Hillary, Donald and Bernie Open Thread

I've had enough of the election for a while. I'm not particularly interested in Trump protests or Bernie Sanders' latest maneuvers. Or reports on Hillary's email.

Here's an open thread to discuss the election.

< El Chapo's Lawyers Denied Extradition Documents | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am voting for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Green26 on Wed May 25, 2016 at 11:26:31 PM EST
    Would never vote for Trump or Bernie. Trump is so despicable and mean.

    Hope Hillary gets to the nomination. Don't think today's IG report is going to help. I wonder what will come of the FBI stuff. I keep wondering if Bernie is staying in the race because he wonders if Hillary will get to the finish line, or if he is just an odd guy.

    A truly incredibly and historical presidential race. Wish it had never occurred. Totally embarrassing. Hope it doesn't lead to more bad presidential races and bad people running, in the future.

    Elizabeth Warren summons the spirit (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:22:44 AM EST
    of the original Furies, the Greek goddesses of Vengance, and emasculates the Republican sure-to-be nominee. She singed his orange hair from three-thousand miles away with her firey words delivered on May 24th at the Center for Popular Democracy.

    "The rest of us were horrified by the 2008 financial crisis...[B]ut Donald Trump was drooling over the idea of a housing meltdown because it meant he could buy up a bunch more property on the cheap."

    Senator NA (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    left out how she made a pile flipping 4 houses...

    She also left out that Trump deals in commercial real estate not residential. So he didn't buy anyone's "home."

    I know. I know. Excuse me for bringing such minor details up.


    Then why was he hoping for a housing crisis? (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:58:35 PM EST

    "I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy," Trump is heard saying in the ad, commenting on the "gloomy" predictions of an impending crisis. "If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know you could make a lot of money."

    Do you really think all of his investments are in commercial real estate?


    All business people want to buy low and sell high (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:16:26 PM EST
    Just like Senator Native American did.

    And I don't think he is in the residential housing market.

    But hey! The Demos made the bubble and Trump made money on it.


    Your party just takes the process (none / 0) (#96)
    by jondee on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:26:04 PM EST
    a step further by sinking low and then selling their own mothers.

    Another minor detail.. (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:06:43 PM EST
    Warren was into flipping houses decades ago, back when she was still a Republican and a supporter of the party that likes to think of another's misfortune as an oppurtunity..

    So her evileeeeeee ways are (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    forgiven?? What did she have to do? Take a bath in Holy Water??


    And why doesn't she have her DNA tested????

    Of course we have another example... Senator Byrd of the KKK. Heck, he even tossed around the N word and no one pulled his string.


    I don't know why I bother (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:37:34 PM EST
    but I'll try again...one can flip houses, and many do, without rooting for a fraudulently inflated investor driven bubble to burst so people lose everything they have.

    You show me E. Warren helped wither inflate the bubble or cheered its bursting, and I promise you I will never vote for her.


    My gosh (none / 0) (#206)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 27, 2016 at 09:32:35 AM EST
    fraudulently inflated investor driven

    I never thought I would see you admit that first Carter and then Clinton started the bubble...

    Published: September 30, 1999

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 29-- In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.


    In moving,....Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

    ''...this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison ....''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


    And did Democrats oppose reigning in the bubble? Yes. Yes they did.

    Published: September 11, 2003

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 10-- The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul....Under the plan,...a new agency would be created ... to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ....that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.


    But that didn't set well with Democrats.

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

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


    Now, what did Trump say:

    Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, in remarks on a "bubble burst," said: "I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy" property and "make a lot of money."

    And have you, or your 401K management, ever shorted the market?? Or just purchased a stock that had dropped in price from a previous high? He was speaking about making deals.

    Did Senator NA cheer the collapse? If so she did it 15 years in advance:

    That's part of the reason she's so surprised her grandmother sold the home in 1993 for a mere $30,000. Despite a debilitating stroke, Martin says Hickman remained sharp, and she had always been business-savvy. As an Avon saleswoman, she had at times ranked among the top ten in the country. "So I don't know why," Martin says. "Maybe she just wanted out from underneath it, but to sell it for such a low number -- I don't know. Maybe she got bad advice, maybe she was just tired."

    The home's new owner: Elizabeth Warren, today a Massachusetts senator who has built a political career on denouncing the sort of banking titans and financial sophisticates who make a buck off the little guy. Five months after purchasing Veo Vessels' old home, Warren flipped the property, selling it for $115,000 more than she'd paid, according to Oklahoma County Property Assessor records.


    Now let's examine this. An elderly person sells a home at a grossly low price... $85,000 under market.... And Warren didn't know?

    Are you kidding me? I mean this person who criticizes Trump for "sort of hoping" didn't know the elderly stroke victim was selling $85,000 below market? Really?

    Of course the issue isn't what she did. It is the hypocrisy of her attacking Trump after she had profited by buying and flipping....and make no mistake......when you "flip" you are profiting because of someone else's problems.


    The word is eeevil (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    didn't you ever see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi, Jim?

    And, yes, yes, we know you miss the old Robert Byrd, but that's why they invented the Tea Party for folks like you.


    New (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:44:14 AM EST
    poll showing that Trump is losing middle income rust belt voters by 7% here

    Long and interesting piece (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    HILLARY ON TROUBLE (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:10:39 AM EST
    IN CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I've heard this about a half a dozen times already in the short time I've had MSNBC while I was on the StairMaster.


    (In one poll)

    Interestingly there is another poll released the same day with a larger time scale, a larger sample and a smaller MOE that has her ahead by 18.  But don't hold your breath waiting to hear about THAT one

    Deadline to register (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:22:42 AM EST
    as Dem. or undeclared was Monday.

    It has become evident, to me, (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:36:18 AM EST
    that, essentially, all the media, including so-called liberal sources, want to see Trump elected president--despite any protestations to the contrary or the odd contrarian.

     Trump has done wonders to ratings over the past months re-invigorating a struggling enterprise. And, it seems that the media looks forward to four years of same.  That a Trump administration may be recognized as being a disaster for the country, is quite secondary to their bottom-line.

    MSNBC, for example, has become unwatchable to the extent that it ever was.  Lawrence O'Donnell interviewed the "investigative" reporter of WaPo on his article about the Inspector General Report. The reporter's "hard hitting" coverage was much more nuanced that the report O'Donnell was expecting.  But, O'Donnell smirked his way along for almost half the show, but found the reporter to be the one with the moderation.

    I think you are absolutely correct (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    I was just watching a gaggle of "liberal" talking heads chuckling good heartedly about "Donald being Donald" and calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas.  He's such a card, that Donald.

    He has been a goldmine for them.


    Yes he is correct... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:24:43 AM EST
    KD always comes correct...but I wonder, is that really  the corporate media profit motive's fault or is it ours?  Aren't they just giving the people what they want, which is The Trump Variety Hour (and hours and hours and hours)?  The American people want entertainment over good journalism or good governance, that much is crystal clear.

    Few truer clichés than "you get the government you deserve".  Trump may be our chickens coming home to roost...I'm becoming more convinced he might win by the day, especially with who the Dems nominated.

    Maybe the superdelegates can give it to Bill Maher or something...scary thought, but while we're playing lesser evil Bill Maher would be the lesser evil among comedians (intentional or unintentional) posing as politicians;)


    Demographics is destiny (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    And I continue to think that this country is no longer white enough to elect Trump (to say nothing of the gender divide), but I guess time will tell.

    I do however think that it's segregated enough to convince many people that it's white enough to elect Trump.


    Likewise (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by christinep on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:01:16 PM EST
    Demographics vs Entertainment.  It is going to be fascinating to see what pathway rules ... because while most realize that the evolving demographics of this country definitely favor HRC, the entertainment (aka Theme, Outsize Personality, Ratings, $$$$$ potential) favor the Showman Trump.  

    In this pre-convention settlement time: Even tho we know that the numbers of voters-- the millions on both sides together with the resultant pledged delegates--have spoken for HRC as presumptive Democratic nominee and for Trump as presumptive Republican nominee, the jousting for definitional top hand is well underway.  Making an easy guess, I'd suspect the media will be an active player in the image wars to keep the interest up with the $$$$$ flowing to them.  I'd also guess that the money-chase will push the media closer & closer to aligning with one side or another.  

    'Saw today this interesting survey result about selected states in the Rust Belt (PA, Ohio, Mich., Wisc.) from Bloomberg: Voters in the middle-class ($35K to $70K per year) favored HRC by 7 points; and, component info showed HRC faring better than expected on a number of data points.  These Purple Strategies samplings of key voting groups led off in April with a sampling of women voters in the area showing 75& of the women viewed Trump negatively.  So ... if these kinds of samplings are somewhat accurate forerunners of the early shape of the race, the board discussions in the various newsrooms could be unusually heated.  My, my ... what brings in the highest ratings ultimately? what narrative should we devise & propel?


