home

Thursday Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Mar 24, 2016 at 08:51:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Thread.

< Another Primary Night | Pentagon Says We're Starting to Win in Mosul >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread | 196 comments (196 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    State-Sponsored Terrorism: (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 24, 2016 at 10:07:52 PM EST
    The Republican Georgia legislature has passed HB 757, a religious liberty law, which is now on the desk for signature/veto by the Republican governor.  The bill is, in essence, neither about religion nor liberty. Rather, it codifies into Georgia law hatred toward gays, and, particularly, fear of, and retaliation for, Obergefell v Hodges. (although since the legalization of same sex marriage it has, as Evangelicals feared, undermined traditional marriage--just look at the Alabama Governor, he became divorced from his wife of 50 years since Obergefell).

     In addition to the usual and customary " I refuse to bake for gays, or provide flowers for a gay wedding, because sincerely held beliefs trump the rights of those seeking commercial services offered, the Georgia bill protects against being forced to attend a wedding if you do not want to, from the bill:

     "all individuals shall be free to attend or not attend, at their discretion, the solemnization of any marriage, performance of any rite or administration of any sacrament in the exercise of their rights to free exercise of religion."  

    Clearly, a solution in search of a problem. But, then this is a trait of Republicans: guarding against voter fraud and, the newest one: fear of transgendered using a bathroom on the basis of gender by identity rather than by birth.

     North Carolina's Republican legislature and governor placed into law a bill that blocks Charlotte's ordinance on trans use of bathrooms, and, also, prohibits any NC city from passing such ordinances as well as passing any non-discrimination ordinances.

     North Carolina ignored federal law as well as the Supreme Court ruling, Romer v Evans (1996) that invalidated a Colorado measure that forbade municipalities from passing gay non-discrimination ordinances. The SC held, in that case, that the Equal Protection Clause forbids  singling out a class of citizens and imposing a disability on those persons alone, resulting in a bare desire to harm minorities.

    In both Georgia and N.C, the business and sports community has made itself clear that it does not subscribe to discrimination. Indiana is still reeling from its attempts at discrimination masquerading as sincerely held belief to discriminate. It is ironic that the cities, such as Atlanta and Charlotte, are most likely to be the most visible, and least deserving, of those affected, but such pressure can not be avoided.

    solution in search of a problem? (none / 0) (#2)
    by linea on Thu Mar 24, 2016 at 10:39:31 PM EST
    I found the bill (see below) and it seems to refer to ministers and such not feeling pressured to officiate at weddings due to the concern of decrimination lawsuits. Not sure if this applies to a Justice-of-the-Peace. The language is a bit obtuse to me.

    http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20152016/161054.pdf

    It also seems to permit religious organizations to refuse to rent facilities to groups that ithey disagrees with. I didn't find a reference to businesses not providing cakes or flowers for gay weddings but maybe I missed it? Also didn't read anything about transexual bathooms.

    Parent

    I'm sure you are correct (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:36:50 AM EST
    And that would be why companies are leaving GA like rats off a sinking ship.  Disney, the NFL and AMC (who has brought billions to the GA economy with the most popular show on tv The Walking Dead and) others are saying they will not do business there if this becomes law.

    I'm sure you are correct.  It's really "no big deal"


    Parent

    Fun Fact (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 10:51:18 AM EST
    The Walking Dead films near where my brother lives in Tyrone, GA. There is a huge studio that was built in that area a few years ago, I believe by a British company, to film movies, TV, etc. We went to see it from outside the fence when it was under construction. My sister in law has applied for extra work.

    It has brought a lot of really good jobs to an area that is basically a bedroom community for Atlanta. It would really be awful to lose it - they need that new economy.

    Parent

    And that's just one (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    Then there is the NFL and Disney.   We are literally talking about billions.  

    A friend tried to be a zombie and was culled because he was to, um, rotund.  Ever notice there are no fat zombies?  I do know a couple of people who have been zombies.  I even recognized one in an episode.

    My friend joked that just as Lord of the Rings employed every gay man in NZ as an elf, WD has employed every thin person in GA as zombies.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 11:01:05 AM EST
    For any fans, yes, there was the one who came apart in the well.  So there was one.

    Parent
    ha! My sister in law would be a good zombie then. (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    She should have gone out for that. Actually she has a good face for that kind of make-up too - very good bone structure! She went out for a Cameron Diaz flick about being pregnant. Just as basically a mom-extra. Seemed right up her alley! She may have only tried that one time. I think she did not like all the waiting around,etc. She has kid pickup schedule issues.

    Plus she does not get along great with people. I think she managed to have an argument with one of the production assistants. Probably on an extra-blacklist.

    Parent

    ruffian, they'll turn that place (none / 0) (#192)
    by fishcamp on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    into a 24 hour indoor tennis joint, like they did in LA with  24 hour tennis at the old,  gigantic sound and film stages.  Break out that racquet...

    Parent
    Maybe, just maybe, (none / 0) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, will take a look over the border into North Carolina and observe the firestorm. Indiana seems is too far off and he may not have traveled that far north.

     Deal is term-limited and his second term runs through 2018. Deal did say earlier this year that he would not back any bill that discriminated against Georgians, and the state needed to get with the program (i.e., modernity). It would seem that he would have already vetoed HB 757, but he is now dithering.

     North Carolina's Governor McCrory is running for re-election and hoped this "bathroom bill" will galvanize his wacko base.  And, it is an indication of how the survivors of the overheated clown car, Trump and Cruz, are having ripple effects into state politics.

    The North Carolina bill is sweepingly onerous, eliminating anti-discrimination protections for all gays in addition to the bathroom bill part. Republicans continue to fight these imaginary problems, because they have no programs for the real ones.  So hard to get elected with the slogan: "vote for me and I promise to do nothing." Better to have a bogey man and get the base under the bassinet.  

    Oh, and while the NC legislature was at it, why not add this to the bathroom bill: Cities are prohibited from setting a minimum wage higher than $7.25/hour.  Another solution in search of a problem since local jurisdictions in NC generally do not have the authority to pass any minimum wage requirements. And, another thing, let's strip veterans of anti-discrimination protections while we are at it. Tack'm on.  Done.  

    Parent

    Georgia is Stuck on Self Destructive (none / 0) (#60)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:32:13 PM EST
    A couple of years ago the Governing Geniuses of Georgia enacted anti immigration legislation that left their agricultural harvest rotting on the vine.

    Parent
    Not to be left out (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 10:58:44 PM EST
    Alabama Illegal Immigrant Crackdown Destroys Farm Business

    "Last fall Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley signed a tough law combating illegal immigration, which prompted undocumented workers to flee the state. Few locals will perform the grueling work of picking crops, and farmers stuck in a agricultural system built on illegal labor are struggling to find replacements before their produce rots."

    And, this answers the question I've been posing as to why no President, Democrat or Republican, has done anything about "our borders." Its been a straw argument for slimy politicians for generations.

    I've been pounding this argument for years now. And, its not just field work that Americans won't do. Who do you think makes the beds and cleans the rooms in motels/hotels? Ditto for kitchen staffs, and, laborers in the construction & excavating industries, also.

    Parent

    I don't understand. (none / 0) (#110)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    Are you assuring me that this bill is no big deal? Or or you telling me that I said the bill was no big deal?

    I simply posted the link (in the wrong format, my bad) and described what I understood the bill to cover. I was actually expecting all the legal experts here to expound on the implications of this bill.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:37:54 AM EST
    If you are going to comment here you might want to learn to link or your comments will be deleted.

    Parent
    put your links in html format (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 10:08:50 AM EST
    or your comments will be deleted. Long urls skew the site.

    Parent
    I didn't know. (none / 0) (#111)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:07:03 AM EST
    I'm sorry.

    Parent
    This kind of (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:26:35 AM EST
    legislation is the perfect example of Atlanta Metro vs. the rest of the state.

    The Walking Dead and other shows are filmed here and they have said if Deal signs it they are packing up and leaving along with companies already notifying Deal they are canceling conventions here in Atlanta.

    So the question is does Deal bow down to the fundamentalists or not? Either way it's pretty much ripping the GOP apart here in GA much like what is happening all over the nation with the GOP.

    Parent

    Without reading anything (none / 0) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:40:29 AM EST
    On the subject of Deals mood I'm betting he will find a way to let it die.

    Gobs of money are at stake and we are talking about republicans.

