Was designed for Rubio but it's not working, he just looks like Henery Hawk who knows chicken hawks eat chickens, but too young to know what a chicken actually looks like.

    Parent
    Rubio has always had the persona (albeit phony) (none / 0) (#101)
    by CoralGables on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 03:01:16 PM EST
    of an intelligent individual, the Professor Harold Hill of Florida politics if you will. Now he's selling himself as imitation Trump in high heeled boots. In Texas, that would be like choosing to eat krab sushi at a Cuban BBQ joint. That may explain why he could get shutout when they distribute the 155 delegates from Texas tomorrow.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    Nikki Haley talking about when her little boys get punched by a big bully she tells them to punch him right back!  Just like Marco does!

    Holy hell

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:01:13 PM EST
    it's getting him in the news cycle but honestly I'm not too sure it's helping. He now looks to me like he's in middle school screaming at the class bully.

    Not sure it makes much of a difference with the GOP primary voters. I guess we'll see tomorrow.

    Parent

    Well, Rubio has a new, (none / 0) (#82)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    best friend, Hobby Lobby CEO David Green, who expressed his concern about Trump and his appreciation for Marco. "Marco Rubio has impressed us with his preparation and way he carries himself. But most importantly, Marco regularly exhibits humility and gives the glory to God."  

    Meanwhile, back on the godly campaign trail, Rubio is having after Trump, From his Trump wet his pants, to his implication that Trump has a small peen: "he has small hands for how tall he is, and you know what they say about men with small hands...you can't trust him."  Actually, I prefer my old Pee Wee's Playhouse turn at it: You know what they say about men with big boots..big socks.

    Rubio said last summer that Trump has no class, just like President Obama. Now, it is clear that Rubio could not find his class with both hands. Oh, and how much crafts glue wafts through the air at those Hobbly Lobbys. They may need a better entilation system.  That might explain Green.

    Parent

    I would have (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:02:32 PM EST
    thought Cruz would have been more the Hobby Lobby candidate. However Rubio is just as wacko as Cruz on the issues. So there's that.

    Parent
    Rubio is just as wacky on the issues (none / 0) (#89)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    without the icky 'I want to punch him in the face' Cruz factor.

    Parent
    Sanders (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    Gets the endorsement of hedge fund manager Rep. Alan Grayson.

    Kinda not in line with his message.

    Meanwhile (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    The Congressional Hispanic Caucus' political arm will formally endorse Hillary Clinton today.

    Parent
    Being a hedge fund manager (none / 0) (#72)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:06:27 PM EST
    doesn't, automatically, make one the devil.

    Rep. Grayson is one of bright lights in the practically void Progressive faction of the Democratic Party.

    Unless you know something I don't?

    Parent

    Don't mind our JB... (none / 0) (#116)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:05:41 PM EST
    She's can't help herself when it comes to sh:ttin' on Sanders.

    Grayson is kind of a d:ck though, as much as I often  agree with and appreciate his positions.


    Parent

    Hey, that's my representative d:ck you're talking (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:57:48 PM EST
    about!

    Yes he can be a loudmouth loose cannon, but I appreciate having a progressive rep for once in my lifE. I respect his opinion but I don't think it has a whole lot of weight. I. Sure he will gladly take Clintons help in FL with his Senate campaign in the fall.

    Parent

    Sorry kdog (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:23:35 PM EST
    Bernie doesn't get a pass (as much as you would like it) when he has less than savory people endorse him, or people who work for interests that are in direct opposition to what he says he believes.

    You always wanna hold Bernie to a much different standard....

    Parent

    What control (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:28:22 AM EST
    does Bernie have over who endorses him?  Unless you're alleging Bernie is taking dirty Wall St. money from Grayson.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 08:54:22 AM EST
    It's coordinated.  Leaving aside the fact that Grayson chose to endorse entirely based on the results of an online poll, these endorsement announcements are coordinated with the campaign - for timing, etc. (Trump, notwithstanding).

    But again, you are just more forgiving of Bernie for things that you would rant about if Hillary did the exact same thing.