    $35 k is not middle class (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:35:51 PM EST
    No it certainly is not... (2.33 / 3) (#192)
    by kdog on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:17:57 AM EST
    But multiply 35k by 10 and you've got yourself and a guest a seat at the dais of a George Clooney fundraiser for Hillary! ;)

    or (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by FlJoe on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:46:47 AM EST
    one pitching start from  Bartolo Colon! Yay sports, boo politics!

    African Americans & Latinos... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:38:08 AM EST
    seem motivated and behind Hillary to stop him, at least the older ones...but Bill Maher might motivate (and entertain) some younger folks who ain't to keen on Hillary to get out and vote.

    I have my doubts Hillary will get them out like Obama did, maybe women can make up the difference.  And there's more time for Trump to scare the sh&t outta everybody furthur.  

    I was debating with my nephew last night, who is actually considering Trump and planning a road trip to protest in Philly much to my dismay.  I advised neither is a good idea, but I didn't listen to nobody when I was his age...not even my hip aunts and uncles.


    Maher has been pretty good about advocating (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:00:10 PM EST
    for Hillary against Trump since it was clear (to him anyway) she was going to be the nominee. I don't know that he has that much of a following though. Not entertaining the idea of him as a candidate, and neither I feel sure, is he. A better choice is Rob Reiner, a long time progressive political activist.

    But I see no need to go that route. Hillary's general election campaign has not even started yet. The ultimate campaigner - Obama -  has yet to stump for her. May not get Obama-level numbers of African American votes, but I think the needed margin in the battleground states will be achieved.


    Please be right Ruff, please be right... (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    I don't want it to be so close where I might have to consider pulling a 2004 and voting for a sh&tty (imo only) Democrat.

    If Warren don't want it in 2024, maybe this route should be considered...nominate a liberal entertainer.  I'd take Rob Reiner!  


    Well (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:32:40 PM EST
    a poll today showed Trump only carrying the white vote by a couple of points in the rust belt states. No way Trump can win unless he gets something like 40 points on Hillary with the white voters in this country. Obama lost the white vote by 30 points. The Big Dawg came close to splitting the white vote with Bush Sr.

    And you are in NY which I seriously doubt is going to be close.


    Yep... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    sometimes its a blessing to live in a true blue state...it will be fun to watch Trump get smoked in his hometown.  

    Then again, the last Brand R who went from class clown to president and pulled significant support from Brand D members, Ronald Reagan, won NY in 1980 & 1984.  Kinda scary.


    Reagan (none / 0) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:58:10 PM EST
    also had 8 years as governor of California. Even Bush had being a governor under his belt. Trump has nothing but the big con. Obviously the big con is enough for some people. However he did just smoke Bernie and played him about the debates. So maybe Hillary is doing the right thing with not directly talking to Trump.

    I agree (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    However the good news is the voters seem to largely be ignoring them. When they were treating Trump like a joke he was getting votes.

    But it's quite clear we've reached the point that the media could care less what happens to the majority of Americans. I guess I should say it's now become screamingly obvious. We have plenty of examples going to back to George W. Bush.


    The media and the comeny shows too (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    have been saying for a year how great he is for their careers. They think viewers draw the distinction between their approval of him for news/comedy reasons and general approval of him. I don't think people are that smart. Trump now appears quite normal to the average viewer.

    Well, isn't that special ? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:55:13 AM EST
    Yknow I didn't think (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    I could loathe Weaver much more, especially after his mansplainin' to Boxer re how she couldn't logically "feel threatened " but seriously F*** this guy.
    And his boss too.

    I saw (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:30:01 PM EST
    this earlier today.

    For the record (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    Hillary won Kentucky. Again. Even afyer the recanvass.

    Results will be official on 5/31

    Ken Starr sacked.... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by desertswine on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:43:04 PM EST
    as president of Baylor due to sexual assault cover-ups.

    Ken Starr has been "reassigned" by ... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    ... the Baylor University Board of Trustees, and will remain with the school as its chancellor.  The Board has also suspended head football coach Art Briles "with intent to terminate," and has further placed athletic director Ian McCaw on probation.

    Baylor Bears football had enjoyed unprecedented success under Coach Briles' leadership, with two conference championships over the last five years, but that success has obviously come at a very steep price for several female students who were raped by players. Boise State University further filed a complaint against Baylor and Coach Briles with the NCAA over the disposition of one of those Bears players who later transferred to the Broncos program and ran into similar trouble up there.

    In that complaint, Boise coach Brian Harsin charged that Briles actively encouraged him to accept the transferring player, yet never once disclosed to him that the player was then currently under investigation for sexual assault. (The player has since been convicted in court and is in prison.) This matter has yet to be resolved, and may yet result in official NCAA sanctions for the Baylor athletic program.

    Today's events are an ugly bookend for a proud university and its once-promising football program, yet an altogether fitting one as well, serving as a cautionary tale of what can happen when winning at all costs becomes unofficial school policy:

    "Mark this day down. Turn the corner of this page in the college football family bible. Someone in the gridiron-industrial complex stood up and said some standards are more important than winning.


    "Briles won while protecting several players from the criminal justice system. Once upon a time, football coaches did this the same way they ordered players to run. The university and the coach considered that duty a part of their job. Hall of Fame coach Bobby Bowden, late in his career at Florida State, lamented the passing of the era when a phone call with the chief of police would clean up any mess his players might have made. [...] That era, and Bowden, are long gone."



    This is more the result of (none / 0) (#87)
    by ragebot on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    Title IX than any other factor.  There are currently several law suits against universities brought under Title IX laws.

    Anyone following sports at major universities is aware of just how much Title IX has changes how the schools function.

    As a rule lawyers get 1/3 of a settlement if they win while Title IX lawyers get more in the range of 2/3 of settlements.

    Anyone have an over/under on what Baylor will wind up paying the women who suffered the assaults.  


    Wrong. This is about doing the right thing. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    "We were horrified by the extent of these acts of sexual violence on our campus. This investigation revealed the University's mishandling of reports in what should have been a supportive, responsive and caring environment for students. The depth to which these acts occurred shocked and outraged us."
    - Richard Willis, Chair, Baylor University Board of Regents

    What a pity that you can't even begin to fathom that. Several women were assaulted, and Baylor officials not only did nothing about it, they actually stood by its own football coach while he actively tried to kill a police investigation into one of the incidents.

    Turn off your testosterone-fueled misogynist rage against Title IX and take a good look at what actually happened at Baylor, before you blame today's events on the school's coddling of its coeds.



    Have to disagree with (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by ragebot on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    Donald.  Not trying to excuse anyone who assaults others.  But the fact of the matter is the number of women assaulted by football players is tiny compared to the number of women assaulted by the general student population.  There are still lots of coverups of things like drunk girls being taken advantage of.  Lots of females enter college with little experience with alcohol, drugs, or peer pressure and wind up getting in trouble.

    This is not just related to what I will call big sports schools.  The Ivy League leads sports conferences with the number of Title IX suits.  And most of those suits have no connection to athletes.  

    Maybe you could explain where I had a "testosterone-fueled misogynist rage against Title IX".  My position is that Title IX has changed how universities deal with lots of things.  It is interesting to me that schools that are viewed as liberal (Ivy League) are the targets of Title IX law suits.  Again not trying to excuse athletes but my experience has been that what I will term rich pampered males who attend Ivy League schools are more inclined to abuse females than athletes who often have girls chasing them.

    What Title IX has done is change how schools spend money, and not just on sports.  Schools are required to employ folks who deal with reports of sexual abuse.  These folks are required to keep stats on sexual abuse in addition to provide advice to vics of sexual abuse.  Those stats are required to be reported to the DOE.

    Of course there is also the requirement that more money be spent on women's sports.  As a graduate and fan of FSU I am happy to note that the FSU lady softball, soccer,  track, rugby, volleyball, beach volleyball are all currently national powers with multiple nattys and appearances in national tourneys.

    So all in all I am not unhappy with the changes Title IX has brought to FSU.  But I still stand by my remark that Title IX has changed how schools do things.


    Title IX is a good thing. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:12:56 PM EST
    It busted the glass ceiling that once prevented millions of girls and young women from being able to pursue their dreams, and for the very first time sought to protect them from wanton abuse by a male-dominated system.

    Per your request for odds as to the amount the victims at Baylor would cash in, by which you insinuate that you believe this case to be about a quest for money on the part of the plaintiffs rather than justice, you obviously have issues with girls and women, giving your constant ragging on the subject in which young men are somehow always the victims of scheming females.