    Parent

    Who knows (none / 0) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:49:46 AM EST
    with Deal. Last year he said he would sign it if it was in line with federal legislation. This bill is apparently worse than the one that the legislature came up with the last time. These are the fruits of pandering to radical fundamentalists. The GA economy has been poor for a long time now. No matter what Deal does he is going to lose. You can't dance with the radical fundamentalists in the state for years and then not deliver. So like the GOP in the rest of the country this bill is probably going to split the GOP apart.

    Parent
    On a related subject (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:22:55 AM EST
    Sometimes LOL is the only sane and appropriate response-

    An actor who has played Jesus in traditional Spanish Easter parades for 30 years says he has been banned from the role for at least two years because he is gay.

    Ramón Fossati says he was told he could not perform the role in the traditional parade to mark Easter Sunday until 2019 because he exposed a naked shoulder and waved his arms in an "ostentatious" way last year.

    The Junta Mayor de Semana Santa Marinera, which governs the brotherhoods in Valencia which organise the Holy Week celebrations, accused Mr Fossati of "ostentation and parody" and appearing to give "false blessings" to the crowd.

    False blessings??
    The mind boggles

    Parent

    He was fined, which is common (none / 0) (#67)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    according to this report.

    He was originally fined €300 (£237) following the parade last year but it was reduced to €60 (£47) on appeal and he was banned from the parade by the Santísimo Cristo del Salvador brotherhood.

    Easter processions are strictly regulated by religious authorities in Spain to prevent too much flesh being exposed or inappropriate religious gestures.

    Women have been fined in the past for showing cleavage or wearing dresses above the knee.

    Authoritarian B/S like this is the dank dark dream of many American religionistas.

    Here's Fossati in his Jesus suit.  That's pretty serious embroidery for a humble carpenter's robe.  It's not so fancy, though, for a guy supposedly capable of snapping his fingers and creating a universe. Have you ever wondered just what a God would wear?  Or where it would wear it?

    Parent

    The things no campaign wants to see in print (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:28:13 AM EST
    A Ted Cruz-affiliated Super PAC, Keep the Promise I, donated $500,000 to rival Carly Fiorina's presidential campaign in July 2015.

    Things that make sleuths dig deep.

    Don't dig, just google (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ragebot on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:40:21 AM EST
    Cruz and national enquirer

    Parent
    Stones perform for one million Cubans (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 11:53:30 AM EST
    this is more important than all the tangos and "waves" Obama can schedule


    The Rolling Stones arrived in Havana Thursday night, ahead of Friday's free concert at a sports arena in the Cuban capital, an event that's expected to draw more than one million people.
    Diplo and Major Lazer (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 12:33:50 PM EST
    drew 450,000. It appears that any act can pull close to half a million or more.

    Parent
    Rock and Roll (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 12:47:06 PM EST
    Is a very dangerous virus.

    Parent
    Lots of college men suing their schools (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 03:19:58 PM EST
    after being accused of sex crimes

    Around 2011 the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights sent a letter, knows as the "Dear Colleague Letter" to many universities threatening to cutoff federal money if they don't "get tough" on sex crimes.

    Andrew Miltenberg, who represents the Brown student and close to 100 other male students accused of campus sexual assaults, said schools have become "hyper-aggressive" since the Dear Colleague Letter.

    A common thread in his cases, Miltenberg said, is that they had some element of a consensual encounter, in which the two were dating or knew each other. Alcohol is often involved, sometimes a year or more has elapsed, and there are rarely witnesses.

    As was pointed on in the Yale case, colleges aren't well equipped to handle sexual assault accusations. It's often a very complex situation that should be handled by the police, not people concerned with federal money.

    ugh. well yes, dating a guy can be an element (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 05:47:39 PM EST
    of consensual sex. It can also be an element of rape. It is not a determiner either way.

    Parent
    The point is date rape/acquaintance rape (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:25:31 PM EST
    accusations are too complex for universities to handle on their own.  The police don't always get it right but at least there will be some degree of due process when they get involved.

     

    Parent

    This makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Valhalla on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:10:27 PM EST
    Colleges can only consider college-related penalties according to their own codes of conduct.  Police can only work with criminal penalties.  Neither is a substitute for the other.

    Parent
    The problem is the process of (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:45:02 PM EST
    determining "college-related penalties" for serious allegations like rape doesn't appear to be adequate. They should advise the accusers to report the alleged crimes to the police.  

    Parent
    Those six figure donations are going to (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by AX10 on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    the down ticket races.  Bernie does not give a damn about those, just his ego and his delusion that he is going to be America's (forbid) Che Guerva.

    The rest of the party is hurting as Bernie is taking those donations into his own coffers.

    GOP Congress = Nothing gets passed.

    As for MSNBC, they are garbage.  They lost me after 2008 (and have no intention of going back.  If they are not covering Trump, they kissing Che Bernie's rear end) and I look forward to the day their studio lights turn off.

    Columnist David Brooks Loses it Completely (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 06:06:57 AM EST
    "This is a wonderful moment to be a conservative."

    He makes a few points:

    Trump has exposed the rottenness of the consultant culture, and the squirrelly way politicians now talk to us. This is a moment for revived American nationalism. Trump's closed, ethnic nationalism is dominant because Iraq, globalization and broken immigration policies have discredited the expansive open form of nationalism that usually dominates American culture.

    Some background on Thomas Kuhn, whose study of Scientific Revolution provides this column's organizing metaphor.

    And as usual Charkes Pierce (none / 0) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:17:10 PM EST
    Provides the best commentary


    A note on the stationery from the Young Fogies Club was slipped under the door this morning. It was short, and it appeared to have been written in a hurry by Moral Hazard, the Irish setter owned for photo op purposes by New York Times columnist David Brooks.

    Pierce: Master's gone around the bend. Going out to the fire escape to lick my balls until this passes.

    Sincerely, M.H.

    link

    Parent

    Kim Jong Un's Special Effects Masterpiece (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:10:24 AM EST
    "Last Chance"

    Move over, Franco, Rogen, and Hollywood.  The eighties are back.  Every obnoxious roll, tumble, zoom, and posterfried pixel of it.  Power Director!

    It fulminates.  It culminates.  It's ten turkey fun.  

    Best of all, it's only four minutes long.

    Yet (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:21:34 AM EST
    somehow those diners are able to fathom their favorite QB making a cool 1.5 mill per game or their favorite musical act grossing several mill for a 2 hr gig, or George Clooney making double digit mill for one or two months of "work".

    Of course Trump supporters are probably ignorant of the fact that their man has made up to 1.5 mil per speech, they should put some of that hot sauce on their chili.

    I think this may have been linked to (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    Before here but it's worth duplicating

    Sanders "conditions" for endorsing Hillary

    Notice it conditions for endorsing.  Does anyone think The Mouth That Roared is going to lift a finger to help a democrat get elected?

    Sanders also listed policy demands he would make of Clinton, including a single-payer health care system, a $15 an hour minimum wage, tougher regulation of the finance industry, closing corporate tax loopholes and "a vigorous effort to address climate change."

    "I am very worried. I mean, I talk to these scientists. This planet is in serious danger. You can't cuddle up to the fossil fuel industry -- you've got to take them on," Sanders said, alluding to Clinton's ties to oil and gas companies.

    He also expressed concern about Clinton's consistency on policy issues.

    "What we need is to create a movement which holds elected officials accountable and not let them flip" on issues, Sanders said.



    Parent
    I find it interesting (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    That someine who is losing is in ANY position to be doing this.

    Parent
    He is the position because of hi (3.00 / 1) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 10:09:58 AM EST
    Thousands of (biting my tongue really really hard) loyal followers.  Hillary will need them in November.

     

    Parent

    So tirn it around (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    If their fantasy comes true, aren't they going t9 need the (much greater number) of Hillary supporters?

    Or, are we going to fall in line behind him?  Is that because, by their actions, they are admitting that Hillary supporters would OF COURSE support him, because we are wiser, see the bigger picture,  and are not spoiled little brats who will hold their breath and stomp their feet and take their toys and go home?

    I'm to the point that I'm going with the beluef, that no, most Bernie supporters AREN'T going to do that, so for the small number that are - don't let the door hit you.  And if their actions result in a President Trump, I don't want to hear one peep, nor read one word of any of these people complaining and whining about anything he does or doesn't do.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:16:45 AM EST
    I agree with you, and

    No, see, here's the really beautiful part, if Hillary loses they will say SEE!  SEE!  If we had just nominated Bernie....

    Whatever.  Like you I am rapidly reaching the end of my tether.