    Parent

    You are mistaken... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:02:27 AM EST
    I would not rant about an Alan Grayson endorsement of Clinton...nor even a Warren Buffet endorsement.

    You should take a page from Buffet and other Clinton supporters who are able to endorse Clinton while also appreciating what Sanders has contributed to the discourse and Clinton's current positions.

     

    Parent

    I do appreciate him (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:19:53 AM EST
    I think he's a good man, even if I think some of his ideas are a bit kooky and unrealistic.

    But if you're gonna rail at Wall Street and candidates who accept funding from them, then you better have clean hands.

    Parent

    I don't know what... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:35:54 AM EST
    you think your link proves.  Karl Rove plays Machiavelli, wow that's a real scoop! LOL

    Parent
    Sanders is still accepting Wall Streert money (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:21:03 AM EST
    Even if it isn't direct.

    As well as SuperPac help.

    That's all I'm saying.  He ain't the purist you think he is.

    Parent

    I Bet He's Got a 401k Too... (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    ...same with a lot of his supporters, the hypocrites...  Yeah, I am not laughing with you.

    Isn't enough that your messiah is going to easily win, you have to pretend that her direct ties to Wall Street are inconsequential while trying nail Sanders to the wall with indirect ties, aka as an endorsement, not to be confused with money, from a guy that use to manage a hedge fund.

    That is one hell of thin line you are trying to walk and something you will most certainly see from the right in the near future, making ridiculous notions about people who endorse a candidate, cough, cough, Jeremiah Wright.

    Grayson is awesome, and I am positive he will back HRC when the time comes and then we will be treated to some version of why that is now a good thing, from you.

    The reincarnation of ABG, AJB.

    Parent

    Feel better, pumpkin? (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 01:12:14 PM EST
    Getting out all that rage because your candidate is getting beat?

    I hear Bernie supporters have now posted over 9000 threats on Elizabeth Warren's Facebook page - maybe you can find some comfort over there.

    Grayson is an idiot, who is going to lose his bid fot the Senate.

    Scott = new squeaky.  Lots of huffing and puffing and quick with the insults.

    Bless your heart.

    Parent

    Funny... (none / 0) (#156)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 02:09:36 PM EST
    ... considering this is at least the 20th time I have specifically told you I am not a Sanders supporter, but at TL speaking ill of the HRC means Bernie is my life long lover.

    I see your idol worship is driving you to label me as a troll even though I am a regular.  I guess it's just a sign of things to come, ABG-esque unstable defense of a demagogue.  Like you, his biggest criticism was that the hero wasn't crushing the naysayers with greater force.  Not easy shoes to fill, but so far, two gold stars.

    Please more 1's just to show me just how dedicated you are to the cause, because I am not quite getting it, if only you had a zero or a negative at your disposal.  Damn the internets.

    I heard Bernie once walked down Wall Street and picked up a dime on the sidewalk...  Sell Out !!

    Parent

    You're funny, squeaky-lite (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    So ridiculous....

    Parent
    Bullsh*t... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    Karl Rove is taking Wall St. money, Hillary Clinton is taking Wall St. money, Bernie Sanders is not taking Wall St. money.  

    Leave the spinning to Spinderella pal.

    Parent

    As the saying goes, "politics (none / 0) (#117)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:10:21 PM EST
    makes  strange bedfellows."

    Parent
    And strange quarrels! (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:18:38 PM EST
    I can't wait till this is over pal, it's a toxic way to pick a figurehead;)

    Parent
    I'm with you, mi compadre. (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by caseyOR on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 07:42:44 PM EST
    i cannot wait for us all to be back, more or less, on the same side.

    Disagreements are one thing, and to be expected when thinking people congregate. Bitter quarrels among friends are another thing entirely.

    Parent

    Mmm... (none / 0) (#122)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:07:17 PM EST
    Hedge fund manager - big banks - you know.

    And he's under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for a fund he managed that's based in the Cayman Islands.

    Wonder if he'll release his records to Bernie's satisfaction?

    Parent

    Just so you don't (2.00 / 1) (#131)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 11:10:21 PM EST
    continue sounding foolish....