    If for whatever your reason, you can't accommodate yourself to the reality of Title IX, that's your problem and not mine or anyone else's. And speaking as a father of two daughters, women are not pieces of meat whose presence in this world is merely to be suffered at your convenience.



    The problem I see with recent Title IX related (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by McBain on Fri May 27, 2016 at 12:08:22 AM EST
    sexual assault cases is lack of thorough investigation by the schools before rendering an important decision. It seems that an accusation alone is enough to get someone expelled.  

    Except in the cases where (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by ruffian on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:20:40 AM EST
    the accusations are ignored and not investigated and the accuser is the one that is put through hell.

    I agree thorough investigation is needed, with protections in place for all parties involved. University staff is generally not equipped to do the investigation properly. Local law enforcement agencies should be staffed appropriately to deal with sexual assault cases at the local university.


    The rest of the Kenneth Starr story: (none / 0) (#200)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:34:45 AM EST
    NYTimes: Kenneth Starr, Who Tried to Bury Bill Clinton, Now Only Praises Him

    "There are certain tragic dimensions which we all lament," Mr. Starr said in a panel discussion on the presidency at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.

    "That having been said, the idea of this redemptive process afterwards, we have certainly seen that powerfully" in Mr. Clinton's postpresidency, he continued, adding, "President Carter set a very high standard, which President Clinton clearly continues to follow."

    "His genuine empathy for human beings is absolutely clear," Mr. Starr said. "It is powerful, it is palpable, and the folks of Arkansas really understood that about him -- that he genuinely cared. The `I feel your pain' is absolutely genuine."

    Wolf Blitzer says NOTHING after a Rep pundit calls (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Cashmere on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:48:09 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton a "contemptible human being."  This was a female that I heard on Sirius and I am fairly certain it was S.E Cupp.  I just don't understand how these pundits can say such things without any retort.  I hear things like this all of the time.

    They say things Cashmere... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:55:26 PM EST
    things like "please go on!" lol.

    They are there to stir the pot, drive up ratings, and most importantly...sell laundry detergent.

    The only way to stop this behavior is to stop watching/listening to them.  

    Like Howard Stern in his heyday, more people tuned in to get entertained getting angry with him than tuned to get entertained by enjoying him.  This phenomenon also explains cable news and news talk radio ratings.  


    I know kdog - I am naive in this regard and (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cashmere on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:40:29 PM EST
    expect more from MSM than I should.  I listen to NPR as well, but sometimes hear such statements there as well.  

    I know you consider Hillary to be contemptible as well from your posts, so perhaps it does not shock you as much.

    Take care :)


    Yes I do... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    but no more contemptible than your typical Democrat, and less contemptible than your typical Republican.

    You caught me at a bad time this cycle, usually I don't really care about who wins the nomination...Bernie got me excited about a real change in the game going from impossible to simply unlikely.  Sue me;)


    Clinton Rules (3.67 / 3) (#92)
    by mm on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    you can say any damn thing you want about either of them.  There are no limits, no boundaries, no sense of propriety.  And they do, all the time.

    I am the point (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    with this kind of stuff that the person spouting this nonsense is doing a lot of damage to their cause. I mean Donald Trump calling all Mexicans rapists without interruption or with interruption--which is worse?

    MSNBC, CNN. and Fox News (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Nemi on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:07:50 AM EST
    Ignored Hillary Clinton Speech To Show Trump's Empty Podium.

    But of course they did. Why would they expect their viewers to be interested in listening to Hillary Clinton speaking about

    ... raising wages for working families and offering a rejection of Trump's immigration policies.

    John Heilemann (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:10:48 AM EST
    On morning Joe on Trump clenching the nomination -

    "No one predicted it.  And any one who says they did is lying"

    And fortunately it's recorded in black and white.  

    Shaun King is a writer at NYDN (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Nemi on Fri May 27, 2016 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    who was very vocal in his non-support of his paper's endorsement of Hillary Clinton. This is his latest, KING: Hillary Clinton has been caught lying for a year in her email scandal.

    On Twitter he's gone full blown Clinton-Deranged, digging up and repeating every Republican smear ever made about 'The Clintons', and having had to remove at least one tweet -- about Bill Clinton's sex life in the White House, no less.

    For that - his CDS and for reaching so far back in time - he has been endlessly ridiculed on Twitter. Not that it has stopped him from keeping on both on Twitter and in the paper ... as his latest article proves.

    Shaun King started making noise (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by McBain on Fri May 27, 2016 at 11:10:51 AM EST
    during the Zimmerman trial, mostly spreading false information. He was even worse during the Mike Brown case.  

    He was recently accused of pretending to be black in order to
    further his career

    FWIW, I believe my Shaun King timeline (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by McBain on Sun May 29, 2016 at 08:24:40 PM EST
    from my earlier post was a little off.   He started making noise during the Mike Brown/Darren Wilson case, not Zimmerman. His Zimmerman comments/articles came after the verdict as far as I can tell.  

    Now, he's focusing his social media energy against Hillary Clinton.  In this article, he wants her to resign because of the email scandal.

    I give the guy credit for staying relevant but I don't care much for his opinions.  

    Neil Young Oks Trump campaign's use of (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Wed May 25, 2016 at 08:54:02 PM EST
    Rockin' in the Free World

    The Bernie Sanders supporter said, `Once the music goes out, everybody can use it'

    It is a rather dystopian song (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:25:03 AM EST
    Perfect for the Trump world view - he cheers the dystopia when it helps his bottom line. Maybe someone at the rallies will 'get it' though.

    I think the avoidance of FOIA (2.33 / 3) (#51)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:43:19 AM EST
    Is where Clinton can be really damaged.
    It is the law of the land  and designed to hold public officials accountable. And it certainly appears that she purposefully circumvented it.
    Doubt that this would be a criminal matter, but it certainly looks bad. Feeds into her untrustworthiness and so on.

    Much more substantial than BS about Vince Foster or Benghazi.

    The press has their field day (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by christinep on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    and then it is Memorial Day Weekend.  Don't worry, smott, no one other than the original purveyors of the infamous email interagency feud cares all that much.  Goodness, don'tyaknow that only a week after the barbecues of Memorial Day Weekend, we will have the media-anticipated narrative of California (after HRC clinches the nomination in New Jersey before the west coast polls close.) That will be followed by the all-around hype leading to the July conventions.

    Etc. etc.

    Seriously.  The email story is nothing new--just a jazzed up remonstrance about the last 5 Secretaries of State with a pronounced emphasis on HRC. But, for the press, it adds to their predefined HRC tale ... a tale which hasn't changed the minds of supporters or detractors in the past, nor will it in the future.  The real question is--as it has been for sometime--which candidate will land the biggest definitional punch on the other?  For now, HRC has a good start with the Donald-is-a-greedy loser-&-a-fraud-as-a-businessman narrative ... a powerful theme, especially with the first jabs about Trump's public comments prior to the big recession about rooting for the housing market collapse in order to feed his bottom line & the con job he seems to have done on those trying to afford college via his rapacious Trump University.  The significant summer definitional period commences....


    Breathless media reports to the contrary, the OIG report was not focused on Mrs. Clinton's emails in particular, but rather investigated how the State Dept. fulfilled its federal obligations regarding its record-keeping.

    To be sure, pundits are trying to insist otherwise, but the report itself actually makes no such insinuations about Mrs. Clinton seeking to circumvent FOIA requirements. Not. A. Single. Word.

    Rather, the OIG takes the State Dept. to task for its own systemic failure to prioritize its records management, as evidenced by lack of staff and budget resources devoted to the endeavor, absence of up-to-date policies and procedures, lack of training, and lack of accountability.

    In fact, OIG specifically cited one email exchange several weeks before Secretary Clinton took office, which highlighted an obvious reluctance on the part of the State Dept.'s Bureau of Administration to alert and train incoming Obama administration appointees regarding federal requirements to print and file all department-related emails.

    Further, OIG faulted the department for its decision to exempt Secretaries of State from the federal requirement that every departing employee sign a separation statement (DS-109) certifying that he or she has surrendered all documentation related to the official business of the Government.

    Rather, departing Secretaries were asked to complete and sign Form DS-1904 (Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials), which for some reason has not been updated and fails to include emails under the definition of official government records.

    The OIG report states, "At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

    However, given that Mrs. Clinton was likely never informed as to what those actual policies were, per the Bureau of Administration's own stated reluctance to brief incoming personnel about those policies in January 2009, OIG concurred with the finding of the National Archives and Records Administration that "Secretary Clinton's production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure."

    It's worth noting that one of OIG's seven recommendations includes, "In addition, staff should ensure that all incoming officials within its purview, including the Secretary, are thoroughly briefed on their records preservation and retention responsibilities, including records contained on personal email accounts."