    I agree that the ones with a brain will vote for the democratic nominee.  And bone the others.  

    But I'm telling you, anyone who thinksthat Donald will not be able to attract a not insignificant number by promising the some bullsh!t stuff has not been paying attention.  We already know that works.

    Parent

    Most likely (4.00 / 1) (#115)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:19:09 AM EST
    That the majority of Hillary supporters already are in the category of "pragmatic voter"

    Pragmatic voter will go to the polls, a more reliable voter

    That 30 and under crew, highly unreliable

    Parent

    What about you? (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:20:33 AM EST
    Hilkary or Donald.  Which is it Trevir?

    Parent
    Write in (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:35:14 AM EST
    Most likely, myself   :)

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    A vote for Donald.  

    Parent
    He's the global warming is a hoax guy (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:26:28 PM EST
    don't you remember that?

    Back when a couple of people here still cared about that issue, we had one or two spirited debates about all that.

    Parent

    Oh I know (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:36:14 PM EST
    Actually I don't believe that.

    I suspect the "vote for Trump and deny it" category.

    Parent

    Actually, what Trevor is (none / 0) (#176)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:00:46 PM EST
    communicating is that he prefers to poke at the opposition Dems (especially HRC), but that he now really has nowhere to go.  Poor baby.  And, on top of it all, he doesn't appear to have the guts & wherewithal to admit his dilemma.  

    Parent
    He's in as much "position" (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:11:50 PM EST
    as any other citizen of country supposedly founded on democratic principals.

    You guys are reminding me more and more of the "you can't criticize our commander in chief when we're at war" crowd from 12 years ago..

    Anyone who has nothing positive to say obviously doesn't Support The Troops and should just shut up..


    Parent

    Is there a point (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:34:49 PM EST
    To the criticism jondee?  What exactly is the point to questioning her honesty and reliability?   No one is saying he should stop advocating for the thing he says he cares about.  But know this, if he REALLY cared about any of those things and not simply keeping himself in the headlines he will not undermine the democratic nominee in the very very important election that's coming.

    If he continues to do that you aint seen nothin.

    Parent

    And you apparently can't conceive of (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:43:00 PM EST
    how he could be undermining the gop with his hard-hitting critiques of them and their legacy..

    But then, you never listen to him, so how could you know anything about that, right?

    Parent

    Jondee (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    No one listening to him was ever going to vote for a republican.   He is saying what every democrat is saying about republicans.  They might vote for Hillary if he stops the stupid smear campaign.  

    Parent
    Well..I'm glad to see (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 01:09:24 PM EST
    that you're backing away from your previous insinuations that a lot of them will run to Trump if Bernie doesn't get the nom..

    I'm satisfied that Hillary has nothing to worry about. And I also think that there's a 50-50 chance that loose cannon Trump will self destruct one way or the other before November rolls around..

    Parent

    I guess you have not yet (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    Read the upthread comment.  They are not "yet" thinking about a republican.  They will do that when he drops out.  Bernie is setting them up perfectly for Donald by spoon feeding them a steady diet of the "they are all the same" BS.

    It's his central message.

    Donald is the perfect candidate to use that not being either an democrat or a republican himself.

    This is not rocket science.  

    Also, Donald is not going to self destruct.  I continue to ask myself how long people will keep saying this.   It has become a parody of itself.   The republicans may self destruct trying to stop him but he will not.  

    Remember I said that.

    And BTW
    I don't ever have to listen to Sanders again to give you his tired ridiculous  "I'm the only honest lifelong politician" crap word for word.  I'm betting anyone who reads this blog could do it.

    Parent

    Quite simply, to claim Sanders (none / 0) (#151)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 04:02:16 PM EST
    makes no significant distinctions between Democrats and Republicans is as inaccurate as Sanders would be if he ever actually said there were no important differences between the two parties.

    So what are you claiming now? That there IS still a strong possibility that a lot of Sanders people will go for Trump?

    Wasn't there just a poll conducted that showed that an overwhelming percentage of Sanders supporters saying they'd support Hillary if she got the nom?

    Parent

    I don't think I would every (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 06:55:29 PM EST
    Have argued with the last sentence.   But it's sort of vague.  What is a "overwhelming percentage".  I don't know but I would say it does not make my above assumption untrue that a "not insignificant number" might very well vote for Donald.

    What do you think Bernie is implying about Hillary when he talks about ALL the candidates, except him of course, taking Wall Street money?  His whole routine is everybody is bought and sold but him.   I'm sure he means she is bought and paid for by very democratic special interests.   But I don't actually remember him making the distinction.

    Parent

    And btw (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 06:58:28 PM EST
    For observers who interpret this as "defending Hillary", it's not.

    It's defending winning.  And pointing out that Sanders is a lifetime politician who is just as full of sh!t as the pol in the seat next to him.

    Parent

    While (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:34:01 AM EST
    Bernie does have a right for his positions to be considered when the Democratic platform is crafted at the convention (and many of the vaguer ones certainly will be included), these types of statements have more than a hint of blackmail about them.

    And always the slap at Hillary's honesty and integrity

    He also expressed concern about Clinton's consistency on policy issues.

    "What we need is to create a movement which holds elected officials accountable and not let them flip" on issues, Sanders said.

    So Brilliant Bernie would prefer that the Democrats promise single payer when 99% of them believe that it will be 100% impossible in the near to mid-term future.

    That's worse then flip-flopping, that's just plain lying. IMO Bernie is becoming more of a demagogue every day, it's a shame really, because is basic message is pure and true.

    Parent

    What a total lack of ethical standards!! (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by sallywally on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:56:10 PM EST
    Unless you adopt my entire program  (s), I will not give you my followers...well, it doesn't say he will encourage his followers to support her even if she becomes his mini-me.

    And it does smack loudly  of blackmail. This is almost a kind of misogynistic humiliation. He's not just "ensuring the purity and power of 'the revolution'", he's smacking her down, and before the whole world.

    He is using his adoring fans to do it. Without his ability to manipulate them, he would have no grounds for trying to manipulate Hillary .... wonder what Elizabeth Warren thanks of this.

    Parent

    Caucus Day today in HI, WA and AK. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    As soon as I hear preliminary results from out here, I'll try to post them.

    Yes!! (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:18:33 PM EST
    Tens of thousands of people have signed a petition calling for Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland to allow guns at the Republican National Convention -- all in the name of safety.

    The Change.org petition, which had more than 26,000 supporters as of Saturday evening, claims that the arena's weapon ban makes those who attend the RNC in July "sitting ducks, utterly helpless against evil-doers and criminals."

    It's addressed to Republican candidates like Donald Trump, who's quoted as promising to eliminate gun-free zones in schools should he be elected.
    Elizabeth Warren (3.50 / 2) (#87)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:09:21 AM EST
    Gives The Bern the green light

    Keep on truckin Bern!!

    Progressive icon Elizabeth Warren still isn't ready to endorse a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. But she says she's cheering on Bernie Sanders.

    The Massachusetts Democrat's comment came Thursday in response to a question about whether Sanders, a democratic socialist, should drop out of the race against front-runner Hillary Clinton.

    ``He's out there. He fights from the heart. This is who Bernie is,'' Warren said, according to a video of the news conference. ``He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I'm still cheering Bernie on.'
    May want to read the whole quote (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:51:19 AM EST
    "He has put the right issues on the table both for the Democratic Party and for the country in general so I'm still cheering Bernie on," she said while touring a community healthcare center in Quincy, Mass., according to The Associated Press.

    I think the phrase "I'm still cheering him on," doesn't necessarily indicate what you think it does.  Sounds to me like, "Bernie isn't going to win, but I applaud his efforts."

    Parent

    Yes, (3.00 / 2) (#140)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 01:40:43 PM EST
    and "cheering him on" now will make her more effective when she cheers on Hillary Clinton, later.

    Parent
    Why do you care? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 01:41:39 PM EST
    You're obviously not voting for either Democratic candidate. Go troll your own party.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#143)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    Why does anyone on this blog care about Trump, Cruz, Little Marco Rubio?
    No one is voting for any of them.

    Sorry, Oh Mighty Protector of The Blog

    Parent

    We care because they are our opponents (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    Your dream candidate was little Marco.   This is a liberal blog.  It supports liberal and progressive candidates.  You clearly do not.  He has a point that I have wondered about myself.  What's the point?  I have my own opinions on why a person hangs in a place where they have little or nothing in common with most other regulars.  Sure there is a few.  We know who they are and it's pretty clear why they are here.  Your motives are not as obvious.