    A hedge fund manager is like any other money manager with the exception that hedge funds are not restricted to simply buying and/or selling equities. They are normally retained by wealthier individuals because their range of services include selling short, and, trading in other instruments such as options and futures, and not restricted to simply buying and/or selling stocks.

    It's a completely legitimate industry, and, because they tend to have far more financial training and experience their clients tend to be considerably wealthier than average investors.

    Guilt by association is a really unseemly endeavor, especially on a site like this one. Unethical financial advisors, like unethical lawyers, are a blight on their respective occupations, as the millions of fair, honest, and ethical lawyers & managers will attest.

    Parent

    I don't know Shooter... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 09:13:54 AM EST
    perhaps legitimatized, but certainly a morally questionable way to make a living in my humble opinion...it's an age old debate that's as old as money itself.

    The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

    - Aristotle

    Since they [usurers] sell nothing other than the expectation of money, that is to say, time, they sell days and nights. But the day is the time of clarity, and the night the time of repose. It is, therefore, not just for them to receive eternal light and eternal rest.

    - Tabula Exemplorum, 13th Century


    Parent

    I don't know, kdog (none / 0) (#145)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:48:40 AM EST
    There isn't any subject, any simple subject, that you can't elevate into some sort of philosophical debate regarding humanity: "What is the meaning of life?" Personally, I don't know, and, my jock scholarship didn't require me to find out.

    It was a simple question about a simple topic; What is a hedge fund manager? And, the answer is, a hedge fund manager is a financial advisor who has many, varied financial tools available to try and attain a greater than average return on investment.

    We live in a country where a guy who plays baseball signs a $300,000,000 contract, and, that's fine. So, if you're going to get biblical, O.K. then. Just fire up a doobie, and contemplate the metaphysical vagaries of usury, and is it a one-way ticket to hell?

    I really don't know, my friend, and, well, you know.  

    Parent

    Good answer... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    the person who says they know is usually the furthest from knowing anything.

    One of the greatest signs of intelligence, or better yet wisdom, is doubt.  

    Firing up a doobie before a big old doubt & ponder session is what I call a hobby.

    Parent

    a hobby? (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 12:29:17 PM EST
    you always told me it was a calling.

    Parent
    Both... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 12:55:57 PM EST
    my hobbies are my calling...the morally questionable way I make a living to fund my hobbies certainly isn't! ;)

    "I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you different."

    - Kurt Vonnegut

    Parent

    Thank you for that patronizing reply (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 05:30:58 AM EST
    I know what a hedge fund manager is. But maybe a little more mansplaining might help so I fully understand it because I didn't learn any of that while studying for an MBA.

    My point was that it is optics - decrying Wall Street then coming out with an endorsement by someone who makes their money based on...Wall Street. And one who is being investigated for using questionable practices at that. Grayson not getting questioned for "guilt by association."  He's a questionable endorsement based on allegations of his own behavior and business practices.

    I hope I used enough small words so you understand that.

    But just so I don't keep getting mischaracterized about never writing bad about Hillary, Grayson was named to her Florida Leadership Council in November. He later released a statement clarifying he didn't officially endorse her. So, boo to both of them.

    Parent

    Justice Thomas asks a question! (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    First time in 10 years!

    Apologies all the way around, (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    we had it wrong all these years. Thomas was the master, Scalia, the puppet.

    Parent
    But nothing I've read so far tells (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:46:32 PM EST
    me what his question was.

    Parent
    "Does this micorphone work?" (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:50:42 PM EST
    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:59:57 PM EST
    He probably just wanted to remind everyone there is only one current vacancy, not two.  

    Parent
    I think Scalia left him some questions (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:17:47 PM EST
    in an envelope marked 'to be opened upon my death'. No telling how many hearings they will last him.  

    Parent
    Don't you wish SCOTUS (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    permitted video so we could see how the faces of the Court and the attorney reacted?

    Parent
    No video... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    lets at least pretend some things are still sacred.

    Besides, video evidence might not be on the par of our imaginations.  And think of the sketch artists!

    Parent

    Hey, (none / 0) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:08:00 PM EST
    get me a coke.

    Parent
    Fox: (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    With about 10 minutes left in the hourlong session, Justice Department lawyer Ilana Eisenstein was about to sit down after answering a barrage of questions from other justices. Thomas then caught her by surprise, asking whether the violation of any other law "suspends a constitutional right."


    Parent
    I think he was trying (none / 0) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    to insert his favorite, the second amendment right to bear arms without any restrictions,  into the statutory case before them, placing a line between misdemeanor and felony convictions in fire arms purchases.  Justice Breyer helped him out--save it for another case.

    Parent
    It concerned gun rights, I understand (none / 0) (#79)
    by christinep on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    Well... after all, his bench-mate J. Scalia is no longer there to speak for him.

    Parent
    Yes, the case involved (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:50:08 PM EST
    a guy convicted of domestic violence. Does he have a constitutional right, under the second amendment, to continue to carry firearms.  Why not. what could go wrong?  

    Parent
    I Think... (none / 0) (#105)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    ... what Thomas was asking is if any other misdemeanor suspends constitutional rights.  Obviously a felony does, but I think the only case in which a misdemeanor does is with DV.

    Parent
    Netflix (none / 0) (#88)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:11:09 PM EST
    Recently I have watched the mini-series 'The Heavy Water War', which is a docudrama of the real life destruction of a heavy water facility in Norway that the Nazi's needed to make an atomic bomb.  Fantastic.  But it's done in at least three different languages, so subtitles needed unless you understand German and Norwegian, but I think it adds to the movie, seeing Nazi Germans speaking German rather than English.

    I also watched 'Fresh Meat' which is another freshmen in college series, but it's in England.  Not sure why, but I find their dumb humor much better than ours.  Good show if you want light and funny.

    Started 'Sherlock' with Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes & the guy from the Hobbit movies, Martin Freeman as Doctor Watson.  So far so good, but each episode is long, like 90 mins long and there are a lot of them.

    Star Talk with Neil DeGrasse Tyson is surprisingly bad.  It's more of a discussion about the Universe in movies than about the Universe.  

    And I was very disappointed with 'The Story of Maths' which is basically an examination of the history of math.  How could that be bad, after episode two it goes from history to high level abstract math.  Too bad, because it started strong, and especially interesting how the concept of zero began and evolved.  But I doubt many care that fractions have a different a infinity than whole numbers.

    New Season of House of Cards drops this Friday (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    a light at the end of the tunnel of this week...

    Parent
    It's my undersanding the Nazi's (none / 0) (#95)
    by McBain on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    got something wrong with their science and probably weren't going to be able to make an atomic bomb with heavy water?  Does anyone know if that's correct?

    I watched the first season of Sherlock.  Not bad but I got burned out after a while.  I enjoyed the UK series Broadchurch and the mini series Run. Both streaming on Netflix.  

    Parent

    loved Broadchurch and (none / 0) (#102)
    by Suisser1 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    Hinterland as well, and Rectify, Salamander, and Bloodlines. I always feel I get my money's worth with the Netflix subscription - unlike the money I waste on cable

    Parent
    Loved all of the above (none / 0) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    Except I haven't seen Run.  If you get AZ Prime, Fortitude has a lot of the same tone and intensity.  Also The Fall on Netflix.

    Parent
    Watching Fortitude made me wonder (none / 0) (#134)
    by Nemi on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 06:59:43 AM EST
    - or rather sigh - Stanley Tucci! Where have you been all these years! :)

    Parent
    Yes, that is my understanding. (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    The Germans were unsuccessful in their attempts to use heavy water to breed plutonium from which a bomb could be made. However, that approach is a viable one if sufficient heavy water is available.  The Germans did try graphite but the quality used was too impure to enable a chain reaction so they dropped that approach for deuterium oxide as a neutron moderator.

    Parent
    After looking up heavy water (none / 0) (#142)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    I'm still confused, but not worried, since it is basically harmless. Heavy water is not more radioactive than normal water and can be consumed.  It would be basically impossible to poison a person with heavy water since we are composed of 50 to 75% water it would take a very long time to use it as a poison.  When they enrich the heavy water for use in nuclear energy plants, it does become dangerous, and even more so when used as a coolant.  Heavy water is referred to as deuterium oxide and is sold in various grades of purity.  Argentina is the world's largest producer of heavy water, exporting 200 tons annually.  Whew, I hope this is right...

    Parent
    The Extra Nuetron... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 01:49:35 PM EST
    ... in the hydrogen isotope doesn't absorb neutrons from the uranium which allows the reaction to occur, normal water absorbs them.

    It's not used anymore for bombs because they figured out how to mine  concentrated plutonium from the Earth right after the war.

    It's still H2O, but the hydrogen, heavy hydrogen, has an extra neutron, but electrons and protons are the same.  You could drink or bath in it, with few exceptions, it would react and act just like regular water.

    Think of carbon12 and carbon14.  They count a specific version(isotope) for dating, C-12 or C-14, the isotopes are due to radiation(neutrons) from space.  But it makes the carbon more stable, so it's half life is longer, and we can count them to figure out how old organic materials are.  Unlike heavy water, those carbon isotopes are plentiful in nature.

    Parent

    Somewhat... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    ... the series above kind of implies that Werner Heisenberg was using the Nazi's to fund his nuclear research into reactors.  But not sure because he seems pretty pro military at times, they never make it clear whether he was acting, changed his mind, or if he just simply miscalculated.

    But in order to make a bomb you need Plutonium, which can only be made with a reactor(at the time).  They never even had a reactor.

    Parent

    There's a really good documentary about (none / 0) (#106)
    by McBain on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 04:41:38 PM EST
    atomic bombs and all the crazy testing.... Trinity and Beyond.  I don't think it streams on Netflix anymore but well worth viewing.

    Parent
    Also Showing Nazi Mega Weapons... (none / 0) (#110)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    ...which they had things like tanks the size of a small house and other really big things that failed because they ran out of either time or money.  Had they invaded Brittan and waited on Russia it would have been a different outcome.

    They had reliable jet technology and rocket technology, both used, but by then they didn't have the resources to put into real production.  That would have bought enough time to develop a nuclear weapon and they would have used it freely.  

    My opinion.


    Parent

    The Luftwaffe's Me-262 was ... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:11:33 PM EST
    ... the world's first operational combat aircraft. The Allies had no comparable fighter aircraft to counter it in air-to-air combat, but U.S. Army Air Corps personnel soon learned to cope with the very real threat posed by the Me-262.

    First, it was fairly easy for USAAFE intelligence officers to quickly identify the aircraft's home bases from aerial reconnaissance photos, because the Me-262 needed much longer runways to operate than the Luftwaffe's other conventional piston-driven fighters, such as the Me-109 and FW-190. Then, they deployed P-51 Mustangs and P-47 Thunderbolts in ground attack roles against these bases, to destroy the German fighter jets while they were still parked.

    Similarly, the German V-2 rocket was the world's first ballistic missile. Again, the Allies had nothing to counter it, but eventually coped with the threat by identifying the Germans' rocket launch bases that were mostly in Holland and northwestern Germany, and attacking them from the air through a strategic bombing campaign.

    At war's end, the United States military captured Dr. Wernher von Braun (who had designed the V-2) and his fellow rocket scientists who were then working out of Peenemunde in northern Germany, spirited them out of the country before the Russians could get their hands on them, and immediately put them to work for us instead. This jumpstarted both our country's ballistic missile and space programs.

    When NASA astronaut Alan Shepard became the first American in space back in 1961, the launch vehicle used to catapult his "Freedom 7" Mercury capsule skyward was a Redstone missile, which bore an uncanny resemblance to the original V-2 rocket design -- hardly surprising, really, since by that time, Dr. von Braun was an American citizen and heading up NASA's Space Flight Center.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    They Also Had... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    ...some sort of amalgamation of the two, a rocket with a pilot.  They were suicide craft that were used near the end, the problem was all the experienced pilots were dead, so they were using people with little experience to fly them.  
    Fieseler Fi 103R

    Some other rocket/jet powered oddities:

    Nearly everything they were working on was technology we use today and way ahead of it's time.  From fixed wing, to drones, to aircraft operating in orbit, to ballistic missiles launched at sea.  But they were f'en crazy and their ambitions far exceeded their resources.  Many of the later jet/rocket aircraft used wood, low grade metals, slave labor, and unqualified operators/pilots, which added to their inability to use them effectively.

    Germany was also testing explosives laced with uranium on prisoners with 'terrific' results.  Imagine all the good in the world people with those kinds of ambitions and technology could have done.  Instead they gave the world great ways to kill each other.

    Parent

    Re: the Schwerer Gustav. (none / 0) (#159)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    I've often wondered how that gun could stay on a railtrack when firing, given that its recoil must've been something very fierce.

    In the early part of the 20th century, the U.S. Army's Coast Artillery installed huge (from 13-22 in.) guns all along Oahu's south shore to guard the seaborne approaches to Honolulu, most of which could lob shells 20+ miles out to sea at approaching enemy warships. And a few of 22-in. variety emplaced at Ft. Barrette in west Oahu could fire shells clear across the entire length of the island, which meant that their range enveloped all of Oahu.

    (Oahu is literally ringed with numerous and long-since-abandoned military sites and bunkers, which are relics and reminders of that earlier era. Ft. Barrette in west Oahu is preserved as part of Kapolei Regional Park.)

    To account for the huge guns' recoil, the pads upon which they sat and their redoubts were so heavily reinforced with concrete and steel that trying to remove them even today would be a very difficult and expensive endeavor. That's why so many of these WWII-era gun emplacements are still standing, including one in the heart of Waikiki at Ft. DeRussy called Battery Randolph, which is now the U.S. Army Museum of Hawaii.

    Battery Randolph's 14-inch guns were only fired once, during war games in 1914. Waikiki back then was a bedroom community and not the resort district it is today, and the concussion from those guns was so great that windows of homes throughout the area were shattered. It proved an expensive exercise and lesson, given the Army's limited budgets back in the day, and so it was decided that those guns would no longer be fired in practice to avoid incurring any further repair bills.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I've seen shows about some of the crazy (none / 0) (#132)
    by McBain on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 01:05:49 AM EST
    Nazi weapons they used or were testing.  One such weapon was an ridiculously long cannon that had more range than anything else at that time.  

    If I'm not mistaken, Joe Kennedy Jr. lost his life flying a top secret mission to destroy that cannon. The plan was to pilot a plane a certain distance and then parachute out and have the plane crash into and destroy the target using remote control. I'm not exactly sure what went wrong.

    Kind of interesting to think about this... if Joe Kennedy Jr. doesn't die in combat would he have been president instead of John? If so, do the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missle Crisis and Moon Landing happen?  

    Parent

    During the First World War, ... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 10:38:36 AM EST
    ... the Germans developed a long-range artillery piece that could rain shells upon the city of Paris from a distance of 70 miles. For Parisians, it proved to be a very demoralizing weapon, which of course was the Germans' intent.

    The Germans didn't spare the British citizenry, either, having also developed the first large aircraft capable of strategic bombing, the Zeppelin. These rigid dirigibles flew at a high enough altitude that they were untouchable, given the weaponry of the era, and their early raids on London and southeastern England were conducted with impunity and were similarly demoralizing.

    German military technology was very much our superior in both world wars. Our own country's unique advantages in those two conflicts were our industrial production capacity and relatively large population, which offset the Germans' technological advantage and eventually overwhelmed their war machine through both industrial output and sheer numbers.

    (Further, many Germans after the Second World War expressed amazement at the capacity of both the Americans and British to cope with serious setbacks and innovate their way around otherwise daunting obstacles, often on the fly. Of course, necessity is the mother of invention.)

    It is telling that the U.S. industrial complex did not reach its peak performance level until March-April 1945, which by then Nazi Germany had collapsed and Imperial Japan was teetering on the precipice of total defeat. By that time, we had nearly 18 million men and women in uniform, and we had not only fully armed ourselves but also to a great extent our major allies.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Sherlock (none / 0) (#97)
    by robert72 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    I am very fond of the series - in three series and one special there are only 10 episodes in all. In my opinion, two are weak - ep. 2 of series one and two can be missed - they don't contribute to the over-all story line. Cumberbatch and Freeman are wonderful. Episode 2 of series 3 is different, too - Watson's wedding... it seems very 'soft'. This was apparently done on purpose, as the next episode is quite dark with several astonishing twists.
    I also like the British police drama series Scott and Bailey. Great binge watching!

    Parent
    The Watson's episode is great though (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    Different and not as dark, but very funny and touching. And there was still a good mystery involved. One of my favorite episodes.

    Parent
    That's true... (none / 0) (#108)
    by robert72 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 04:58:50 PM EST
    I also enjoyed the special, The Abominable Bride, set in Victorian times. I had to watch it twice to 'get' everything - it goes very fast and people talk very quickly. It is very funny, too, and the way the characters are shown in this different setting is great.

    Parent
    Yes! I liked it and also got (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 05:40:07 PM EST
    completely lost- have been meaning to watch it again.

    Can't wait for the new season!

    Parent

    The Sherlock (none / 0) (#111)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    Series!
    I started it several weeks ago, usually watch 1 episode per week, have already finished season 2 , I think I only have 3 episodes left.
    I think it captured Holmes brilliantly, I forget how obnoxious he was at times. Cumberpatch is perfect for the role.
    And Freeman is a perfect Watson, adding more character, intelligence and compassion to the role  than the one most remembered for the role, Nigel Bruce.
    A must see for any Baker Street Irregular

    Parent
    Max Boot (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    tweeted that Donald Trump proves that everything the Democrats have been saying about the GOP for years is true.

    The Boston Herald in reporting (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    via the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth, that more than 16,300 Democrats in Massachusetts have left the party and become independents since January 1.   Another 3500 have joined the GOP.

    In the same time frame, the state GOP lost 5911.


    Cheney, 'fixing' intelligence (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    since the Ford administration. NSA Archives- read it

    this is really annoying (none / 0) (#126)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 08:43:00 PM EST
    I keep getting emails from Sanders campaign saying things about Hillary implying she is dishonest etc etc...don't know why they claimed they were going to run a clean campaign but they aren't and at this point I think Sen Sanders isn't very honest himself....what say you??

    I just hand a long chat (none / 0) (#129)
    by Suisser1 on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:46:41 PM EST
    with a solid Dem (about 50 yrs old) who kept harping on Hillary and WS and $ and taint. Honestly, she couldn't point to one single thing beyond that 2004 ( I think) Warren video and Kissinger to support her HRC distain. Firmly in the Sanders camp. Says she will vote for her, but with "misgivings". So bloody frustrating.

    Parent
    Bill Murray is running for president (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 29, 2016 at 09:39:42 PM EST
    It did not appear to be an Onion article but who tf knows any more.

    As to who's responsible, who knows? It wouldn't surprise me if Murray himself was in on the joke. But from everything I've read, it isn't true.

    Parent
    Yes it is a hoax (none / 0) (#148)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    After speaking to the managers of both his upper Hudson River home, and his Charleston home, they confirmed, after speaking with Bill Murray, he is not running for president.  He said he is having too much fun making movies, not to mention money.  Many of us got to know him in Aspen when he portrayed Hunter Thompson in the film "Where the Buffalo Roam".

    Parent
    Good to hear (none / 0) (#152)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 12:49:28 PM EST
    I like him too much to want to be mad at him for messing around with this election!

    Parent
    Elizabeth Warren endorsed him, too! (none / 0) (#160)
    by Towanda on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    Or, y'know,not.

    Speaking of hoaxes:  I cyberwandered over to that Big Orange Place last night to watch that hoax become the subject of half a dozen desperation diaries at that supposedly reality-based site.

    Parent

    If she doesn't endorse tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2016 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    After MA has voted, she will be rolled out at the end if HRC wins the nomination as a way to bring Bernie supporters back into the fold, although her endorsement doesn't mean as much as it would have last month.

    If she really was going to endorse Bernie, she would have done it awhile ago.

    Parent