    One interesting item in the report was an indication that on January 9, 2011, there may have been an attempt by an outside party to hack the Clinton Foundation's server, which was apparently thwarted. At least, the non-State Dept. advisor to President Clinton who provided technical support to the foundation's email system suspected as much, and he twice shut down the server that day in response to the suspected attempt at intrusion. Whatever it was, there was no breach of the Foundation's electronic firewall. But this is the first indication of which I'm aware that an attempt may have been made.



    You left a couple of things out (none / 0) (#157)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    That Madame Sec, for over a year , has repeatedly stated that the private server and e mail was approved by the State Department.
    WOW. That will add to the honest and trustworthy poll numbers.
    There was no attempt to ask for approval by Madame Sec, and the IG report also stated that if permission was requested, it would have been denied.
    Yes, there were hacking attempts, and they are obligated to notify federal officials when someone attempts to hack federal records. No notification to any federal official was made.

    After making multiple pronouncements that she will assist in any inquiry, her staff and Madame Sec declined to assist the IG office in
    this inquiry.
    There were internal orders within the State Department to not question her server and e mail setup

    The report said two staffers said they discussed their concerns in 2010 with officials, but were told Clinton's personal system had been approved "and the matter was not to be discussed any further." One staffer said a top official with Information Resource Management "instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary's personal email system again."

    And blatant and obvious violations of the Federal Records Act

    The report said Clinton "should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service."

    She did not, the report said, and therefore "did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."

    And this was just the preliminary round, the State Department IG report, I fear that the FBI investigation will not be so gentle


    You know, Trevor, if you're going to ... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 27, 2016 at 02:25:46 AM EST
    ... quote Fox News, then at least have the decency to cite your source via hyperlink and give credit where it's due -- for whatever that's worth, given that it's, you know, Fox News. But hey, thanks for playing. Don't let the door hit you in the arse on your way out.

    Are you really (none / 0) (#175)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri May 27, 2016 at 05:13:40 AM EST
    That silly and inane?
    Would you prefer the exact same quote from the NY Times?

    I think I will still go with my original assessment, this report was devastating, it further cemented the untrustworthy and honesty issues of Madame Sec, and laid the groundwork for the criminal investigation. This report claims Madame Sec violated the Federal Records Act. No, I do not believe that the FBI will be as gentle as the State Department IG office.


    Mrs. Clinton "had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business" with department officials but that, contrary to her claims that the department "allowed" the arrangement, there was "no evidence" she had requested or received approval for it.

    When two officials in the record-keeping division raised concerns in 2010, their superior "instructed the staff never to speak of the secretary's personal email system again," the report said.

    Mrs. Clinton and her aides have played down the inquiries, saying that she would cooperate with investigators to put the email issue behind her. Even so, she declined to be interviewed by the inspector general, Steve A. Linick, or his staff, as part of his review. So did several of her senior aides.

    She replied that while she would consider a using a separate address or device, "I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible."

    "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act," the report said.

    To Sum it Up (3.00 / 2) (#165)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    As we have known for a while, this election is about choosing who is the least awful.  

    Not for me (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:24:13 PM EST
    I see one incredibly intelligent and experienced candidate vs one GOP clown car

    not to me it doesn't (none / 0) (#56)
    by mm on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    it certainly appears that she purposefully circumvented it.

    It seems there are a lot of mind readers lately, who are able to read Secretary Clinton's mind.

    98 At a minimum, Secretary Clinton
    should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
    NARA agrees with the foregoing assessment but told OIG that Secretary Clinton's production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records upon her departure.

    It is kind of an illogical accusation to make, when in fact Secretary Clinton is the only cabinet secretary to release all their work related emails.

    As discussed above, in December 2014, her representative produced to the Department 55,000 hard-copy pages of documents, representing
    approximately 30,000 emails that could potentially constitute Federal records that she sent or received from April 2009 through early 2013.

    Please note the bold words.  Not all of the emails in question even qualify as Federal Records.  Guess who decides which ones to keep?  


    Her aide came right out (1.00 / 2) (#63)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:36:29 PM EST
    And admitted it.
    Done to avoid FOIA.
    JudicialWatch scumbags had been pursuing every doc and email for years.

    This was basically admitted to.


    I think this might be what you are referring to (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by mm on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:15:28 PM EST
    The Deputy Chief of Staff emailed the Secretary that "we should talk about putting you on state email or releasing your email address to the department so you are not going to spam." In response, the Secretary wrote, "Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible." 152

    This has nothing to do with her intent to avoid FOIA.  The whole notion is ludicrous and illogical.  As she has explained numerous times, most of her emails came from or were forwarded to state.gov addresses.  And she says she expected that these would be captured and accessible for records as needed.

    OIG determined that email usage and preservation practices varied across the tenures of the five most recent Secretaries and that, accordingly, compliance with statutory, regulatory, and internal requirements varied as well.

    The whole OIG report with respect to Secretary Clinton can be boiled down to she gets a slap on the wrist for not printing out any emails she deemed worthy of preserving as Federal Records when she left.  And I promise you that wouldn't have been 55000 pages, most of it innocuous routine communication that might have been done over a phone before email.


    link please (none / 0) (#65)
    by mm on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    I have a hard time believing her aide "admitted" that Secretary Clinton was trying to avoid FOIA.

    Links (1.00 / 2) (#68)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    I'm on phone cannot embed but simply Google 'Clinton avoids FOIA' and the first result is fro TheHill with direct quotes from her campaign re avoiding FOIA.

    I'll post when I'm back home but it's quite obvious that they did this to circumvent the law, which is a civil violation, not criminal I believe.

    Look Clinton is paranoid to an extreme degree. We could argue with good reason.

    She's not given a WaPo interview in like a year. Again perhaps w good reason.

    And she's held to a higher standard than her competitors.

    But it seems clear this was intended circumvention.


    oh my (none / 0) (#75)
    by mm on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    This is what I found.

    A former top aide to Hillary Clinton appeared to joke with reporters that he wanted to avoid open records laws, years before his and other Clinton aides' use of private email accounts became an issue for her presidential campaign.

    "I want to avoid FOIA," Philippe Reines, Clinton's combative former adviser, wrote in an email to journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in February 2009, referring to the Freedom of Information Act.  

    The email was revealed Thursday as part of a lawsuit launched by Gawker earlier this year.
    The message was apparently sent before Reines took a job at the State Department and is being dismissed by his lawyers as a joke.


    So, to summarize, the article is talking about a joke email sent by an aide to Secretary Clinton to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in February 2009,at a point in time before he even had started working at the State Department, and which clearly was a joke.

    To extrapolate from that, to saying Secretary Clinton had a clear intent to avoid FOIA is simply mind boggling.


    OH come one (none / 0) (#104)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    How else would you describe it?
    How else could it reasonably be construed?

    Lets assume you are correct (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    (Not that I do, no offense) the discussion here illustrates perfectly why this won't change a single mind.

    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:12:06 PM EST
    If played well by GOP (no guarantee there, they are still more concerned that Clinton is a lesbian murderer, but they're idiots....)

    But seriously FOIA is the law, and exists to keep public officials accountable, and it is VERY easy to see this as an attempt to avoid all of the FOIA requests that Clinton has been bombarded with (often by JudicalWatch) dating back to the 90s.

    This has kept Clinton unaccountable, and arguably above the law and who gives a sh** if her guy says he was joking? What's he supposed to say.

    Clinton's biggest issue is that she is seen as un-trustworthy.

    How does anybody think this is not a big deal? There is no way to spin this positively.

    NOTE : IMO this was absolutely premeditated, as a way of avoiding a thousand FOIA scandal du jours. BUt it pissed off plenty of people, ex) environmentalists trying to get at her position on Keystone while she was at State, which were blocked.

    We could argue that perhaps it prevented more press scandals this way, but IMO it plays directly into Clinton's greatest weakness, her trustworthiness. Or lack of.

    I don't see how anyone defends this on legal merits.
    Bypassing FOIA is a violation of civil law.


    wow!!! (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by mm on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:42:40 PM EST
    I don't know how FOX News is reporting this, but here's how I see it.

    The guy was obviously yanking the two reporters' chains. (Mark Halperin and John Heilemann)

    Have some common sense please.  If there was serious intent to avoid FOIA, do you think they'd announce it to Halperin and Heilmann?  Seriously?


    As one who had to deal with FOIA (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    in an official government capacity, please start with the reality that there are many avenues to "avoid" the full scope of FOIA.  See, e.g., exemption categories  that involve "deliberative process" and not-so-specific provisions that have historically been subject to slightly different interpretations about release depending on the bent of the administration.  As you can see via this split-in-agency interpretations, this area has evolving approaches.