    Please don't take this the wrong way but your political arguments sometimes remind me of straight men I've known who frequent gay bars.  Hard to know if they are trying to prove something or waiting to be turned.

    Parent

    Keep your friends close (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by ragebot on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 04:05:53 PM EST
    and your enemies closer might answer part of your question.

    Lets keep in mind Jerlyn has a keen legal mind and this blog was one of the go to places for analysis of the Travon and he who shall not be named case.  Something that attracted lots of folks.

    I would also point out that the "regulars here" seemed to be of two opinions on that case.  I am not sure what the "progressive" analysis was defined as.  But I was in almost complete agreement with Jerlyn's analysis.

    There is also a lot of what some folks might call fluff, along with serious stuff.  Things like GOT discussions don't really have a progressive take, at least not like a Hillary email discussion.  I have enjoyed what I would call a lot of inside Hollywood insights on GOT and other entertainment issues.

    I have to say as someone who is not really a progressive I often enjoy watching what I will call establishment Democrats defending Hillary and attacking Bernie.  

    Just as an aside I have a friend with a PhD in psychology who enjoys studying what she calls approach/avoidance interactions.

    Earlier in this thread there was a post from CoralGables (where I graduated from high school)about the disconnect of Cruz donating half a million to Carley.  I pointed out a google of Cruz and National Enquirer would go a long way towards raising lots of other issues.  Way down at the bottom there are several posts relating to the current Cruz blurb in the NE.

    There are a lot of interesting things here, even if you are not progressive.

    Parent

    I only saw your link to (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    The Cruz thing after I started the other sub thread or I would have responded to you.  It was not ntentional.  A couple if times before I have noticed things you have said that I agree with that I had not noticed until, like, the third scan of the thread.  Some of that is because my stupid iPad dies not always show the new posts in red but sometimes, if you don't mind and observation, I miss them because you have a way of posting that makes timings easy to miss.  That comment is a good example.  Just missed it.  If a comment is not in a topical subthread I do that sometimes if there is not a word or phrase that gets my attention.
    Anyway.  Not intentional.

    As far as the rest, sure.  Lots of stuff gets discussed here.  And I have said many times I like it here because it is not simply an echo chamber.  I miss Slado.    But I don't see you getting in the thick of political discussions a lot.  
    Sometimes.  Not nearly as much as ther person I replied to.  

    And the tone is different.   In your comment you didn't say you were here

    .......  trying to correct some of the many misconceptions I have seen posted, and accepted verbatim.

    Seriously, how freaking condescending and annoying is that?   This climate denying republican is going to do us poor liberals a favor and correct our many misconceptions.  

    Yeah, well.  Whatever.  

    News tho, not that many misconceptions are corrected by an LOL after getting ones rhetorical ass handed to them.

    Parent

    Not the first time (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by ragebot on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    Folks have said my posts can be cryptic.  On the other hand a different take I am trying to slip things past the unwashed masses.  More than once I have been questioned about the meaning of something like 1A or 2A when in context any 1YL student would understand the meaning.

    As for my getting into the thick of political discussions you might want to search on responses to some of my comments and see how Donald probably has more than anyone else combined and they all seem to be disputing my points.

    Also not sure what you mean by correcting misconceptions.  As an example I would point to the Hillary/Bernie race.  There are folks who think Hillary has it in the bag and there are also folks who think Bernie has a real chance.  I would add never the twain shall meet.

    Another example would be what is going on with the FBI investigation into Hillary's email server mess.  Good jurists have made the point that there is a real case Hillary has violated the law, and equally good jurists have made the point Hillary has a good defense.  Until the FBI investigation is complete there is really no way to say what the misconceptions are.  Yet I see both sides claiming they are clearing the misconceptions.

    That is why I mentioned my psychologist friend thinks TL is so entertaining.  Some folks here are so hardened in their position nothing could clear up their misconceptions.  

    Parent

    For the record (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    I was referring to the other commenter and his comment about correcting misconceptions.

    As far as your cmments being misread, I totally feel your pain.  I regularly laugh at my jokes that no one else seems to get.

    Also there are, um , commenters here who seem to make a habit of responding to commenters not comments.   Once you are tagged it's something like stalking.  I try not to do that.   But I will cop to with a couple of well known commenters.  But not you.  FWIW.

    Parent

    Been reading (none / 0) (#148)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 03:42:51 PM EST
    This blog and others for 8 years. I try to read coming from different perspectives, rather than just my own.
    I just started here  trying to correct some of the many misconceptions I have seen posted, and accepted verbatim.
    Thats all.  ( I do remember , from when I first started posting here, you made a correction to one of your posts, claiming you did not want it to be corrected for you. )
    I am not afraid of, nor demonize, the other. Just trying to get a understanding. And have to some degree.
    I find myself more liberterian as I get older, there are too many bomb throwers on both the left and right.
    Left wants government control of every aspect of life, the right does so also on too many social issues.
    I work in local government, and see firsthand the waste and corruption. By both parties, whichever one is in power.

    Parent
    Funny (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    Since you parrot many, many more misconceptions...

    Parent
    He's the ultimate concern (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 03:48:06 PM EST
    troll that's usually wrong about everything.

    Parent
    Bernie wins (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 06:11:30 PM EST
    Alaska and Washington

    Yippeee!! (none / 0) (#166)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:16:50 PM EST
    If I wasn't on a crazy strict diet this weekend I would get together with those Bernie friends who are in a celebratory mood. Everbody loves Bernie where I live. The little stores even have Bernie signs in their windows.

    That being said, I was told several weeks ago that Hillary already has the nomination locked in with the party-insider Super Delegates. I assume that is correct.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#167)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    It's more about the math, even without the superdelegates.

    Bernie needs to win 58% of all remaining delegates to win the nomination.  He isn't going to do that (there's no way he wins NY, for example). That means he needs to run the tabke by yuuuugeee margins.

    It just isn't going to happen.  The superdelegates probably won't even be a factor.

    Parent

    But.... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:42:52 PM EST
    but...but...

    Parent
    oh (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    Thank you jbindc. I appreciate how smart you are and that you take the time to explain it clearly for me {smile}.

    Parent
    Very telling (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:52:24 AM EST
    These Are The Phrases That Sanders And Clinton Repeat Most

    Let me just say this ... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:43:44 AM EST
    what we need to do is spend a lot of time.  Not just a handful.  

    Second of all, as I understand it, we do have to figure out how we're going to build on, I think that is, what I will do.

    But at the end of the day, we have to go.  So I'm there to figure out how.

    ;)

    Parent

    It shows (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 05:36:07 AM EST
    That one is an issue spotter and one has ideas on how to accomplish goals.

    Parent
    "conversation" (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:04:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Just watching a bit about Donalds (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    New "contested convention team".  He just hired a bunch of high powered GOP operatives that include the Floor Operations Director of the 2012 convention and a former RNC political director.

    While continuing to say he will get the magic number he is clearly not betting to heavily on that.

    Given the rules, or really the total lack of rules, for getting delegates - I have seen knowledgable people say pretty much anything up to and including truckloads of money for votes is perfectly legal - this could get really interesting.

    Ha! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:29:15 AM EST
    "Rules is rules. You have to get a majority," said a Virginia Republican who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously. "That's the problem with our country: No one ever wins anymore."

    Nice bit of political jujitsu there, Anonymous Virginia Republican.

    Source.

    The best part of that (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    Is that article polls strategists, insiders and republican operatives.  Who, yes , do not want a Trump candidacy.  Like we didn't already know that.  That same site, 2 days ago, had another piece saying this about republican voters -

    A majority of Republican and Republican-leaning voters believe the party should unite behind Donald Trump at a contested convention, according to a national Monmouth University poll released Wednesday.

    Clearly they have a problem.  

    LINK

    Parent

    My favorite new media sensation (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    Is Curly Haugland.  He has become a cable news regular in spite of being called a nut by most serious peers.   He is fond of saying things like this -

    We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

    Good luck with that.

    Parent

    Real life (none / 0) (#17)
    by ragebot on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:42:59 AM EST
    Suits

    Apparently (none / 0) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 10:17:25 AM EST
    ...She was very good at the job.

    Which suggests that competence is not the issue.  And if competence is not the issue, what is?

    If she does the job right, and has for ten years, waive the Bar exam and grant her the license.

    (That is the attitude that ended my academic career early.  I was ready for the test at any time, but I never did the homework.)

    Parent

    A common law lawyer (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 10:25:29 AM EST


    Parent
    Interesing Fact (none / 0) (#29)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    Although right wing talk radio has been pretty friendly to both Trump and Cruz.  Maybe even leaning a bit more toward Trump.

    Wisconsin right wing radio is very anti-Trump.  Which some feel explains his relatively weak polling in the state.

    Listening to Wisconsin right wing ... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:37:56 PM EST
    radio this afternoon was like living in an alternate universe where Republicans actually see Trump for what he is.

    The two most common words callers used to describe Trump were "disgusting" and "scary".

    Parent

    Jimmel Kimmel (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    "mansplains" to Mrs. Clinton.

    Entertaining, but (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    not really mansplaining.

    That would have been to have Kimmel lecture Clinton about an area of expertise that is hers but not his -- for example, foreign policy.  

    The show missed a good skit, as real mansplaining can be even more hilarious to witness . . . if incredibly frustrating to endure.

    Parent

    True, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    but she did a great job with Jimmy Kimmel.  I believe is so good with these late-night comics. And, these days, it seem that she gets more attention (unfortunately) with this form of media than, say, the speech on the Brussels attack at Stanford.

    Parent
    Months ago (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    I made a comment that one of the great things about Hillary that most people never see is her sense of humor.  And that one result of a Trump candidacy might be that we get to see that sense of humor.

    I just read this morning that is exactly the plan. They believe the best way to both fight Donald and get under his skin is with humor.  He really hates to be the butt of jokes and that's just what they plan to make him.

    Pass the popcorn.

    Parent

    You are (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 05:46:42 PM EST
    going to think you have died and gone to heaven I do believe during this political season.

    Parent
    That I can tell you (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 05:49:15 PM EST
    Believe me, ooooh, believe me.

    Parent
    Punditsplaining (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 06:00:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Making political speeches ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 02:06:11 PM EST
    isn't one of her areas of expertise?

    Parent
    Thank you for the link. (none / 0) (#117)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    I liked patronizing vs. condescending.  But I need to look those words up to really understand the difference.

    Parent
    The National Enquirer (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 12:45:38 PM EST
    Has officially entered the Republican primary.  I will not link to it or repeat any of the charges but if you google

    Cruz Enquirer

    You will find it.

    Ted I'd NOT happy.

    OH my (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 12:59:32 PM EST

    Trump Supporter Derails CNN Segment by Accusing Fellow Guest of Having an Affair With Ted Cruz

    Named in the "other" story

    mediaite

    Parent

    If you google this (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    You will see it's being covered (so far) almost exclusively by right wing media.  Probably not great for Ted.  But not a surprise.  The Enquirer is their Wall Street Journal.

    HazMat suits for surfing the news might be a good idea going forward.

    Parent

    Ok, scratch that (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    It's now the headline at C&L, Little Green Footbalks and others.

    Parent
    #copulate (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    Is now trending.

    Parent
    Maybe Sanctimonious (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 01:40:35 PM EST
    Ted can deflect the mistress rumors by extolling the recommendations of his special Religious Liberty Advisory Council.  While it has not only the kernels, but also, the fully popped corn of bigotry, it should work with his Evangelicals.

     While the text may not grab them, the committee membership should do the trick. Starting with the chair, Tony Perkins, and members such as the Benham Bros. who lost an HGTV opportunity owing to their anti-gay beliefs.

      After all, we have seen, in Evangelical gushing for Trump, that such matters as infidelity and playing around,  are no incumbrance so long as the basics, such as racism ,nativism, and bigotry are part of it all  

    Parent

    I think I might say (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 04:14:36 PM EST

      After all, we have seen, in Evangelical gushing for Trump, that such matters as infidelity and playing around,  are no incumbrance so long as.......

    You are up front about it.  Holy Ted is a perfect target.

    Parent

    Saloon says (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:05:20 PM EST
    it was Marco not Donald

    Parent
    Just heard a Daily Beast (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    Person saying Rubio sipporters had been shopping the story for months.

    That Salon thing was just a link to a Daily Beast story

    Parent

    What is the theory (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:30:31 PM EST
    on why Rubio's camp did this since he's out?

    Parent
    He wasn't out (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:31:20 PM EST
    When they were shopping it.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:33:39 PM EST
    So there are finally takers for the story now? I guess since Cruz is one of the three left in?

    Parent
    Well no (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:39:13 PM EST
    There was not takers.  That was the point of the Beast story.  There was taker.  The Enquirer.  Breitbart even turned it down.  Why now?  Who the f knows.  

    I do not normally question gifts from God.


    Parent

    Best Buds (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:05:16 AM EST
    The New York Daily News asserted that back in August of 2015, a few months into Trump's presidential run.

    From the piece called, "When it comes to Donald Trump, tabloid won't Enquire too deeply," we get this:

    Industry insiders tell us Trump is "very close" with David Pecker, head of The National Enquirer and CEO and chairman of American Media, which means the outlet is unlikely to dig too deeply into his personal life as he campaigns.

    Parent

    Pfffft (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:20:21 AM EST

    Industry insiders tell us Trump is "very close" with David Pecker head


    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:50:55 PM EST
    that Trump had to deny the story or felt he had to. I guess people thought it came from him. I would say it is a gift from God for Trump or maybe Kasich? Not sure on that one.

    Parent
    Felt he had to? (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    He was in the middle of a nasty gutter fight with Ted.  Everyone on earth assumed he did it.

    I think he had to.

    Charles Pierce weighs in

    The Rats Won't F*ck Themselves

    Won't even quote.   Everyone should just read it.

    Parent

    This (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:16:28 AM EST
    is beyond mere ratfkng, it's a full blown, viagra and meth fueled rodent orgy...on steroids.

    Parent
    Or maybe (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    The Enquirer who is Donalds friend wanted to tweak Marco by printing the story AFTER he dropped out?  

    I have really been enjoying the cable coverage.  It's about 40% I can't believe we are covering this.  It's so sleazy and 60% enthusiastic coverage.   But they are all simply mortified that it's being covered.

    Parent

    They are all ... the Enquirer (none / 0) (#74)
    by christinep on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:49:52 PM EST
    'Laughed out loud when PBS News Hour joined the fray--complete with pictures--just like everyone else.  So, Trump says "Lyin' Ted" and now Cruz says "Sleazy Trump."  Is it Trump's turn now or Cruz' slot for the next name-calling insult?

    Parent
    It's "Sleazy Donald" (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:56:08 PM EST
    Let's make sure we hurl the correct epaulets

    Parent
    "Epithets." (none / 0) (#83)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 02:01:29 AM EST
    Epaulets are ornamental shoulder pieces on an item of clothing. On a military dress uniform, epaulets denote an officer's rank.

    The grammar police are now retired for the evening.

    ;-D

    Parent

    Yet another attempt at humor (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:18:05 AM EST
    Lands with a thud

    :-(

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#131)
    by FlJoe on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:39:42 PM EST
    early last December there were multiple reports and rumours around about Marco's affairs, some pointed fingers at Jeb's camp for shopping those.

    If all this is true then at the very same time Rubio was shopping his Cruz smear, Jeb was shopping his against Rubio.

    Maybe this coincidence is just an artifact of the all out rodent orgy that has broken out, but it does make me wonder.

    Parent

    One interesting thing (none / 0) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:45:08 PM EST
    That has been mentioned is that Donalds is the only campaign with no oppo research.   Very smart journalists covering him say this.  Every other campaign has an oppo department.  This was mentioned in a diccussion of this mess that also mentioned what you just said.  All this stuff has been floating around.

    But Donald is his own oppo department.


    Parent

    Why would he need an oppo dept? (none / 0) (#158)
    by NYShooter on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 05:14:01 PM EST
    He just makes stuff up, nobody cares if its true or not.

    Does anybody believe our Media "journalists" fact-check anything he says?

    Parent

    Even if they do (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 05:29:49 PM EST
    The tweet has already made it around the world

    Parent
    Hey lawyers (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:24:02 AM EST
    Why doesn't Ted sue them?

    Parent
    More difficult as a celebrity. (none / 0) (#118)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:32:07 AM EST
    Ted Cruz has "celebrity" rules which make a lawsuit more difficult. Or maybe you know this and were being rhetorical? I can't tell. Councidentally, Trump critcized these strict hurdles and expressed an interest in overturing them.

    Parent
    New York Times vs. Sullivan (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 01:10:51 PM EST
    has its own little corner of wikipedia.