    The real key here concerns how far the media can and will push their give-us-all-the-info-we-demand view (a traditional view that the press should espouse) in view of the reality that--TO DATE--the broader voting public does not seem to have latched onto the issue in an emotional or otherwise way.  Why the public disinterest? Well ... perhaps, it stems from the apparent fact that no discernible real harm resulted from the email arrangement and, perhaps, ordinary people understand that there are little wrongs and there are big wrongs.  They are not equal; and, ordinary people get that. Heck, the country has lived through killing wars and a collapsing economy in the past dozen years ... maybe an IG spat about internal agency practice doesn't bring out the same emotion :)


    Yes FOIA has many (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by BTAL on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    built in exemption clauses (Disclosure - also dealt directly with FOIA during USAF career).   The point regarding HRC records is that if the FOIA and responsible office cannot access nor knows of the records they are effectively hidden from the FOIA process.  HRC's Chief of Staff has a minor legal issue pending with two of the FOIA lawsuits because she knew of the email records and passed no-records-found responses back on at least two FOIA requests.

    I must admit.. (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:41:06 PM EST
    a little schadenfreude seeing lawmakers getting tangled in the complex webs they help weave.

    As Karl Hess once said (paraphrase), our system of justice and rules care not at all for right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral...only legal and illegal.  And legal and illegal has far too little to do with right and wrong, just and unjust, moral and immoral.  

    Hillary Clinton could have been 100% in the right/just/moral with every action taken in regards to emails and correspondence, but sadly that does not matter one lick.  Mens Rea is an obsolete notion in this day and age.


    Every so often (none / 0) (#84)
    by christinep on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:02:26 PM EST
    we all like to take down the king-of-the-hill.  Of course, in the U.S., we do that--periodically--via voting the "outs" in and the "ins" out.  It is a kind of ritualistic cleansing, huh?  

    I agree that the application of law can make the law the antithesis of what it is or may have been intended to be.  Then, it is a beast.  Yet, imo, the best of the judges & the practitioners can & do seek to do equity <that wonderful leveling component of the common law.>


    Trump is now (2.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:06:21 AM EST
    He can't assume that... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    this is not a MONARCHY!!!!

    Yet (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    But...but... (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:11:00 AM EST
    It's not official until the convention!!!!!!!

    MSNBC won't tell you (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" -- even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.


    Bill Clinton ... associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile," said Conchita Sarnoff, of the Washington, D.C. based non-profit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, and author of a book on the Epstein case called "TrafficKing." "Why would a former president associate with a man like that?

    Why indeed?

    I'll take... (1.00 / 2) (#105)
    by kdog on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:55:40 PM EST
    Presidents Who Like Young Tail for $200 Alex.

    I told y'all Slick Willy is a noose...send him to Africa on a potable water project before it's too late Team Hil!


    You won't be offended (none / 0) (#108)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    If we don't get of political advise from a j. Stein voter.  Bill is a beloved figure.   If you and ppj like it or not.

    You kidding? (3.00 / 2) (#189)
    by kdog on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:08:41 AM EST
    I don't even take my own advice!

    But I think this Bill Love you speak of went the way of the buffalo around 2007-2008, when the deregulation he helped usher came home to roost and we had to give his Wall St. buddies the keys to the treasury "or else".  At least amongst liberals who read the fine print.

    If any of this pedo-plane sh*t is true, it won't be good.  The mere allegation ain't good.  



    Al Gore (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    listened to advise like yours Kdog. I think that the lesson is that listening to Naderites never helps.

    Lots changed since 2000... (2.33 / 3) (#201)
    by kdog on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:34:54 AM EST
    Crime Bill roosted, deregulation roosted...history has not been kind to Bill's two terms...but feel free to deny/ignore, most every other liberal does!  Why I don't know.

    The mere allegation ain't good (none / 0) (#190)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    Wow.   Do you understand  what a dangerous irresponsible statement that is?

    Or that you just explained (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    The ridiculous history of the Clinton "scandals" and the idiots who spread them?

    You know I coukd give you a long list of "allegations"about you and ppj.  


    That's politics Cap'n... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by kdog on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:29:16 AM EST
    Legend has it that LBJ, in one of his early congressional campaigns, told one of his aides to spread the story that Johnson's opponent f*cked pigs. The aide responded "Christ, Lyndon, we can't call the guy a pigf*cker. It isn't true." To which LBJ supposedly replied "Of course it ain't true, but I want to make the son-of-a-b*tch deny it."

    Of course you know I don't give a sh&t about the sexual proclivities of consenting adults...but the media does and some voters do.  Are you seriously suggesting it couldn't possibly hurt Team Clinton?  If so, I don't think you understand the nature of this game.

    This is what happens when you nominate a candidate with personal and professional baggage...buckle your seat belt, the ugly just begun.  


    Aw c'mon (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:33:10 AM EST
    considering Bernie's ton of baggage and that doesn't concern you one little bit? The baggage argument is one of the most ridiculous ones I have heard.

    Bernie Baggage... (2.33 / 3) (#202)
    by kdog on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:38:13 AM EST
    aside from some fiction writing that's a little creepy, the mistake of supporting the crime bill, and a vote here or there...dude is carrying a handbag to Team Clinton's full set of Samsonite.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:40:37 AM EST
    K-dog. Not true at all. link

    Which is btw (none / 0) (#109)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:02:17 PM EST
    Why FOX news and their peanut gallery like ppj are pushing this bullsh!t.  They want him off the field.  Won't happen.

    Why not show your (none / 0) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    FOX NEWS links jackass?

    No one believes the "I'm a liberal" krap anyway


    I have written that I am a Social Liberal (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:44:13 PM EST
    And please, understand two things.

    I am not a member of the Far Left.

    And please keep on demonstrating your vocabulary....or lack of it.



    He's a Far Right social liberal (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:03:51 PM EST
    sort of like Caligula or Nero.

    There's a historical precedent for this.


    Seen this? (none / 0) (#146)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:12:01 PM EST

    (Your the Zappa fan, right?  Or is it Natural)


    LOL (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:39:00 PM EST
    He rode on the plane with the guy along with A LOT of other people.

    This is very old news Jim but like Howdy says Fox and the GOP are apparently dredging this up out of fear. I mean if I had Trump as my candidate I guess I would do it too.

    And "everybody knows or knew" is zero evidence of anything and just rumors. But again, it's Fox.

    And aren't you the one always screaming about "guilt by association" LOL.


    Really?? Who were they (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    and why did the Secret Service get left behind?

    And why in heaven's name would an ex President associate a  SINGLE time with a registered sex offender much less 26 TIMES?????

    And "everybody knows?" Well yes, yes they did.

    Epstein, who counts among his pals royal figures, heads of state, celebrities and fellow billionaires, spent 13 months in prison and home detention for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution.


    It goes not to a lack of judgment. It goes to "I'll do anything I please and nobody will stop me."

    Look. Bill Clinton will be the person giving her advice if she is elected.

    A blind person can see problem.


    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:26:49 PM EST
    if you would check your facts you would know that when Clinton rode in the plane with him it was around 2000. He was not a registered sex offender until long after all that happened in 2008. He was a big wig at Bears Sterns and a lot of people rode on his plane.

    There is a reason why Fox News is listed as the most inaccurate news out there and you're proving it to the point.


    So he wasn't then?? (1.00 / 1) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:38:49 PM EST
    Epstein, who counts among his pals royal figures, heads of state, celebrities and fellow billionaires, spent 13 months in prison and home detention for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service his friends on "Orgy Island," an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

    Virginia Roberts, 32, who claims she was pimped out by Epstein at age 15, has previously claimed she saw Clinton at Epstein's getaway in 2002


    Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.

    De Nile is in Egypt.


    LOL (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2016 at 05:32:10 AM EST
    At first you were saying he was a registered sex offender during that time period but now you're proving he wasn't and you've moved the goal posts once again and start screaming.

    I understand Jim. Having Trump as the GOP nominee is making you desperate.  


    We could talk (none / 0) (#1)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:31:17 PM EST
    about the weather

    severe heatwave has set off new records in India, so much so that the roads beneath pedestrians are literally melting like wet cement.
    Yes, literally:

    In the footage above, pedestrians' footwear can be seen actually sinking into the tarmac as they walk due to how hot it is.

    Temperatures in the northern desert province of Rajasthan have soared to 51C, the highest in the country's recorded history, and the third-highest temperature ever documented on Earth

    "Even my mobile phone gave up and stopped working when I was trying to take pictures today," he said.
    "I was able to switch my mobile phone on after putting a wet cloth on it for about 20-25 minutes

    Tens of thousands of farmers have had no other option but to abandon their land and move into the cities.
    Meanwhile, suicide among farmers is on the rise thanks to the extreme environmental conditions. According to the Indian Express, 36 farmers in the drought-ridden region of Marathwada have committed suicide this past week alone.