    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#139)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 01:37:09 PM EST
    "The plaintiff alleges that this criticism of him and of his work was not fair and was not honest; it was published with actual malice, ill will and spite. If he establishes this allegation, he has made out a cause of action. No comment or criticism, otherwise libelous, is fair or just comment on a matter of public interest if it be made through actual ill will and malice." (p. 106)

    Let's see,  making up a fictitious story defaming not just Cruz but the 5 women as well, in the hottest time of an hotly contested election campaign that could not only destroy his chances of winning but of remaining married.

    You know what?  I would say if that doesn't qualify as-

    not fair and was not honest; it was published with actual malice, ill will and spite.

    Hard to imagine what would.

    Parent

    The quote you excerpted from the Wiki article (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    on NYT v Sullivan, Howdy, is from a 1930 NY State case, and is not consistent with the Supreme Court's First Amendment standard for "actual malice." The Court redefined the term, as used in this context, to include only knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth.  It does not permit a lawsuit by a public figure against someone who publishes truthful but embarrassing information, even if motivated by spite and ill will.  

    Parent
    Right I get that (none / 0) (#159)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    So my question was if this is NOT true, if they just made this up with the clear intent of damaging his political career, would that not be grounds for a lawsuit?  Or if someone else just made it up are they not responsible for verifying it before possibly destroying a persons life.  

    As the original comment says , lawyers why not sue?

    My supposition was that either it is true or perhaps something else related to the whole thing is true and legal action would just turn over to many rocks?

    He says it's absolutely made up.  So have some of the women.  Shouldn't someone at some point need to provide some evidence?   Real reporters I've heard discuss it say there is absolutely not evidence any of its true.  It f was me and that was true I would want to make them pay.

    Parent

    Howdy: Good points, but... (none / 0) (#172)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:25:38 PM EST
    The fact that there may be alleged grounds for suit doesn't mean squat in politics.  For one reason: The actual preparation for and initiation of a law suit is typically much longer than the campaign, and the heat of battle gets in the way. The decision about whether to pursue a libel case in a highly publicized political situation is much more than a legal decision.  As you know, what is going on in this phase is all about political shoving, pushing, and positioning.

    BTW, I would find it kind of so-there if it were true.  No one deserves this kind of takedown more than the sanctimonious Cruz.  And, from my perspective, the longer they troll each other in the swine slop the better.  (Also: Truth be told, what do you think is behind the Donald Trump seeming obsession with Megyn Kelly? It has a soap opera feel all its own.)

    Parent

    Well sure (none / 0) (#173)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:37:53 PM EST
    Everything you said.  And no clue as far as Kelly.

    But if it's a lie would it not also be politically smart to sue them?  

    Just to be clear, I am in no way defending Cruz or am I sympathetic to him.  It was just a question.  It's it a lie why isn't he going after them.   If he does nothing it seems to me people should ask why he did nothing.   And in fact they are starting to do that.

    Parent

    Pershaps, there is a "proof problem" (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    That is a way of saying that something else needs to break ... a woman/women actually stepping forward with statement or the obverse (where an individual steps forth with actual info that the whole thing is a fabrication, and here is why, etc.)

    In sum: This is a force play right now.  Something will give, eventually.

    Parent

    What Christine said (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:21:31 PM EST
    is absolutely right, as far as I'm concerned, and provides a complete answer to your questions, Howdy. Plus, a lawsuit potentially keeps the accusation in the public eye and public imagination even longer.

    Parent
    Surfing around and found this (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:43:05 PM EST
    It may be true that the National Enquirer has had their fair share of scoops that turn out to be true, but, let's be clear here, the newspaper's articles aren't exactly placed upon any journalistic pedestal. Perhaps, Mr. Trump forgot about all the times the paper got sued for getting it wrong.  A quick search of the federal database reveals that The National Enquirer was named as a defendant in about 75 cases since 1986.  Not all of those cases are for false statements/invasion of privacy, but some of them are. (That number also doesn't count the cases filed in state courts). Of course, the Enquirer employs a strong legal team, and many of these cases ultimately get dismissed. But some, as you can see below, were settled with the newspaper admitting they were duped.

    It lists a bunch of them

    LAWNEWZ

    Parent

    Is Hulk Hogan (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:54:34 AM EST
    A celebrity?  He just got 115 million bucks from Gawker.

    If it's a lie, sue them.

    As far as you "not seeing a problem" with the photo of Donalds wife.....
    Whatever.

    IMO it was vile.  And uncalled for.  Ms Trump has done nothing to anyone.  It was stupid and vile and so is Liz Mair.  And so is every cable channel that puts that photo up for minutes at a time while the discuss how "debased" our discourse has become

    Parent

    The Hulk Hogan suit was not for defamation (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    It was not about whether certain harmful information published about him was truthful or not. It was for invasion of privacy. A different ground for suit.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 05:39:07 PM EST
    But he was a celebrity who had his privacy invaded which the comment I was replying to seemed to suggest was "difficult"

    Parent
    Linea's comment was imprecise (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:14:29 PM EST
    There is no special legal rule making it harder in general for a "celebrity" to sue someone. There is a First Amendment limitation on lawsuits for defamation (libel or slander) of "public figures," announced by the Supreme Court in New York Times v Sullivan. This rule requires that the public figure prove "actual malice" on the part of the alleged defamer, that is, actual knowledge by the person being sued that the statement they made about the public figure was false, or at least reckless disregard of whether the statement was true or not.

    Parent
    See link above, (none / 0) (#169)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:59:24 PM EST
    Somebody was nice enough to post a link to NYT v Sullivan.


    Parent
    OH right (none / 0) (#174)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    You mean the comment I replied to and quoted?

    Parent
    Captain, (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    Remember the commenter, Loved?  Left (or was left) after President Huntsman didn't make it.

    Parent
    Yes. HH is a celebrity. (none / 0) (#128)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:34:29 PM EST
    I'm sorry. No one responded to your question and I thought I was being helpful. I really don't know the details of why HH won his lawsuit. I do know the criteria for winning a lawsuit if you are a "celebrity" is more difficult. I also understand that "true" is a defense againt a libel/slander lawsuit and I'm inclined to feel the N.E. vets these political sex scandals very well.

    I also apologize that I made you upset commenting on the Melania GQ photo. Me personally, I tend to not get outraged on behalf of other people. To me, the fact that Melania was a model and that she did a GQ photoshoot isn't scandelous. I do think it makes Ted Cruz (via his allegedly non-coordinating super-PAC) look petty. I don't know if Melania is embaressed or ashamed of aspects of her modeling career; I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't be. But I'm not a model so it's rather hypothetical for me.

    Parent

    I think you're looking for (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 02:11:25 PM EST
    The term "public figure".

    Parent
    {{hugs}} (none / 0) (#165)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 07:06:45 PM EST
    Thank you!!

    Parent
    I believe the N.E. (none / 0) (#122)
    by linea on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    I'm inclined to feel that if the N.E. ran with another politician sex scandal that it's well vetted.

    I came at a convient time. Trump just re-tweeted a distastefully selected photo of Heidi with a Melania photo. It was rather childish and petty. Trump needs to have Ivanka vet his tweets and public comments. His natural inclination isn't good.

    The Cruz campaign using old photos of Melania from GQ doesn't bother me but I suppose the target audience is evangelicals. But I'm not sure what that was supposed to accomplish.

    Parent

    The old "fallen woman" routine.. (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 02:53:32 PM EST
    do we really want that Jezebel, that Whore of Babylon in the Whitehouse?

    Of course those photos were aimed directly at the evangelicals.

     

    Parent

    I think we have some of the (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by sallywally on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:57:38 PM EST
    "fallen woman" thing going on with the Democratic side. All that "bought and paid for", corrupted by money, inconsistent positions on policies ... the Republican memes applied to her, making her seem like "damaged goods."  

    Sanctimony isn't alive only among the Republicans. I guess Hillary may be the only one of the candidates on either side who is not sanctimonious.

    Parent

    sallywally: Perceptive (none / 0) (#194)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    Over the years of various so-called character assaults lobbed at HRC, I came to believe that the fabricated-scandals-as-evidence-of-character-flaws routine was the Repub method because that is what they do, usually.  For all my attempts at analysis--to the point where I can bore myself silly--I missed something significant.  I missed what you now point out as a twist or variation on the theme of the too-flawed or loose woman of yore.