    Btw (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:50:16 PM EST
    51c is about 124 degrees

    Hottest I have ever experienced (none / 0) (#23)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:16:55 AM EST
    I was in Gurgaon outside Delhi and it was about 115F but, as they say, it's the humidity. I was relatively fit, as a tournament tennis player, and played with no issues in 107F in the past, but the heat combined w the humidity just nearly killed me.
    I was on a walking tour around Humayan's tombs with a work pal, and after about 2 hours I was all in. Had to get inside, both my legs were cramping and even drinking bottles of water I just couldn't stay outside.
    Humbling experience.
    Don't want to even think about 51C.

    Smott, come on down here (none / 0) (#30)
    by fishcamp on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    where it's 89 degrees with 80 % humidity, and stand on the bow of my boat staring at the tarpon that just keep swimming right on past your fly, if you're a fly fisherman.  Otherwise we can anchor down at the bridge with live bait and slay them.  It's even hotter fishing that way, but you're so busy you don't notice it.  Yes 51C is beyond imagination.

    How about (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:50:02 PM EST
    Just plain ole lures?

    Poppers, swimmers?

    After watching tarpon sniff my fly and keep on going

    I would not let silly pride prevent me from trying a spinning rod,

    Or even bait!


    Hah! (none / 0) (#67)
    by smott on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    I would be diving straight off the boat into the water to keep cool LOL!

    I can say it was amazing   If unpleasant....My Dad was in the RAF and said the humidity in India was like a physical force. He was right.

    On arrival , I came out of the airport to get my taxi at 1am - so I thought how bad could it be?  How bad?  Oy! Felt like I walked into a wall the air was so thick. I practically staggered as I came out the doors.  Incredible.

    So at high noon  next day,  walking the tombs in that heat and humidity -  I was "right knackered " as my Dad would say lol!


    Be careful jumping in the water (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ragebot on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    That was (none / 0) (#159)
    by TrevorBolder on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    Quite the shark

    fish (none / 0) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    The Keys Ultra was on Saturday. I was only crewing a runner and not actually running this year and it still felt like death out there until the sun went down.

    More from Charles Pierce (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:45:40 PM EST

    Believe it or not, there are actual concerns in the world that do not depend on what 1,000 people in Iowa, called at random, think of the trustworthiness of a guy who gets policy advice from Alex Jones.

    There is, for example, the Lake Chad Basin in Africa, which is probably where our next humanitarian disaster is about to happen. Nine million people live in the region, which also happens to be where Boko Haram has been on the rampage,

    One of the other problems in the Lake Chad Basin is that Lake Chad has been disappearing for several years. The food supplies are withering from drought. The cows are dying of thirst and the vultures are eating them. From UN.org:

    According to FAO Director of Land and Water Parviz Koohafkan, the Lake Chad basin is one of the most important agricultural heritage sites in the world, providing a lifeline to nearly 30 million people in four countries--Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger. Lake Chad is located in the far west of Chad and the northeast of Nigeria. Parts of the lake also extend to Niger and Cameroon. It is fed mainly by the Chari River through the Lagone tributary, which used to provide 90 percent of its water. It was once Africa's largest water reservoir in the Sahel region, covering an area of about 26,000 square kilometres, about the size of the US state of Maryland and bigger than Israel or Kuwait. By 2001 the lake covered less than one-fifth of that area. "It may even be worse now," says Abbas Mohammed, a climatologist at the University of Maiduguri, Nigeria.

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:30:53 PM EST
    west TN when I was a boy. The tar poured between the slabs of concrete on the roads would become very soft and tacky. You could roll it up and "load" a paper wad with it for better range and overall effect.

    There is some (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    Republican on Chris Hayes' show with a southern accent stating that Trump is the Frankenstein monster the GOP has working on creating and that he has been screaming at them that they were creating.

    That is Lawerence Wilkerson (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:34:23 PM EST
    Former aid to Colin Powell, major critic of the Iraq war and a very smart man.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 25, 2016 at 07:46:20 PM EST
    So Bernie & Donald (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:42:48 AM EST
    Might have a debate on FOX before the CA primary.  At least, the idea is (half joking) being kicked around.

    Brostock 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:45:38 AM EST
    where two guys can scream at an empty chair and compare hand size.

    Talk about some kind of bizarre freak show that would be.


    Oh, I think (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:50:42 AM EST
    Since Bernie isn't going to be the nominee, it would turn into "Let's attack Hillary from both the left and the right".  They wouldn't go after each other.

    The empty (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:59:21 AM EST
    chair they would be screaming at would be the one they imagined Hillary was sitting in.

    So I guess Bernie wasn't being honest when he said he would not want Trump to be president but then what else is new.


    Or it's an opportunity for Trump (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Farmboy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:23:37 AM EST
    to offer Sanders the VP position. They both claim to be populists; it would be a perfect fit.

    This is from the wiki on populism (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:21:09 AM EST
    Scholars have argued that populist elements have sometimes appeared in authoritarian or fascist movements.[22][23][24][25][26][27] Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism."[28] National Socialist populism interacted with and facilitated fascism in interwar Germany.[29] In this case, distressed middle-class populists during the pre-Nazi Weimar period mobilized their anger at government and big business. The Nazis "parasitized the forms and themes of the populists and moved their constituencies far to the right through ideological appeals involving demagoguery, scapegoating, and conspiracism."[30] According to Fritzsche:

    The Nazis expressed the populist yearnings of middle-class constituents and at the same time advocated a strong and resolutely anti-Marxist mobilization....Against "unnaturally" divisive parties and querulous organized interest groups, National Socialists cast themselves as representatives of the commonwealth, of an allegedly betrayed and neglected German public....Breaking social barriers of status and caste, and celebrating at least rhetorically the populist ideal of the people's community...[31]

    In Argentina in the 1940s, a local brand of authoritarian populism emerged known as Peronism, after its leader Juan Perón. It emerged from an intellectual authoritarian movement in the 1920s and 1930s that delegitimized democracy.[32]

    It would be (none / 0) (#17)
    by Nemi on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:05:10 AM EST
    like a size measuring competition. Have they even ever gone after each other? If so I guess I just happened to miss it.

    Or they could talk about (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by christinep on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:16:13 PM EST
    how they spend their $$$$$  Today I saw a number about staff earnings.  In brief, Trump has mostly men on his direct campaign staff--75%--and, almost all of the top ten paid staff were men (8 out of 10, I recall.)  Meanwhile, HRC's campaign staff--which is ten times larger than Trump's staff as of this date--is evenly split in gender & salary.  Interestingly, it was pointed out that Sanders' top staff is mostly male.  (Note: 'Sorry that I forgot the cite from scanning email this a.m.--but, I believe the blurb was in the composite called Washington Post 202.)

    Anyway, Ga6th, it would be fun to hear the positioning of both should something like a "debate" be scheduled.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#14)
    by Nemi on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:59:19 AM EST
    Bernie Sanders is in. Jill Stein too wants part of the action/publicity.

    I would hope (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:17:54 AM EST
    This would prompt the remaining uncommitted superdelegatrs to jump in here.

    A perfect (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:00:23 AM EST
    freak show for the zombie news channel.

    Not disagreeing, but (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:18:17 AM EST
    this is the first time I have seen this.  Anyone have a link?

    Here (none / 0) (#20)
    by Nemi on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:32:39 AM EST
    Started yesterday (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:33:11 AM EST
    Here we go (none / 0) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:14:40 AM EST
    The suggestion that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump debate in California before the June 7 primaries would appear to be more than just a late-night joke.
    "We want this to happen," Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs told POLITICO on Thursday, when asked if the campaign would reach out to its counterpart, hours after Trump said on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" he would be willing to debate the Democratic candidate if the proceeds from the event went to charity.

    Trump wants to donate proceedings to charity.  Sanders will probably insist on being the charity.

    I think it's a great idea.  For all kinds of reasons.


    Kind of like a duel where they both get shot (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:39:14 AM EST
    I'm all for it. Even if all they do is attack the person who is not there, they will both look weak and ridiculous.

    It would be a circus (none / 0) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:43:52 AM EST
    A who can interrupt and talk over who contest.  

    Too bad we can't harness the wind energy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    from the flailing arms on both sides. the podiums better be very far apart or someone is going to get hit inadvertently.

    Today is (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:15:31 AM EST
    Clown Nose Day

    The two thing ps could be related


    Annnnddd (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:10:08 AM EST
    Donald backs out.

    Y3eah - there is a slim chance Bernie will be able (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:52:05 AM EST
    to get some of the progressive agenda out there to a wide audience...but it won't be explained or defended effectively in that circus environment.

    Trump and Sanders *should* debate at some time. (none / 0) (#86)
    by EL seattle on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    This is probably America's best chance to get a real discussion concerning the issue of "What the Hell Were They Thinking When They Moved the Dodgers to Los Angeles?"

    Also, maybe they could have offer their views as to whether the media has given the Fordham Baldies a bum rap.

    Personally, I think that a Sanders v. Trump talk fest like that would be an excellent use of an hour or so of national debate time.


    A Sanders v Trump (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 26, 2016 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    "debate" discussion alone falls into a Trump trap of free media attention.  The Trump "suggestion" of the debate being for "charity," is a perversion of purpose---not for the American people to have a serious look at the candidates.  The debate would be a Trump frolic and a Sanders folly. As for that charity,  between a ruse and a scam.  

    Trump (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:36:56 PM EST
    has just been enjoying toying with Sanders all over this and moving the goal posts.

    I don't know Dan (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 03:50:42 PM EST
    I think Donald might regret this.  There are already gofundme sites to raise the money.  Sanders is going to come up with the money.  Then Trump will have to find another reason.  Sanders wants this. He really really wants this.  And we have seen how effective he can be when he really really wants something.  He will chase Donald right down the freaking rabbit hole.   And more to the point, the media wants it.

    This is now a lead new story everywhere.  If Donald doesn't do it that's going to be the first question.  Everywhere he goes.  Why not, what are you afraid of?  And Bernie is not afraid of Donald.  This just might be the nasty piece of work he was born to do.  As far as criticizing Hillary, IMO any of that only makes the two look more alike than they already do.

    This is going to be FUN.   They could do freaking PPV.


    According to NEWSMAX (?) (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:30:11 PM EST
    It's on.  But they just said pretty much the same thing on cable

    to raise money for a women's charity

    Trump is saying all kinds of good things about Bernie.  I think he might think this will be a bro-love bash Hillary fest.   I don't think that's Bernies plan at all.  I think Sanders is going to go after him hammer and tongs like all thise cowardly republicans were afraid to do.

    Trumps is right about one thing if it happens it will have moon landing level ratings.


    I guess (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by FlJoe on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:06:55 PM EST
    we can rule out any attacks about tax returns.

    So (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:18:41 PM EST
    Maddow is doing one of her interminable 20 spiels about how everything I said is wrong.  There is no down side for Trump!  It's all downside for democrats!  IT UNDERMINES HILLARY CLINTON!!! Which she is mysteriously suddenly very very concerned about.

    All of which make me even more certain everything I said was right.


    Something (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    that somebody else brought up is the fact that Bernie wanted to have it in a big arena. Can you imagine a 30,000 or whatever venue full of Bernie supporters and Trump supporters? How many fights do you think would break out during the course of that debate?

    Not enough (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:36:41 PM EST
    This is being largely ignored (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:52:59 PM EST
    By the Leftie blogosphere.  I expect because they don't know what t do with it.  this on POLITICO does a good job of catching the complicated and conflicting reactions of democrats.

    From "its bullsh!t" to "its a good idea".


    It might even get Sanders (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:39:57 PM EST
    The VP slot.  If he does it right.

    One last thought (none / 0) (#121)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    The hair on fire version of this goes something like this


    No.  It doesn't.

    Even if he did he she would still be the nominee.


    At this point (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:15:59 PM EST
    from the analysis I have read NJ is likely to turn in enough delegates for her to seal the nomination and that will be 3 hours before California reports.

    Come on. Admit it. (none / 0) (#126)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:18:18 PM EST
    ALL OF YOU!!!!!

    Just admit it.  You would love to see this as much as me.


    Count me out. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    This is a presidential election, not a carnival sideshow. The proposal is pathetic.

    You'll watch (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:40:10 PM EST
    No, I won't. (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 27, 2016 at 02:38:38 AM EST
    How exactly is this a good idea? If it takes place, how does this not devolve into a Hillary-bashing Schittshow? Bernie Sanders is not going to be the nominee. Democrats need to step on his tired old ass if he persists in pursuing this.

    There (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:49:14 PM EST
    is a comedy team that does a Bernie Trump debate on you tube. I've seen parts and it's truly as bizarre as you would think a Bernie Trump debate would be.

    Maybe they will debate and Trump will offer Bernie the VP slot.


    Here's the thing (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:00:16 PM EST
    No.  That's not it.

    Bernie thinks this is his shot.  His chance to show the world that he's the one to go after Trump.  And he would.  Trust me.  He would.  And he might be pretty good at it.

    The bad news being this is also why it likely will not happen.


    Nah.. (none / 0) (#135)
    by jondee on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:07:04 PM EST
    Bernie would just spend the entire time attacking Hillary and agreeing with Trump and waving his arms around the way those New York ethnic-types like to do.

    We all already know that. Get with the program.


    I'm not clear (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    On what we are worried about.  Sanders can't win the nomination.  It numerically impossible.    This can only go badly for Trump.  I can imagine it going spectacularly badly.  I'm not seein a downside.

    Try this, it might go a long way toward turning any Sanders supporters flirting with the idea of voting for Trump.

    For these and other reasons it's very unlikely.  But it's on.  Trumps has said its about money.  The money will come.  I guarantee it.  So then it's duck and dodge or do it.  Cause Sanders, and the entire media, is not going to shut up about it.


    I had (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:17:47 PM EST
    not thought of that angle. It would be interesting from that perspective to see whether he actually would go after Trump. He'd have to do better in that debate than he has done in ones past and cut the passive aggressive stuff.

    I doubt "passive" (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:25:54 PM EST
    Would have anything to do with it.  If I was a betting man, and I am, I would bet you would see all the rage Sanders is carrying and has been unable to unleash on Hillary unleashed on Donald.  Debating an arrogant bullying racist misogynist blowhard is a very very different thing than debating a female former Secretary of State.

    Probably not. (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:52:33 PM EST
    for no other reason than to avoid the excruitiating discomfort of being forced to give Bernie credit for anything..

    And also to avoid the uncomfortable feelings anal-retentive types always experience when exposed to the overly-demonstrative for extended periods.


    If it makes you feel better (none / 0) (#141)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    No one implied in your comment is going to have a thing to say about it.

    VP Slot Under Clinton or Trump? (none / 0) (#136)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:37:59 PM EST
    "Bro Code at its Finest" (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    By S. E. Cupp (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 10:00:28 AM EST
    Republican strategist activist and dissembler

    thank you for posting that link (none / 0) (#145)
    by linea on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    i enjoyed reading that.

    somewhat related, i like "girl code" on mtv but not "guy code" as it's irritatingly obvious the boys are not being open or honest (also i cant stand CharlamagneThaGod).


    Trump is about to pick his VP (none / 0) (#45)
    by ExPatObserver on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:06:33 AM EST
    And a little bird told me he will do it by hosting an Apprentice: Vice President mini series.
    Something to watch after Top Chef and The Bachelor.

    But that would be his FIRST VP pick (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ruffian on Thu May 26, 2016 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    Would not surprise me in the least if he picked one and later said You're Fired! if he did not measure up to whatever bizarre selection criteria are in place.

    Much ado (none / 0) (#57)
    by Nemi on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    about nothing: Result of Kentucky recanvassing. (PDF)

    The Infiltrator (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    Based on a true story, Federal agent Robert "Bob" Mazur (Bryan Cranston) goes deep undercover to infiltrate Pablo Escobar's drug trafficking scene plaguing the nation in 1986 by posing as slick, money-laundering businessman Bob Musella. Teamed with impulsive and streetwise fellow agent Emir Abreu (John Leguizamo) and rookie agent posing as his fiancé Kathy Ertz (Diane Kruger), Mazur befriends Escobar's top lieutenant, Roberto Alcaino (Benjamin Bratt). Navigating a vicious criminal network in which the slightest slip-up could cost him his life, Mazur risks it all building a case that leads to indictments of 85 drug lords and the corrupt bankers who cleaned their dirty money, along with the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, one of the largest money-laundering banks in the world.


    Heisenberg is a Fed (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 11:40:09 PM EST
    I will of course see it cuz Bryan Cranston.

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#110)
    by ragebot on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:03:46 PM EST
    just had some Native American who said she is offended by the word/name.

    Of all the offensive things Trump has said or done this probably ranks at the bottom of my list.

    You got to start some where (none / 0) (#111)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:05:20 PM EST
    It IS offensive.

    Yawn.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by BTAL on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    One individual being offended.  Whereas only 10% based on the recent WaPo survey.  The pearl clutching couch is stage left.

    What's your point? (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    Since it only offends 10% it's not worth mentioning?  Which is really all it was.  Mentioned.

    Or is that going to be your standard response to any attempt to point call out Trumps bullying krap?

    Pearl clutching?  Good luck with that.


    The point was your (none / 0) (#122)
    by BTAL on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:02:45 PM EST
    all caps offended response.   Sorry, but that anger in the electorate that you've correctly been promoting over the last year is partially based on the majority being fed up with (in their opinion) small minorities forcing changes on society.  It has become an emotional issue with too many on both the left (Bernie Bros) and some Trump supporters.

    No (none / 0) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:12:18 PM EST
    It wasn't.


    It IS offensive.  -  it is OFFENSIVE

    see the difference.  I was just accentuating the FACT that it IS in fact offensive.  You mat not find it offensive but others do.  
    Including me, unfortunately I don't wear pearls.  Usually.  And not for long.


    This one sentence (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by BTAL on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:45:33 PM EST
    "You mat not find it offensive but others do."

    Is the point I am making.  There are many in the electorate that have reached their limit with groups claiming special class status - especially with their claimed "offended" feelings.  The anger is based upon the believe that everyone has opportunities and each has to hoe their own row to reap any rewards from their efforts.  Groups, yes minority groups, claiming they get to cut to the front of the line or share in the rewards from said rows hoed by others is what is ticking off "angry" electorate.  

    I will gladly agree that there have been times in the country's history where there needed to be some extra-special intervention to correct some wrongs.  However, what is not acceptable is that those interventions cannot be permanent nor trivial - that just flys in the face of what is considered the "American Dream" concept.  Special class status when appearing to be the norm becomes its own worse enemy.  


    They should probably (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 06:47:39 PM EST
    Get over it.

    Trump intends it as an insult (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by ruffian on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:13:06 AM EST
    And somehow realizing you are being insulted is claiming 'special status'?  

    Hillary is on live (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:08:09 PM EST
    With Chuck Terd

    Robert Costa (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 04:16:39 PM EST
    "What's different here is this is secretary Clinton calling in live to a station during the day time.  This is really in the style of Donald Trump.  Inserting herself into the political conversation in a way she really just hasn't done in the same way Trump has over the last few months.  And it was just striking at this moment to listen to her have that kind of rapport with you and to just listen to her talk about the news of the day"

    Robert Costa is a smart guy.  And he is right..


    Twitter is going nuts about this (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by jbindc on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:18:13 PM EST
    I say good for her.  Call in more until they start making Trump come in to the studios if he wants to give an intervuew.

    Some (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    CA stats are being reported and only about 9% of the voters are millennials. Apparently there is a problem with millennials and mail in ballots.

    npr fm this morning (none / 0) (#151)
    by linea on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:32:18 PM EST
    a man who spent two years in prison for violation of the 1917 Espionage Act told his story.  the whole process and the way this law is applied seems pretty bad.  i was also a bit shocked to hear how often obama has used this and that his administration has been the worst abuser.  i'm not happy about this.

    Try reading (none / 0) (#152)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 07:37:43 PM EST
    The S. E. Cupp article again.

    ok? (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by linea on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:59:36 PM EST
    i read the S. E. Cupp article again.  i don't understand.  

    that article was about (excerpt):
    In essence, this is "bro code" at the presidential level. Trump wasn't defending Bill because he believed he was innocent, or didn't think that adultery was a big deal. He was defending him because, you know, "bros before hos."

    my post here was about the npr feature this morning dicussing abuse of the 1917 Espionage Act.  i don't understand what i'm missing.


    Apparently (none / 0) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    the senate members are enraged with the stunt from Sanders of wanting to debate Trump link

    Not all of them (none / 0) (#162)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    I just posted another link upthread

    That's actually interesting (none / 0) (#163)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:55:33 PM EST
    The same story reported in very different ways.  The one in POLITICO quotes just as many who are fine with it.

    Ok (none / 0) (#164)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 26, 2016 at 08:58:20 PM EST
    Maybe not "just as many"

    But some.


    Claire McCaskill (none / 0) (#177)
    by Nemi on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:02:02 AM EST
    for one likes the idea, because

    The more Donald Trump gets exposed in the context of public policy, the better it is for our country.

    Wonder how she would have felt, had Hillary Clinton challenged John McCain to a debate about this time 8 years ago?


    McCaskill (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:13:01 AM EST
    Came out strong and early for Hillary.  She is a Hillary supporter.  As I am.  
    The question about 2012 is pointless.  This race is not like any other.   The normal rules don't apply.   If we haven't learned that by now we are really in trouble.

    Or 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:15:33 AM EST
    Of course. Thanks! (none / 0) (#183)
    by Nemi on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:19:03 AM EST
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Nemi on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:17:52 AM EST
    as others have been very happy to see Democrats recently attacking Donald Trump in what seems like a coordinated 'tag-team', I'm not so sure that it's Hillary Clinton Elizabeth Warren is teaming up and coordinating with.

    But then that's just me.


    What? (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:27:16 AM EST
    We are all democrats aren't we?  If I understand what you seem to be suggesting.  That she is "teaming up" with Sanders.  Which seems pretty silly to me.  

    How about another theory.  Warren has not endorsed because the minute she did she would lose all credibility with Sanders supporters.  If she waits until he gets out of the race she will have more credibility with them and more influence with them.

    I would suggest not losing sight of who the enemy is.  It's Donald Trump.   Not Sanders or Warren.  That I would say is BernieBro thinking.


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:36:55 AM EST
    I don't think she's doing it for Bernie. I think she's really doing it more to point out how ridiculous Trump is to any Bernie supporters who might be entertaining the idea of voting for Trump.

    First supighting of a Bernie (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu May 26, 2016 at 09:59:01 PM EST
    billboard. Very large first bullet point:  free college tuition.

    Trump's intellectual bankruptcy as a strategy: (none / 0) (#172)
    by ExPatObserver on Fri May 27, 2016 at 01:45:51 AM EST
    Do you remember Trump's comment that, "If you owe the bank $50, that's your problem; if you owe the bank $50 million, that's the bank's problem"?
    Don't we see the same strategy in his campaign?
    Substitute the press for "the bank".
    The media tries to be even-handed; moreover, they want the ratings of a tight battle to boost profits. Yet here comes Donald, who day after day  utters nonsense syllable after nonsense syllable  with the confidence of a Shakespeare.
    What is the press to do? In 2000, we saw the press bury some minor embarrassing stories which reflected W's incompetence and ignorance.
    Now, EVERY thing Trump says is word salad.
    He's all-in on nonsense, and just as he used the banks to cover his huge business debts, he is relying on the press to cover up his intellectual poverty.  

    Trump1932! It's been too long since the West had a strong leader on the stage.

    Howdy (none / 0) (#186)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:43:04 AM EST
    you'll probably appreciate this story if you haven't heard about it already link

    Yeah (none / 0) (#187)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:47:08 AM EST
    I saw it

    "They can stay as long as they don't take anything else off"



    hehe (none / 0) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 27, 2016 at 07:59:19 AM EST
    I guess there really are people who follow campaigns around.

    Someone explain to me who Shaun King is (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:23:49 AM EST
    and why people refer to him on twitter all the time. I could look it up, but I would rather enjoy the local take on the situation!

    He is the High Sparrow (none / 0) (#196)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 08:28:20 AM EST
    With a double half caff decaf in one hand and and the other on Twitter

    Jeffrey Shaun King is an American writer, entrepreneur, preacher and civil rights activist. He is noted for his use of social media to promote religious, charitable and social causes, including the Black Lives Matter movement.

    SK explains why the Democratic Party can't be saved


    Would like to say (none / 0) (#205)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 27, 2016 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    I am enjoying the hilarious new trend in mysterious inexplicable down ratings.  

    For example I get a "2" for passing along in one short sentence I had just heard Trump clenched the nomination.


    Was that a secret?  Did that make someone have a poopie day?  Were we all just supposed to wish as hard as we could that he really did not have 1238 delegates?

    Anyway, keep it up it's very entertaining.

    Some CA Bernie supporters (none / 0) (#209)
    by jbindc on Fri May 27, 2016 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    Have now filed an emergency injunction in San Francisco that request 1)to force 58 counties to segregate ballots already cast by unaffiliated voters, 2) to all "re-votes" by those people for presidentual primary candidates, and 3) to extend the voter registration deadline until June 7.

    Trump as the pre-Rapture tribulation... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 27, 2016 at 12:38:09 PM EST
    - a weird new meme I stumbled across in a religiously focused website while looking for examples of a particular technical issue.

    The answer to your observation about downratings, Howdy?

    "1" is the new "5"