    What is the song's question from "My Fair Lady": "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" Jimmy Kimmel & man-splaining; and, your take on a likely message under the Repubs years long & intensive character assassination of HRC ... together, it explains a lot.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    And, yes, that theme (none / 0) (#195)
    by christinep on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    is more than Repub-based.  

    Parent
    Poor Julie Andrews (none / 0) (#197)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 06:36:53 PM EST
    Hollywood screwed up, pulled the rug from Julie on both Camelot and My Fair Lady.

    2 of my favorite albums, listened to my parents albums.

    Parent

    Me too...my mother never stopped (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 07:21:04 PM EST
    talking about the injustice of it all!!! I resisted her point of view for years since Audrey Hepburn and Vanessa Redgrave are so wonderful on screen....in my youth I did not appreciate the quality of the singing as much as I do now.  And of course Julie Andrews is a fine actress too. Would have loved to see her in those roles.

    Parent
    Wrong man convicted of 60 year old crime (none / 0) (#42)
    by McBain on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 03:04:40 PM EST
    Link
    An Illinois prosecutor says he has found "clear and convincing evidence" that a former police officer was wrongly convicted of the 1957 murder of a 7-year-old girl in what is believed to have been the nation's oldest cold case to go to trial.

    What's crazy is this guy wasn't convicted until 2012. You'd think after all that time the judge would error on side of innocence.  

    Jack Daniel McCullough, a 75-year-old military veteran and former police officer from Seattle, was convicted in 2012 of the abduction and murder of Maria Ridulph from a street corner in Sycamore, Illinois, a small farming community about 65 miles west of Chicago. A judge hearing the case without a jury found McCullough guilty after a week-long trial.
    Sanders (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 04:10:35 PM EST
    Compares HRC'S fundraising dinner with George Clooney to the heist in Ocean's 11

    Strange that he doesn't mention that the $353,000 raised for HRC at the Clooney fundraiser still is less than half of what Tad Devine made in March.

    What ? (none / 0) (#49)
    by FlJoe on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 04:28:54 PM EST
     
    a dinner event that will cost people up to $353,400 to attend.
    they have a sliding scale for millionaires and billionaires, now?

    Parent
    It's for two people (none / 0) (#50)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    to personally dine at the table.

    It's also to help raise money for downticket races - something I know the Sanders campaigm doesn't understand.

    For two seats at the head table with Clinton, George Clooney and his wife, attorney Amal Clooney, at an April 15 fundraiser, a couple must contribute or raise a whopping $353,400 -- a huge ticket price for a hard-dollar fundraiser.

    The Bay Area fundraiser, hosted at the home of venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar, is one of two events starring the Clooneys. On April 16, Clinton and the Clooneys will reunite at the Clooney Los Angeles mansion, where tickets cost $33,400 per person to dine at the table with one of Hollywood's most glamorous couples.

    Both events raise money for the Hillary Victory Fund. While the maximum donation to a presidential campaign is $2,700 for the primary elections (plus another $2,700 for the general), the Hillary Victory Fund can accept much larger contributions because it is a so-called joint fundraising committee that is comprised of multiple committees.

    In addition to Hillary for America, which is Clinton's main campaign committee, the Hillary Victory Fund also includes the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees.



    Parent
    There is no downticket in the Bernie Party of one (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:47:58 PM EST


    Parent
    People really shouldn't wonder how ... (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 07:53:36 PM EST
    ... the Beltway became one of the most affluent metropolitan areas in the entire country, given that political campaigns and lobbying are now year-round cottage industries.

    Parent
    Bernie is in Portland at the Moda Center right now (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cashmere on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    .. This is where the Trail Blazers play.    This is Bernie country, but I am not feeling the bern.  :)

    Bernie (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 04:24:08 PM EST
    Is probably going to have a good couple of weeks.  At least.

    Parent
    Sanders also blasted Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#69)
    by sallywally on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:08:42 PM EST
    for his remarks about the "awful" recent years ... I forget the comments and lost the story, but they were remarks that someone might have thought were anti-Obama. Ironic for Sanders to trash someone else for criticizing Obama (which Bubba wasn't necessarily doing.)

    Isn't it today that Sanders was asked to stop his negative attacks on Clinton and stick with the actual issues so as not to harm her as a candidate when the primary is over. I don't think she is reciprocating, after all.

    Good response, Bernie. Very elegant.

    Sander's has also been ripping the GOP (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    a new gaping orifice in every one of his public appearences that makes his treatment of Hillary seem like Sir Walter Raleigh laying his new cloak over a mud puddle for her Ladyship to walk over..

    If we're going to grant Bernie all this power to potentially impede Hillary, then we should also acknowledge the significant damage he's inflicting on the Republican brand.

    And contrary to the Urban Legends and travelers tales that continually make the rounds here, there's still no empirical evidence that anything remotely like a significant number of Sanders supporters are thinking of throwing their support behind that national embarrassment Trump when Bernie drops out.

    Parent

    Of course they (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    Are not "thinking about it".

    That will only happen when he breaks their tiny hearts and drops out and then Donald starts promising them lots of free stuff.

    This thing you keeps saying about how he is criticizing republicans is silly.   What on earth would he be doing?  Just trashing Hillary?  What he is doing is selling the "their all the same" BS.   That's his message.


    Parent

    Ok #BirdySanders is dumb (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:12:48 PM EST
    But Rachel just reminded me of the excellent Portlandia bit Put A Bitd On It  About which I had completely forgotten.

    So this bird thing happened at a Sanders rally in Portland.  

    You can make this stuff up

    Sanders bird thing

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:16:00 PM EST
    and apparently it's being shopped as "sign from God" that Bernie is the "anointed" one. This election is going to drive me bonkers.

    Parent
    MSNBC covering beatific Bernie's speech (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by sallywally on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 09:33:44 PM EST
    only he's late, but MSNBC doesn't let that stop them--Ari Melber and Mark Thompson agreeing that Sanders has not picked up on chances to campaign negatively and has stuck mostly to policy....and that "This IS a movement now."

    For some reason I'd thought these two had their heads planted on their shoulders.


    Parent

    OTOH (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 25, 2016 at 08:19:58 PM EST
    (If you know what Portlandia is)

    It could equally be argued that it's a sign the whole thing is a tableau of the silliness of laughable hipsters.

    Parent

    I love that sketch (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by McBain on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:07:53 AM EST
    Did you get into With Bob and David?  Another great sketch comedy show.  

    Parent
    I live here - There is a lot of truth to (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cashmere on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    Portlandia.  (which is over the top, of course, but based on reality).  I do love my city.  I'm a native Portlander  The city is hardly recognizable from what it once was. It does retain its classic turn of the century neighborhoods all around the city and stretching out east of the Willamette River, which is very nice, with fantastic shops and restaurants everywhere.  You see such examples in Portlandia.  We live in a 1907 house, and can walk a few blocks for most everything, without having to frequent ubiquitous franchises.  The downside is that it has gotten extremely crowded, expensive, and homelessness has spiked with tents popping up allover the city.  Portland did not plan well for its growth.  Re: the Bernie bird incident, the bird was a parakeet which cannot survive in the wild here.  The whole thing seems a bit like a stunt to me.  These birds are smart and can be trained, but who knows.

    Parent
    Very possible (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 10:33:12 AM EST
    That said I'm happy to give Bernie the bird.

    One thing that struck me, and admittedly I am not a authority on Bernie and his speaking skills since I can't bear to listen to him and never do,  is the utter "fakeness" of his laugh with the bird.

    Watch it again and listen to him

    Ha.....ha.....ha....ha.....

    I just thought it was odd.  You would think given this amazing and inspirational thing he could have managed better than

    Ha.....ha.....ha.....ha

    But who knows.  Maybe it the best he can do.

    Parent

    Agreee on (none / 0) (#125)
    by KeysDan on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    Bernie's smile. Better look when he is just giving his serious stump speeches.  But, then some public figures don't have a Trevor Noah smile.

    Parent
    I don't think it was a parakeet.. (none / 0) (#183)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 10:58:40 PM EST
    I think it was a finch.

    Parent
    They may want you to think it was a finch... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cashmere on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 12:03:04 AM EST
    but it was a parakeet.


    Parent
    You may want to think it was a parakeet... (none / 0) (#185)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 02:26:08 AM EST
    but I think it to be a female lesser goldfinch.  But it most definitely was not a parakeet.  I'm an amateur bird watcher, and I've been the registrar at a zoo/botanic garden for 25yrs. and I know a g-d parakeet when I see one.

    Parent
    Pffft (none / 0) (#186)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:05:56 AM EST
    I believe you are correct. At least about it not being a parakeet.  I'm not particularly a bird watcher but you could see the beak at times.  It was all wrong.

    Parent
    I know nothing about birds (none / 0) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 08:48:28 AM EST
    other than they will probably s$!t on you.

    Then again, maybe it's a metaphor for the life of the Sanders campaign... the canary in a coal mine.

    Parent

    You are correct sir. (none / 0) (#191)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    It's not a psittacine beak at all, which is hooked and shaped like a comma.

    Parent
    I agree now - I was wrong (none / 0) (#196)
    by Cashmere on Mon Mar 28, 2016 at 05:50:55 PM EST
    not a parakeet.  I stand corrected.

    Parent
    2 Party Establishment revolt (none / 0) (#93)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:26:08 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/hc7k9sg

    The people who spend two bucks for chili at the Courtesy Diner at Laclede Station Road can't fathom why anyone would pay Hillary Clinton $225,000 to make a speech.

    Nor can they understand why the U.S. Senate is taking a 17-day break for Easter after spending much of their time last week fuming over the Supreme Court vacancy. Somehow, people all over America are saying loudly and clearly this election year, Washington and its enablers - the media, the political pros and Wall Street - don't understand us.

    That's why, all over this slice of middle America, exasperated people got up before dawn on a cold, 37-degree morning recently to spend four hours in a line so long that from its end people couldn't even see the Peabody Opera House, where they would hear Donald Trump. And it wasn't just Trump. In the next two days, other folks nearby lined up to hear the outsider talk from Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Bernie Sanders, Ind.-Vt.
    Feh (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:54:29 AM EST
    give it up Trevor. The GOP has had to admit that this election is lost. Bernie is not going to be the nominee despite all the pushing from the GOP. Right now the GOP is just attempting to keep from massive losses down ticket.

    Parent
    He is going to be very excitable (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:58:30 AM EST
    For a couple of weeks as Bernie racks up several meaningless victories and he regurgitates every breathless "it's finally over for Hillary" story.   Of which there will be many.

    Parent
    Nah (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:07:34 AM EST
    It won't be its finally over for Hillary (that might come when the FBI is done with their work)
    But it should quiet the " Bern should just shut down his campaign" crew.
    Even Lizzy Warren wants The Bern to keep on Truckin.......

    Parent
    Yup and Warren will say that right up (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CoralGables on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 11:10:43 AM EST
    until the day she endorses Hillary...which if you read between the lines you know is already in the works.

    Parent
    Trevor (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:37:17 AM EST
    even Drudge is telling you guys it's not gonna happen. Think about how much the GOP has taken you for a ride on that account once again. I don't know if I've ever seen a more gullible bunch of people than Republicans. Of course, that also explains the rise of Trump.

    Parent
    Matt Taibbi (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:47:12 AM EST
    Strikes back at Rolling Stone

    http://tinyurl.com/zjtl6pn

    I was disappointed to hear that Rolling Stone had endorsed Hillary Clinton, but I also understood. In many ways, the endorsement by my boss and editor, Jann Wenner, read like the result of painful soul-searching, after this very magazine had a profound influence on a similar race, back in 1972.

    But it would be a shame if we disqualified every honest politician, or forever disavowed the judgment of young people, just because George McGovern lost an election four decades ago.


    Parent
    OTOH (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:54:52 AM EST
    Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result is the definition of insanity

    Parent
    Kevin Drum (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 08:56:54 AM EST
    Strikes back at Matt Taibbi:

    In other words, there's just not much here aside from dislike of Hillary's foreign policy views. That's a completely legit reason to vote against her, but it's hard to say that Taibbi makes much of a case beyond that.

    Bernie Sanders too often lets rhetoric take the place of any actual plausible policy proposal. He suggested that his health care plan would save more in prescription drug costs than the entire country spends in the first place. This is the sign of a white paper hastily drafted to demonstrate seriousness, not something that's been carefully thought through. He bangs away on campaign finance reform, but there's virtually no chance of making progress on this. The Supreme Court has seen to that, and even if Citizens United were overturned, previous jurisprudence has placed severe limits on regulating campaign speech. Besides, the public doesn't support serious campaign finance reform and never has. And even on foreign policy, it's only his instincts that are good. He's shown no sign of thinking hard about national security issues, and that's scarier than most of his supporters acknowledge. Tyros in the Oval Office are famously susceptible to pressure from the national security establishment, and Bernie would probably be no exception. There's a chance--small but not trivial--that he'd get rolled into following a more hawkish national security policy than Hillary.

    I'm old, and I'm a neoliberal sellout. Not as much of one as I used to be, but still. So it's no surprise that I'm on the opposite side from Taibbi. That said, I continue to be surprised by the just plain falseness of many of the left-wing attacks on Hillary, along with the starry-eyed willingness to accept practically everything Bernie says without even a hint of healthy skepticism. Hell, if you're disappointed by Obama, who's accomplished more than any Democratic president in decades, just wait until Bernie wins. By the end of four years, you'll be practically suicidal.




    Parent
    Obviously (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:05:41 AM EST
    In other words, there's just not much here aside from dislike of Hillary's foreign policy views. That's a completely legit reason to vote against her, but it's hard to say that Taibbi makes much of a case beyond that.

    Drum didn't read Taibbi's piece.
     I find it odd that so many Hillary supporters are outraged at "personal attacks". Questioning a politicians honesty and integrity is a core issue of any campaign.
    And that is the big problem young voters have with Madame Sec, that she now conveniently spouts the same goals as The Bern. Her pandering is so blatant, TPP, Keystone are just the most recent. She loses the entire 30 and under crowd, by massive proportions. And that crowd is the most unreliable voting bloc, how can Madame Sec get them to the polls if they don't believe anything she says?

    Parent

    You didn't read Drum's piece (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 09:14:15 AM EST
    He goes point by point about what's wrong with Taibbi's anaylsis.

    Parent
    BANSHEE (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    They are running past seasons of this starting today on MAX in the run up to the final season starting soon.

    This is a GREAT series.   DVR or binge you will not be disappointed.

    ruffian I can almost guarantee you will like this.

    It's not even February and, already, 2014 is shaping up to be a massive year for television. True Detective announced itself as the year's first new stand-out series. Against all odds, Dan Harmon and Community returned and are putting together a respectable comeback season. FX's fantastic and hard-working Justified continues to solidify its place among the greats of the past decade. And Girls` unique blend of comedy and drama is once again pushing the narrative boundaries of the half-hour series in its third season.

    One series, though, is leading the charge at the beginning of the year. The most unlikely of heroes, Cinemax's Banshee, in just a matter of three weeks, has matured into something truly special - something a lot of TV writers refer to as "appointment viewing" when describing other series. With limited experience dabbling in co-produced original programming, Cinemax released Banshee - its first solo endeavor - this time last year. Created by Jonathan Tropper and David Schickler, the series follows an ex-con who is on a mission to take back the life he once led as a conman (this, of course, includes the woman he was partnered and romantically involved with). When he arrives in the town of Banshee, achieving that goal ends up being a little more difficult than expected. In a scattershot series of events, the man winds up taking the identity of the new, incoming sheriff of Banshee, Lucas Hood, who ends up being killed by thugs in the first episode

    How Banshee Became One Of The Best.....

    Trouble for Debbie (none / 0) (#153)
    by ragebot on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    Newsweek is reporting:

    Florida Congresswoman and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is facing a primary challenge for the first time in her career--and to make things worse, her state's Democratic Party has just given her challenger a major leg up.

    Good! It's about time Wasserman Schultz (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 26, 2016 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    faced a challenge from the left. I hope Canova wins. DWS is a disaster on so many levels.

    Parent
    Just watching coverage (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 27, 2016 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    Of the mini riot in Brussels.  Joy Reid is full of praise for the valiant police who did a "great job" using water cannons on right wing protesters.  Now, let's be clear, I'm not suggesting the police did anything wrong.  In fact IMO they seemed to handle it pretty well.

    I just can't help but wonder how full of praise Joy Reid would be if this same water cannons were used on any protesters who did not happen to be right wing protesters.

    Btw
    She is also very very upset that Sanders victories are not getting "enough play".
    I've been scanning the coverage which is wall to wall.  I would say I'm curious what "enough play" would be but I'm actually not.

    Thursday Open Thread | 196 comments (196 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment