Tuesday Open Thread

I'm in court all day (and then again on Thursday and Friday on another case.) I hope Trump doesn't blow up the world this week. Since I'm not reading much news these days except about the supposed cartel infighting in and killings all over Sinaloa this two past weeks, it feels like a load has been lifted.

I'm sure it will change when my schedule gets lighter.

This is an open thread, all topics welome,

< "Not My President's Day" Protests | Haiti Holds Mass Funerals for Inmates Who Died From Prison Conditions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The curious (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 09:31:20 AM EST
    case of Felix Sater

    How does a twice convicted felon arrive at a nexus point involving Trump, the FBI, the CIA, The American mob, The Russian mob, right wing Ukrainian politicians and Russian Oligarchs?

    Actually this is old news, mostly ignored by the MSM, only reemerging because of last weeks  NYT report detailing the secret Ukrainian peace plan.

    IMO this validates narrative that the Trump administration is pursuing back door diplomacy, as many have alleged. While that is not that unusual in the annals of history the current cast of characters sure seems odd to say the least.

    What I don't understand is Cohen's motive for going to the press with this at all. It seems like the Flynn flap would have given him and the rest of the administration reason to STFU about something like this.

    And (none / 0) (#89)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:30:01 AM EST
    not to be forgotten, Manafort returns to the stage

    A purported cyberhack of the daughter of political consultant Paul Manafort suggests that he was the victim of a blackmail attempt while he was serving as Donald Trump's presidential campaign chairman last summer.

    The Jackbooted (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    freedom hating thugs at CPAC are at it again
    Not invited by CPAC organizers, the white nationalist and self-identified leader of the alt-right purchased a ticket and showed up anyway. Spencer sat in the audience wearing a brown three-piece suit and a smirk as one of the conference's organizers gave a speech titled "The Alt Right Ain't Right At All."

    Less than an hour later, Spencer was escorted out of the hotel by security.

    Geez, punched by hippies and frog-marched out by his own klan, the life of a neo-Nazi sure ain't no bed of roses.

    He was out-fascisted... so to speak. (none / 0) (#116)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    The 2nd Civil War will start out west. (3.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    If Sessions and so-called human Trump continue down this path. Righties loves 'em some states rights until it's hippies and dopers wanting them. Federal crackdowns will on states and/or the citizens of those states that have legalized recreational marijuana will result in armed confrontations. And I am in full support. If takes guns and blood for Sessions and so-called human Trump to get the message, so be it.

    Let's please tone down the hyperbolic ... (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:50:53 AM EST
    ... expectations of armed violence. It's unseemly.

    It's what Chucko does (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:11:35 AM EST
    He forgets that those would be real people dying.

    Look who's talking. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:12:23 AM EST
    Oh now (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    be fair, fellas.

    Everyone here remembers Jim raising holy hell when prominent conservatives talked about "blood in the streets" if Hillary got elected.


    Really? When? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    I must've been indisposed at the time.

    Oh come now Donald (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    Surely you didn't miss him cheering the IA's getting Trump.

    Like the armchair warriors (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:22:12 AM EST
    ... cheering from their LaZboys.

    I think that a crackdown on recreational... (none / 0) (#117)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    pot is imminent.  

    "I do believe that you'll see greater enforcement," Spicer said.

    White House Hints at Crackdown of Recreational Marijuana.


    does that mean (none / 0) (#119)
    by linea on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:14:34 PM EST
    the Obama Kush i keep in the cupboard for guests will be retroactively illegal? i bought it legally from a state licensed retailer who purchaed it from a state licensed grower.

    According to the US government (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:27:36 PM EST
    and Jeff Sessions, there is no such thing as "bought legally" and the likes of you belongs in privately owned and run prison cell.

    Your privately owned stash, even if purchased (none / 0) (#142)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    from a state-licensed seller, has never been "legal." That has been discussed and explained here many times. Under the U.S. Constitution, article VI, clause 2, a State cannot effectively legalize what is illegal under federal law. All it can do is refuse to devote any State resources to prohibiting or prosecuting it, and leave the feds to do as they choose without state aid or support. If the federal policy of hands-off marijuana possession and distribution that conforms to state regulations actually changes, who knows what could happen?

    i expect (none / 0) (#162)
    by linea on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:26:48 PM EST
    you may be technically correct in some legalisticly convoluted sense requiring a law degree.

    it is a principle of law:
    that a criminal statute cannot be so convoluted and so in dispute; where in clear plain language the government expressily states it is legal; and where only scholars on federal vs state law can determine that it's actually illegal in some complicated and complex sense. this is my understanding of law.


    The Facts About Legal Marijuana in Washington

    Age Limit
    Only adults 21 and older can purchase and possess recreational marijuana. Persons between the ages of 18 and 21 years may be permitted upon licensed premises if they are a qualifying patient with an authorization or recognition card.

    You can legally purchase marijuana only at state-licensed retail stores. A map of licensed stores, including those with medical endorsement to serve those with medical needs, can be found on the Liquor & Cannabis Board's Dashboard.

    Public Use
    It is illegal to consume marijuana in public view.

    It is illegal to drive high.

    It is illegal to take marijuana outside of Washington state.

    It does not seem to me that understanding (none / 0) (#171)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:37:24 PM EST
    American federalism -- the shared power relationship between the federal and state governments -- is "convoluted" or that it "requires a law degree." Perhaps I am wrong, since I do have a law degree and have had one for more than 40 years. Is this concept not part of the American government/civics part of the exam for obtaining citizenship by naturalization?

    im sorry (none / 0) (#172)
    by linea on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:44:27 PM EST
    my comment wasnt meant to address federalism but rather the "principle of law" that i believe all modern democracies share and which i inartfully attempted to express.

    Then I have no idea what your point was (none / 0) (#174)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:26:00 PM EST
    Since you didn't say in your principal post, nor in your follow up. Where do you find Washington law telling you flat out that it is legal to possess marijuana within the state simply because it does not violate state law if done in conformity with the state's regulations?

    i am so sorry!! (none / 0) (#175)
    by linea on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 12:47:14 AM EST
    i honestly dont mean to frustrate you!

    in the link above, i am told by WA state that as a citizen of WA state,
    "You can legally purchase marijuana..."

    im very apologetic that im not a lawyer. i only hope a lawyer here on TL can help me - perhaps one versed in european common law?

    because i was taught that there is a concept in law...

    that the govt cant do that. they cant explicitally state an act is legal and also prosecute you. there is a PRINCIPLE in law that a criminal statute can not be so convolted or confusing that the average citizen cannot determine whether they are commiting a crime.

    i expect there is a latin phrase for all this. but i dont know it. im really sorry, i feel im right on this but i dont know the correct legal terms. im sorry.


    i failed to explain (none / 0) (#176)
    by linea on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 01:24:59 AM EST
    the SEATTLE -dot- GOV

    that i provided

    is the ACTUAL government city of seattle website providing information on where to LEGALLY purchase marijuana. the  terms "legal" and "illegal" are used by the state.

    im very sorry that i didnt explicitly make that clear.

    NOTE: please dont rebutte the official seattle government website with a personal interpretation of law (in opposition to the lawyers and government body representing the state).

    it is a matter of a PRINCPLE OF LAW...
    that citizens cannot be prosecuted for following the laws as explained and commonly understood.

    im so sorry that im not a lawyer but i feel i am explaining this more clearly than any native-born american could. this is a concept in law shared across all european and new-world countries.


    First of all, it is silly for you to apologize (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Peter G on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 11:14:24 AM EST
    (three times!) for not being a lawyer. Not being a lawyer is not like not being careful, or not being kind, or not keeping a promise. Those are things to apologize for.
       You are quite correct that a government cannot lawfully assure you that conduct is legal and then prosecute you for that conduct. That is a U.S. legal principle under our Due Process Clause (our courts call it "entrapment by estoppel"), just as it is in European law. No one is violating that principle here. The City of Seattle, which for this purpose is a subdivision of the State of Washington, says that if you sell or possess marijuana in accordance with its rules, it will not prosecute you. And it won't: not the City of Seattle, nor any other governmental entity or agency under the State. However, the federal government, which under the U.S. Constitution and our system of federalism is a "separate sovereign," makes no such promise and in fact says the opposite in its published laws. The City's website, which you point to, Linea, says the same: "Most marijuana-related activity remains subject to federal criminal laws throughout the nation." (I agree it would be better for the City never to use the word "legal" in this context.) And under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, if laws of a state conflict with a law of the federal government, the state must give way and the federal law prevails. (This is what my previous post focused on.)
        For the last several years the U.S. Department of Justice had a policy to refrain (in its discretion) from prosecuting marijuana cases in states that had their own legalization regimes, for people who were in compliance with state law. The feds adhered to that policy and promise for the most part, but when they didn't, the policy was not legally enforceable. If the new Administration decides to change that policy (which I hope they won't), I doubt there would be any valid legal challenge to the effects of that reversal.

    Peyer, do you now, or (none / 0) (#181)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 08:41:51 PM EST
    have you ever taught law. You certainly have a fine ability to explain law to others.  Of course, that is attributable to your legal reasoning and writing skills. Quite admirable.i say this as a retired lawyer.

    Thanks for that very kind comment (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 27, 2017 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    I appreciate it a lot. Yes, I was a law professor for five or six years, a long time ago. If you can explain legal concepts to first year law students, you can explain them to anyone! And I do continue to teach a lot of CLE.

    Peter, I'm sure CLE means (none / 0) (#183)
    by fishcamp on Mon Feb 27, 2017 at 12:35:10 PM EST
    continuing legal education in your case.  It could, however mean The Cleveland Indians, Browns, or Cavaliers.

    Oculus, did you ever represent any piano players, or musicians, opera or gawd forbid film people?


    I have never taught in Cleveland, (none / 0) (#184)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 27, 2017 at 12:51:20 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure, nor have I represented any professional athletes. I have twice represented film actors. Lawyers for artists, including musicians, have to be a special breed, because the brand of creativity involved is often so very different. Perhaps Oculus had that knack.

    No. And I just read (none / 0) (#186)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 04, 2017 at 02:44:47 PM EST
    Joan Didion's intro to Slouching Towards Bethlehem. She sd. she won't deal w/agents so she does not interview actors.

    Just stay away (none / 0) (#163)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:35:08 PM EST
    From the Sour Diesel. Unless you do not intenfd to leave your residence.
    I tell my friends they are not to leave their homes after smoking Sour Diesel.
    Too many funny incidents have occurred to them with that stuff

    ha, that's funny! (none / 0) (#168)
    by linea on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    my local store has it. it's a sativa brand. i dont know what that is exactly. i dont use mj myself.

    i dont use mj myself. (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:20:11 PM EST
    Neither do I....anymore. Gave it up maybe 30 years ago.
    But my friends on Sour Diesel, OMG, too funny.
    Driving to a NYG football game, suddenly realized they were heading towards South Jersey, went way past the staduim. A very engrossing conversation was the culprit, lol.

    Although another friend , a retired State Trooper, has been growing his own. Bought seeds for $30 each! Ouch! I think it was the Purple Kush. He said he grew them in the back of his property, behind a wood pile, they grew so well he had a very very high woodpile by the end of the summer. He did say the smell was quite strong though.


    Here we go again with the romantic (none / 0) (#121)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:45:03 PM EST
    allusions to violence. Never is that the right answer, or a positive response to government oppression. Nonviolent resistance, including civil disobedience, is far more likely to be effective.

    Chuck0 (none / 0) (#127)
    by linea on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:00:08 PM EST
    previous made a reference to a "2nd Amendment" response.  but to be fair, i suspect an extemely small minority of TLers do not own guns and would support banning guns (australia style).

    My impression over the years has been (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:19:57 AM EST
    that the readership of TL is rather deeply divided over the gun issue. Both in its policy aspect and in its legal aspect. Probably the one issue on which the largest percentage of readers and commenters (whatever that percentage might be) disagree with the hostess. Not "an extremely small minority," in any event.

    I've never owned one (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:18:30 PM EST
    and never wanted one. Even when I drove cab on the nightshift for an AA-owned cab company in the city.

    If we adopted Australia's policy, I wouldn't lose one milisecond of sleep over it.


    Never owned, never wanted... (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    never even held...hoplophobia is bliss baby;)

    Though it's no skin of my back if we adopted an Australia style ban, I could not support such a thing.  I know what's it's like when your hobby or object of affection is criminalized...couldn't wish that on the good folks who are into guns.  

    Gun prohibition...like drug prohibition or gambling prohibition...just surrenders what little control society may have over to organized crime and makes good people criminals and corrupts/sullies our justice system.

    Voluntary disarmament is where it be at.


    I don't think it'd be a bad idea (none / 0) (#149)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 02:43:17 PM EST
    to make it a little harder for people to voluntarily sell guns to gangbangers who are voluntarily gunning each other down in the street and catching little kids and old people in the crossfire..

    I also don't think it's a great idea to allow clinically paranoid, or obviously delusional people to accrue large stashes of guns and ammo.

    In the best of all worlds, voluntary disarmament is where it's at, but we're not living in the best of all world's at present.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 02:53:19 PM EST
    but what would be required to make those ideas a reality may be yet another bad idea.

    Make it a little harder for a junkie to get his fix...we know how that turned out. We didn't make it much harder, and boy did we open a Pandora's Box of new problems, like said gangbangers battling over street corners and little kids and old ladies getting terrorized and caught in the crossfire.

    Complicated cause Maude...


    A lot of ins, a lot of outs (none / 0) (#152)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    a lot of what-have-yous.

    Speaking of which (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    I see "Brother Seamus" Jon Polito died last year.

    I don't know how I missed that.



    I've often thought of that bit of... (none / 0) (#154)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:29:39 PM EST
    Dudeism scripture was a perfect summation of the human race...of life itself even.

    Have a nice weekend takin' 'er easy for all the sinners jondee.  Love ya man.


    Love you too (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:44:37 PM EST

    GA, ya gotta do better (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    'I was asked by my speaker's bureau, LAI. I do public speaking. It was in Russia. It was a paid speaking opportunity,' Flynn told the paper.

    'The gig was to do an interview with [RT correspondent] Sophie Shevardnadze. It was an interview in front of the forum, probably 200 people in the audience,' he said.

    After the speech, Flynn sat at Putin's table, and was seated at his right-and side.

    Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama, also said he briefed Russian intelligence on the trip, which he noted had been approved by the U.S. government.

    'I had a great trip. I was the first U.S. officer ever allowed inside the headquarters of the GRU [Russian intelligence]. I was able to brief their entire staff,' Flynn said.

    So the tip was approved by the Obama administration."

    Asked if that was something he wanted to do, Flynn responded: 'DIA has offices in 142 countries. I was visiting some of our key attachés and one of them was [in] Russia.'

    Flynn came under investigation for an allegation he shared highly classified information with British and Australian forces.

    'I'm proud of that one,' he told the Post. 'Accuse me of sharing intelligence in combat with our closest allies. Please!'

    Now, since was approved by Obama's admin and was known to the public....just how does it make him vulnerable to blackmail???

    This sounds inaccurate (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 12:37:17 PM EST
    here's the actual interview.  In it, he talks about going on an approved trip when in DIA.  

    The other trip where he sat w/Putin was as a private citizen who performed public speaking.

    What's inaccurate is the order presented above,  You'll see that clearly from the text of the interview.


    When you are fired from DIA (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 02:15:35 PM EST
    You don't go visit DIA offices around the world after that. That's like getting fired from the CIA and then thinking you'll visit it's different offices around the world. He's at least half full of $hit here. And, you see other retired US Generals so desperate they're taking paid Russian speaking engagements?

    Hey maybe Obama did approve Flynn giving Russian GRU leadership trainings since Flynn was such an intelligence failure :). That's called counterinsurgency. Once again, Obama is the best damn President evah!!!


    Hahahahahahahahaha .... (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    So your evidence proving that Flynn's trip was "approved by the federal government" is Flynn himself saying it was approved?!?!?  The same guy you said lied to the VP?!?

    I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not ...

    BTW - Pentagon: No records of Flynn's 2015 Russia trip



    and (none / 0) (#8)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 11:16:50 AM EST
    you believe a proven liar?

    I believe that the trip was approved (1.00 / 3) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 11:38:19 AM EST
    by the Obama administration.

    But hey!!! I'm easy!

    I believed Hillary when she said Benghazi was caused by an Internet video.

    I even believed Obama when he said that if I liked my doctor I could keep my doctor.


    Flynn was fired by then (none / 0) (#14)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    so why would he need the approval from the guy who fired him?

    You're not even trying to make sense.  Ther's a term to describe that. . .  .


    It's called not angering (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 07:36:55 PM EST
    your ex-employer.

    Poppycock (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 08:56:28 PM EST
    Flynn by all accounts was a very bitter man, who was bounced by Obama because he could not get along with others.

    He was about getting even, not about avoid rocking the boat.


    Even for you (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Towanda on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    that is a ridiculous attempt at a sensible response.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 06:51:53 PM EST
    But hey!!! I'm easy!

    I believed Hillary when she said Benghazi was caused by an Internet video.

    I even believed Obama when he said that if I liked my doctor I could keep my doctor.

    You must be.  You believe the ridiculous falsehoods coming from the Cheetoh on a daily basis ... not to mention his campaign promises.  But being gullible and easily duped isn't something you should brag about.


    Par for the course? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Erehwon on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 08:47:39 PM EST

     But being gullible and easily duped isn't something you should brag about.

    Don't those go hand in glove with being a proud deplorable?

    Both of you should follow my example (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 08:33:37 AM EST
    and what is done rather pay attention to what is said.

    It is called "really."


    All (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 09:05:04 AM EST
    honest people strive to always make the two equal.

    Anything else is called "lying".


    Shorter version (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 11:29:28 AM EST
    Lies and false promises only matter to conservatives when they imagine them being made by liberals.  otherwise, they're just fine with lying.

    That's nice you "believe" it (none / 0) (#31)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 07:50:47 PM EST
    But it wasn't "approved by the Obama administration".  The fact that you "believe" it was is meaningless.

    Time to move on to another excuse.  This one's dead.


    Truth is optional (none / 0) (#10)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    the trip, which he noted had been approved by the U.S. government.

    A Republican is someone who will fall for the same trick no matter how many times you use it on him.  Surely a known liar like Flynn is telling the truth THIS time.

    I needed "government approval" to go to Scotland recently.  I had to renew my passport and get a visa.  Taking what Flynn said with a grain of salt, do you suppose the "government" authorized him to speak on its behalf, e.g. to negotiate sanctions, or had just granted him permission to get on an airplane?


    Since when has Scotland (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 01:36:32 PM EST
    required a U.S. citizen to obtain a vsa b/4 vistng Scotland?  Sctland belngs to the EU for now.

    There was so much wrong (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 08:33:02 PM EST
    with this comment, I did not know where to start....

    How (none / 0) (#1)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    to stop worrying and love the deep state.

    I have been mostly brushing off this chatter about the deep state from both the left and the right as just a rebranding of the same old bureaucracies and their usual corporate cronies(think MIC or the Homeland security/Intelligence community). I kind of wrote it off as a retelling of the same old battle that has existed for decades between our elected leaders and the agencies they are supposed to control.

    Now that the Flynn affair has come to a close(at least this chapter), I have stepped back and seen that the so called DS has shown it's power with a swiftness and overtness that I never have seen before. Make no mistake the DS wanted Flynn out(for good reason IMO)and they took him down hard.

    As much as I hate to agree with Bloody Bill Kristol, I am going to have to side with the DS over Trump, at least in the enemy of my enemy is my friend sense. It's an extremely slippery slope however.

    Now (none / 0) (#2)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 09:30:23 AM EST
    if they could only figure out a way to take out Bannon.

    They can only "take out" (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    people who help them.

    Flynn lied to the VP. That's a no no.

    His conversation with the Russian ambassador was not  illegal.

    But if you want to some real nasty contacts try this.


    Flynn (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 10:05:24 AM EST
    took 40K from Putin and did not run it through the DOD. Flynn did a lot of crap. And apparently the lying to the VP thing is just Pence trying to cover his butt when their have been reports that Pence knew at the same time Trump did.

    Flynn (none / 0) (#5)
    by FlJoe on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    walked like a mole and talked like a mole, he deserved no benefit of the doubt, he was stripped of his security clearance for good reason.

    I'm not willing to assume that ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 05:40:34 PM EST
    ... Trump's people necessarily keep Mike Pence in the loop. It's abundantly clear, though, that they knew the details of Gen. Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador and further, had known about it for a couple weeks.

    In that regard, we might also consider the possibility that keeping Pence ignorant of those details was probably necessary for him to then serve as White Housel Policy Advisor Steve Bannon's useful idiot before the "enemy," e.g., the U.S. media.

    Let's please not underestimate Bannon's capacity for Machiavellian-level scheming and ruthlessness. Once Pence and his fellow casting call-issue Republicans finally realize that their stated goals and objectives are ultimately subordinate and subservient to Bannon's own agenda and interests, rather than vice versa, the détente which presently exists between them and the Trumpinistas who occupy the West Wing will be over.

    But until then -- Aloha.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 06:15:43 PM EST
    there is so much chaos it is hard to know who knew what and when but apparently that is by design.

    In a neighborhood near where I live (none / 0) (#6)
    by McBain on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 10:31:14 AM EST
    A local artist likes to decorate her street corner, especially for holidays.  For President's Day she put out life size cutouts with excellent detail of all 45 presidents in order.  Lot's of people stopped by to take photos, it was really cool.

    He said what he said (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 03:03:14 PM EST
    and none of you has offered any credible source that says otherwise.

    BTW - The WP's interview is "condensed" which is a nifty way of saying the writer has left out some things.

    But the overall gist is that of a patriot. And he wasn't very kind to Obama or the Clintons.

    PRIEST: To broaden the discussion on the Russia question a little bit, there's [Trump adviser] Carter Page having business interest and Paul Manafort have business interests there.

    FLYNN: How about the Clintons? ... If that's all you want to talk about, I don't want to do this anymore.

    PRIEST: But that's not all I'm talking about. I'm trying to just get it out there on the table.

    FLYNN: You know what? I don't know what their business interests are. I've talked with Paul Manafort, met him, but if Carter Page walked in here, I wouldn't know who he is ... you know what? Look at the amount of money the Global Clinton Initiative is taking from countries right now.

    PRIEST: And what do you make of that?

    FLYNN: It's an incredible level of corruption. And talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouths and this whole business about women's rights, some of these countries there are no rights for women. Why do we take a dollar? Why do we give a dollar to countries that have no rights for women? We have to think about that.


    FLYNN: When I was in JSOC we were still deeply involved in Iraq. We were still at war essentially. Then I went to Central Command and Bush was still in charge, then joint staff ... then we had the transition to Obama and Obama turned everything to, he made Afghanistan the priority, not Iraq, and frankly it took forever to just get the entire system to change to that. ... There was no recognition that we were facing an ideology that was expanding.

    PRIEST: Were they being told that?

    FLYNN: The intelligence system was telling them that these organizations are growing, that the ideology was radicalizing and these guys are beyond little ol' Afghanistan and little ol' Iraq and Syria. The intelligence was very clear, still is.

    PRIEST: What would you have wanted the strategy to be?

    FLYNN: I would want this enemy to be clearly defined by this president and he just refused to do it. This is not about countering violence extremist movements, the "CVE," this is about going after an ideology that is within the Islamic world that is like a metastasized cancer that has grown and this president has been presented that information, routinely, often, and has been shown this enemy for what it is and still refuses to call it for what it is,.....

    Simple question (none / 0) (#16)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    How can a trip be "approved by Obama" if:

    from the line directly above your copy/paste from the article:

    Flynn had just left the military at the time. He wouldn't reveal to the Washington Post how much he was paid for the engagement. 

    'I was asked by my speaker's bureau, LAI. I do public speaking. It was in Russia. It was a paid speaking opportunity,' Flynn told the paper.

    'The gig was to do an interview with [RT correspondent] Sophie Shevardnadze. It was an interview in front of the forum, probably 200 people in the audience,' he said.

    The source for the article you are using to support your claims is the WAPO article/interview I posted a link to.

    I lived in NYC my whole life until recently, was in mid-town working on 9/11, saw my company's headquarters destroyed, rode the subway my whole life and I don't worry about terrorists.  Why are you so worried about terrorists in TN?  


    Easy (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    Once upon a time I went to the Soviet Union as a civilian. It was approved by the government. I was briefed before the trip and debriefed after.

    It is entirely feasible that Flynn was briefed on what questions to ask if he had the opportunity and was debriefed on his return. IA's don't miss such an opportunity.

    Of course what we have here is your desire to destroy Flynn because he was picked by Trump.

    This is just another "he said she said."

    And it really is no one's business what his speaker's fee was.

    Why do you assume that you are the only person worthy of worrying about terrorism? There is a country between NYC and California. Big one as a matter of fact. So big that it just elected a president.


    Of course what we have here (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    is a "credible source" so slimey and mercenary that even an administration with the an incredible tolerance for aberrant behavior couldn't trust him.

    Sounds like he'll be a perfect fit for talk radio.


    I have no desire to destroy Flynn (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    I only want to see competent people working in gov't.  Usually when someone is fired, it is for cause.

    Can you give a little more background on the gov't approval process?  In all honesty I never knew regular citizens not under contract could be debriefed by the gov't upon their return.

    Were you a private citizen not on gov't business during your visit?


    Me too. (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    Flynn lied to the VP. That's inexcusable and he was essentially fired for "cause."

    Other than that he appears to be very qualified.

    In my case I was asked to be briefed/debriefed and asked if I would answer some questions. Purely voluntary. But if I had refused I suspect someone else would have been sent.

    And since it was at the height of the Cold War I was most happy to do so.

    I had zero problems going and zero coming back.

    The collapse of the Soviet Union, and the resulting wild wild west marriage between the government and criminals is one of the most unlikely things.

    If you like John le Carre and his fictional looks at the Cold War and subsequent chaos I recommend his nonfiction "The Pigeon Tunnel," which is a strange "autobiography" of his novels and his research.

    Returning to Flynn I think he nails it when he says we need the Russians to defeat the witches brew of radical islamist organizations. After all, FDR did it during WWII why not see if we can drive a wedge between Russia and Iran and get some other countries to expend their soldiers blood and national treasure.


    BTW - Sorry I missed your question (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    I was a private citizen but with business with the US Embassy. That didn't seem to bother the Soviets. Or if it did it never showed.

    I visited Leningrad, USSR ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 06:38:23 PM EST
    ... (now St. Petersburg, RU) in August 1983, during a trip to Scandinavia with my mother and grandparents. We neither sought nor needed our federal government's permission, nor were we ever "debriefed" upon our return to the United States. Our only requirement was an entry visa from the Soviet embassy which, given the animosity then existing between our two countries, was actually quite (surprisingly) easy to obtain.

    My mother again returned to Russia three years ago with her friend, where they took a Viking River cruise down the Neva, Svir and Volga Rivers from St. Petersburg to Moscow. It was an easy trip with no bureaucratic hoops / requirements, albeit an expensive one. Russia is not cheap place to visit.



    The world was different (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 06:57:58 PM EST
    in 1983. And the world is different now.

    My advice is not to judge everyone and everything by your own experience.


    Both the U.S. and the USSR back then had similar restrictions on where each country's visitors could go, and effectively limited them to only certain designated areas. The Soviets further banned its own citizens from visiting certain American cities -- e.g., Los Angeles, Seattle and Nashville, yes, but Portland, Las Vegas, Memphis and Atlanta, no. (I have no idea why.)

    Even when I visited the USSR in 1983, it was pointed out to us by the Soviet embassy that our visa would not allow us to visit the Pacific port city of Vladivostok. Never mind that Vladivostok was some 6,000 miles away from Leningrad.



    It was 49 years ago (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 08:32:28 PM EST
    and my stay was in Moscow except for a day trip to Lenin's summer (?) home. Sorry, don't remember for sure if that was it or just his home. Made the other mandatory visitor stops. Ballet, circus, tomb, etc.

    Stayed at the Hotel Ukraine which was early depression complete with a radio with an on/off volume switch but nothing else. It also had a huge revolving door that if you fell would scrape you off the floor.

    Went shopping at GUM and observed hundreds of grey suits all of the same style. Dropped some bucks at the hard currency store for souvenirs.  

    Found the city clean as a pin and with no traffic problems...and no phone books. Didn't do any nightlife beyond some visits to private homes. It was a spooky time.


    The USSR deteriorated over the nexr 14 years (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 01:21:45 AM EST
    By 1983, half the shelves of the GUM store we visited in Leningrad were empty and dusty, a sign that the store hadn't had full inventory in quite a while.

    The thing that struck me the most, however, was the amount of public drunkenness on display. While they weren't on every street corner, I stepped around and over a fair number of people, almost all young men, passed out on the sidewalk. They were around my age at the time, which was 22. When I asked the clerk at the hotel about it, he admitted that unemployment in the city was rather high -- right before the KGB stormed in, seized him and dragged him away for telling an American that the worker's paradise wasn't exactly Nirvana.

    Okay, I made that last half-sentence up. We saw the Winter Palace and a few other sights, but for the most part, Leningrad appeared to be a pretty gray and dreary city with a lot of unhappy people. I wasn't sorry when we boarded the train to return to Finland.



    Okay (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    they didn't storm in they just walked in... ;-)

    You need to read LeCarre's latest. He also comments on the amount of drinking in an indirect way.


    Did you ever read what LeCarre (none / 0) (#100)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 02:06:06 PM EST
    wrote about Bush, Jim?

    He said that electing him was a sign that America had gone mad.


    Don't remember if I did (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 05:38:34 PM EST
    but knowing LeCarre's politics I have no doubt he did.

    But you see, jondee, I don't demand political fealty. You do.

    I read, watch, listen to everything and anything that is of interest to me.

    LeCarre does. Plus he has done yeoman's work in trying to identify the horrors committed in Africa by tribes venting their age old hostilities while the west twiddles its thumbs spending millions while doing nothing.


    You see, Jim (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    sorry to put it this way, but you're completely and utterly FOS.

    I've been reading your warmed-over Fox-talk radio swill long enough to imagine you being controlled like some swarm insect by pheromones sent out from some right-wing hive or anthill located somewhere.

    You've gone beyond "fealty" and into some robotic-mechanical realm. Motivated by what instinct, God only knows.

    I imagine it's related to that same species of American-insanity LeCarre points to.


    jondee I wear your insults like a medal (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:00:41 PM EST
    You demonstrate nothing beyond that.

    Now, go tell Soros that meanie Jim is bothering you.



    Nothing can be demonstrated to you (none / 0) (#173)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:02:42 PM EST
    because your mind is made-up -- like a bed in an abandoned B&B that closed forty years ago.

    Turn off the talk radio, Jim. It's rotting your brain.



    I stopped reading Lecarre (none / 0) (#164)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:43:43 PM EST
    After Single & Single

    None of his books from that era left the impression upon me that his earlier books , especially the Smiley series did.

    Which recent one were you referring to?


    Media confused about Stand Your Ground again (none / 0) (#20)
    by McBain on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    Curtis Reeves is in court for a self defense immunity hearing today but several in the media are referring it as a "stand your ground hearing".

    Three years ago, Reeves (71) shot and killed Chad Oulsen allegedly for using a cell phone and being confrontational in a movie theater. It's been called the "popcorn shooting" because Oulsen allegedly threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves.  

    "Stand your ground" defense  became  known to many during the George Zimmerman trial even though it  had nothing to do with Zimmerman's case.  His was a basic self defense claim. However, people like the author of  this article, David Boroff  still don't get that.

    George Zimmerman avoided prison time for the killing of Trayvon Martin five years ago after using the Stand Your Ground defense.

    As for the Reeves case, here's an article and video of the shooting. The author, Andrew Branca, doesn't think stand your ground applies at all.  If Reeves is successful in his self defense immunity hearing he won't face murder charges.

    comment in reply to this (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 06:07:34 PM EST
    was deleted for violating our comment rules. And being potentially libelous. Take that garbage type of comment elsewhere.

    last night on npr (none / 0) (#37)
    by linea on Tue Feb 21, 2017 at 09:44:21 PM EST
    Did not hear it on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 11:36:28 AM EST
    so I don't know how much they covered, but that podcast is truly one of the best if you listen to the whole thing.

    I'll check it out (none / 0) (#40)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    I recently watched a very good but very disturbing Netflix documentary... Who Took Johnny?  A 30 year old abduction case with some startling allegations.

    Another good documentary (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    is The Witness, in which Bill Genovese investigates the really story behind the murder of his sister Kitty, the case that became infamous because it was reported that there were 38 witnesses that did not help her or call the police, and how that story shaped the rest of his life.  I think it is on Amazon? Or Netflix, can't recall now.

    I enjoyed that one as well (none / 0) (#44)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 12:10:49 PM EST
    As is often the case, things weren't as originally reported.  The brother worked so hard to find out, as best he could, what really happened.  

    B.A.T.F. Filled Secret Bank Account (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 01:49:46 PM EST
    - With Millions From Shadowy Cigarette Sales

    The operation, not authorized under Justice Department rules, gave agents an off-the-books way to finance undercover investigations and pay informants without the usual cumbersome paperwork and close oversight, according to court records and people close to the operation.

    Re: "The Witness" (none / 0) (#46)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    I watched that program.

    "....things weren't as originally reported"

    Talk about an understatement.

    My take was the Media saw a headline grabber, and felt no need to do any in-depth investigation, once known as "Journalism."

    And, it wasn't only the Tabloids, the dereliction included the venerable, New York Times, "The Paper of Record."

    The take actually was (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Towanda on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    that NYT editor Rosental was on a moral crusade.

    The takeaway for journalists ought to be that aiming either for headlines or for reforming the populace has its perils -- and ought not skew the story, as the NYT did.  But half a century later, we see that the NYT still has not learned that lesson.


    People tend to believe the first thing (none / 0) (#47)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 02:09:10 PM EST
    they read/hear if it supports their world view.  I was hoping that by now with the internet and millions of different opinions that would have changed a bit but it really hasn't.

    Oh it's changed... (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    confirmation bias is a god damn cottage industry now, exploited for profit, thanks in part to the internet and the easy flow of information/disinformation to billions of people at next to no cost.

    It makes the sloppy sensationalist journalism of the past seem almost quaint.


    I'll see it when I believe it (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    you sound like a Robert Anton Wilson guy, dog.

    You familiar with him?


    I am not... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 03:09:59 PM EST
    but I soon will be...ever since you turned me on to the Jack Black, when you drop a name I listen;)

    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    he's right down your alley. And leavened with a great, wicked sense of humor.

    He careens from the implications of quantum physics to anarcho-syndicalism to the underground history of everything and back again in every book.

    Your kinda guy, without a doubt.


    Proven numerous times at Stanford, sadly (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 10:40:11 PM EST
    First impressions often out weigh new information. A fault in our wiring they believe is based on human hypersocialization and our evolution.

    That type of thinking was extremely important (none / 0) (#90)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    to our ancestors years ago.  It's still important today but overused.  

    It might help to remind ourselves a lot (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 01:41:33 PM EST
    of what our old friend Gregory Bateson used to say over and over and over again: the map is not the territory, the menu is not the food, the name is not the thing named.

    Sam Harris does pod casts (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 05:38:04 PM EST
    He had a very good one with Frum. He frames things in such ways to attempt to reach new neurons. He stays away from volume or verbage that sends us into the amygdala. Great pod casts

    Ceci n'est pas une pipe (none / 0) (#179)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    Just possibly (none / 0) (#180)
    by Peter G on Sun Feb 26, 2017 at 07:04:44 PM EST
    Trump (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 03:15:09 PM EST
    Won't last 4 years.

    We have barely (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 03:31:10 PM EST
    lasted 4 weeks. Already sick of winning--but it will be touch and go between what lasts longer, the Trump Administration or the country (and, not necessarily, just as we know it).

    I just received (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 03:39:53 PM EST
    My Dial Vision Glasses
    I hope this is not deleted as spam but Holy Sh!t they are amazing.  

    I hate bi-focals.  I just really hate f@ckng bi-focals..  

    These work and they look weird.  I like that.


    Do you like having to use the dial all the time? (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 05:24:46 PM EST
    Seems like I would constantly be adjusting it.

    Ok (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 06:22:57 PM EST
    I admit I have gone back to my various drug store glasses.  One for reading.  One for tv.  One for driving,

    Great idea tho.


    I'm actually glad (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 06:36:57 PM EST
    to know about those because I am bad about losing glasses.

    The constant adjusting (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 06:40:18 PM EST
    Is annoying.  When it happens automatically they will have something.

    Mono Vision contacts (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 09:13:37 PM EST
    One contact for distance, one for closer up.  And, they are great, much better than progressive, etc.

    I got measured for and paid for the variable (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:17:57 AM EST
    focal length "Superfocus" glasses that Penn Gillette wears or wore.  The company declared bankruptcy within a week of my order so I never got to try them.

    They look ridiculous but I was ready, willing, and had the money.  

    There was another competitor in the space, not the $19.99 "piece of optimism" you were so hopeful about, but the frame design was conventional.


    Yes they are rather dorky looking glasses, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by fishcamp on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    Mr. Natty.  Really glad I went back to 20/20 after cataract surgery a few years ago.  The doctor was quite astounded, since many people are not 20/20 at the beginning, and I'm an old guy.  I'm still there too, after every yearly eye check, but I can tell it's not going to last forever, but neither am I.  The bald R's at the gym are not liking that I have to get a haircut once a month either.  I love telling them to become a D, and their hair will come back

    Also (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    I close tomorrow at 10 am

    Laissez les bon temps roulez!



    Amusez vous bien pendant les bon temps! (none / 0) (#157)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 04:27:05 PM EST

    Trump will last 4 yrs (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 05:36:56 PM EST
    Unless someone leaks his taxes and we find out how in debt he was, before he became President.  Then he might have another breakdown, if people find out he wasn't as rich as he needs everyone to believe.

    By the time he leaves office though, he will be as rich as he pretended to be.


    I think he (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    Will quit.

    After some of your other predictions (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 06:58:34 PM EST
    I may have to put some money on that one.

    I've seen Melania a couple of times recently and all I could think is, what's Slovakian for "how the f*ck did I get into this?"


    president (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by linea on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 08:48:39 PM EST
    trump will be elected for a second term if the economy is doing well and there is full employment. in my opinion.

    Bill Schneider
    CNN Political Analyst

    President Clinton did what he was elected to do: turn the economy around. By election day, most Americans thought the nations economy was better than it had been in 1992.... Voters re-elected Clinton despite widespread doubts about his character. In CNN's election day exit poll, most voters continued to say Clinton is not honest and trustworthy. They re-elected him because of his job performance-- and crossed their fingers that character would not prove to be a major problem.

    Pffft, he and you can say that all you want (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 12:55:51 PM EST
    I guess he forgot about draining the swamp, making Wall Street responsible - not taking over the White House. And remember how Trumpcare was supposed to be better and cheaper than Obamacare? There ain't no Trumpcare. He was supposed to leave Social Security and Medicare alone but he's turned HHS over to someone who has spent years preaching the destruction of Medicare.

    Military families are losing half of their childcare services. What it costs to secure Mar-a-Lago and Trump Tower for a month would fix that for the entire military...but Phuck US :)

    Of yeah, and all this deportation and terrorizing affects the economy. Those workers spend money in this country. They turn dollars over on Main Street. He's such a cad. If he hadn't been born with a fortune he'd be a used car salesman living in a trailer.

    Whatever....whatever you're smoking it's time to pass it.


    AND he just took on the LGBTQ community (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 11:02:08 AM EST
    I have long been jealous of their passion and organization skills, and they are coming for him now. That's a bad place to be politically.  He'll feed on it psychologically. He will bloom like a flower as the camera trains on him, but he will lose the argument to this group. I can just about promise that.

    AIDS was a harsh but effective (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by caseyOR on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:46:12 PM EST
    teacher for the LGBTQ community. We had started down a more focused political path with Harvey Milk, may he RIP. AIDS, though, was real life or death.

    Everywhere people organized. They organized to provide care for the sick and dying. Organized to demand better medical care and access to drugs. Organized to push for research into a cure and vaccine. Organized to raise public awareness that those with HIV-AIDS were, in fact, actual people, neighbors and coworkers and family. Organized to elect politicians who were supportive, who would sponsor and pass the needed legislation.

    It was all-hands-on-deck.

    The LGBTQ community was, by necessity, on a very steep learning curve. And learn we did. And we continue to fight.

    Hopefully, Trump will be the catalyst that organizes all Americans.


    That little group of mil progressives I joined (none / 0) (#150)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    Was also joined by the President of the first gay military spouses group. They seem to have about a 1,000 members. A 1,000 gay military spouses strong already! I saw him on the roster and thought "Hell Yeah, "Whoop A$$ has shown up...whew!

    We're in the 10th Circle of Hell, Linea (none / 0) (#86)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    Exactly (none / 0) (#177)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Feb 25, 2017 at 08:31:40 AM EST

    In his widely read blog, Economics One, Taylor writes, "Take off the muzzle and the economy will roar." He notes that bad economic policy leads to slumping productivity, living standards, real wages, and growth.

    "Huge swings in productivity growth in recent years," Taylor writes, "are closely related to shifts in economic policy, and economic theory indicates that the relationship is causal."

    He concludes, "To turn the economy around we need to take the muzzle off, and that means regulatory reform, tax reform, budget reform, and monetary reform."

    Well, aren't those exactly the reforms that President Trump is promoting?

    The Donald will test that theory once again

    They re-elected him because of his job performance-- and crossed their fingers that character would not prove to be a major problem.

    The fallacy (none / 0) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 27, 2017 at 03:33:30 PM EST
    of every conservative economist is they believe that demand is a constant or things like regulations affect demand. They do not. Lack of aggregate demand is the problem and unless they figure out a way to solve that then they have no idea how to solve the problem and are going to create a bubble once again that is going to collapse like it did in 2008 bigly.

    What happening (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    Is unsustainable.  Will it change?

    And I'm telling you (none / 0) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 08:25:18 PM EST
    Not with this personality disorder. Not happening unless he has a nervous breakdown, you have to expose him with Jumbo evidence. You've seen what he does with regular evidence. He's on cloud 9 right now. This is only unsustainable for the rest of us though. That is the malignant narcissist's hallmark, everyone else melts, and they love it. I've personally penciled in 5 severe snaps for myself before this #$@#!#&* season in hell is over.

    You get him out in 3 yrs and maybe we will get to see him lose his freakin mind instead of us if Democrats take the House at midterm.


    As long as you bear in mind that there are no (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    "us" Democrats in D.C. or for the most part, in power anywhere.

    Anybody with power and money is hiring professional flatterers.  Whatever it takes to get their overprivileged a$$ets back at the feed trough.


    My son belongs to some hostile group (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 12:41:03 PM EST
    Called Justice Democrats :)

    He's going his own way these days. I know nothing about Justice Democrats yet, well other than they think they are smarter than I am and I have effed everything up.


    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 01:11:33 PM EST
    "Justice Democrats" is a synonym for "teenagers."

    Better Justice Democrats as a synonym ... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    ... for teenagers, than -- well, you know.

    I'm just happy that they're passionate (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 02:39:33 PM EST
    and engaged and questioning and not sitting in a corner nodding out on Oxycontin.

    I don't get this resentment of young people that rears it's head on occasion.

    The elephant graveyard is in Florida, folks. Consult your travel agent.


    OMG he's riding me like Sea Biscuit (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    And he does talk to others in his age group that do Brietbart. He games with them. And he does know stuff about that mindset that I don't know, that I can vaguely remember being capable of thinking if only I had been born privileged.

    We had a terrible fight about the repeal Obamacare situation after school today. He's living part of this but he has to be removed from some of it because when he was very little the healthcare system was such a betrayal to his psyche. He's in a place of denying that this nation could do anything that bad to him. I told him if Obamacare goes under, after he loses coverage under us he will be uninsurable. This will take time for us to work out. I understand why he has to take the reality a little at a time, because it is soul destroying.

    It is a difficult thing to come to understand that politically one party argues for you to be born and then die a miserable death and the other is....I don't know

    We will work through this. But you know it feels like it never ends. I have friendships now with other Freeman Sheldon Families in Europe who have universal coverage. At least right now the parents don't have to worry that the next required procedure won't be covered. In the UK adults who need homecare are being harmed though with the new wave of Conservatism. But they haven't gone after the children yet.

    He does feel like a little brown shirt tonight :)

    My little Trumpcare uninsurable brown shirt.


    The power of friends, (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 05:54:18 PM EST
    Thinking of you & family.

    Put a little Yarmulke on his young head; It'll  go nice with the brown shirt.


    Mike Huckabee was just.on Fox (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 06:12:16 PM EST
    And his face was orange and he had white circles around his eyes. Fur real! What the heck?

    I can't ever watch Fox... (none / 0) (#78)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 11:25:41 PM EST
    I'm afraid that I might throw things at the TV screen, and break it.

    My husband sneaks in to see (none / 0) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    What they are saying sometimes. I couldn't even hear what they were talking about I was laughing so hard. I'm dead serious, he stole Trump's makeup. What act of desperation, what fresh hell is this?

    For some irrational reason (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 01:32:43 PM EST
    I feel a little offended on behalf of the red foxes who like to migrate through my yard.

    They've got more spirit and character in one of their little black paws than those schmucks will ever have in their whole bodies or collectively.


    Trump ends (none / 0) (#64)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 06:46:53 PM EST
    Obama Administration rule on transgender bathroom use.  Supposedly, difference of opinion existed between Sessions (never saw a right that should not be taken away) and Betsy DeVos.  Both DOJ and DOE are needed for a sign off.   We know we are in trouble when Betsy is our advocate for human rights.  Although, she may prefer to save her gun powder for eliminating teachers' unions and public schools.

    poll indicate (none / 0) (#72)
    by linea on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    it's not popular with americans. i cant attest to the accuracy of the Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research poll cited below but Gallup "found 50% opted for the first option that requires transgender individuals to use a restroom corresponding with their birth gender, while 40% chose the latter option, allowing them to use a bathroom corresponding with their gender identity."

    Two-thirds of Americans oppose Obama's transgender bathroom order
    Bradford Richardson; The Washington Times; July 12, 2016

    A new survey indicates two-thirds of Americans disapprove of President Obama's order compelling public schools nationwide to permit access to restrooms and other intimate facilities on the basis of gender identity.

    Fortunately, in our country civil rights (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 09:26:52 PM EST
    controversies are not decided on the basis of public opinion polls. Especially polls of ill-informed and uneducated people. How many Americans know the first thing about transgender issues?

    scotus decides? (none / 0) (#74)
    by linea on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 09:35:42 PM EST
    Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand admits Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court confirmation is a sure thing.
    AOL.com; Feb 22, 2017

    In Judge Neil Gorsuch, an Echo of Scalia in Philosophy and Style
    The New York Times; Jan 31, 2017
    Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, 49, has displayed a judicial philosophy similar to that of former Justice Antonin Scalia, whom he will replace if confirmed.


    I have not yet figured out, in my (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 08:51:24 AM EST
    own mind, whether the change of Administration positions will likely cause the transgender school-restroom case now before the Supreme Court to be dismissed as moot, or perhaps just cause a realignment of parties.

    i googled this and found (none / 0) (#114)
    by linea on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.

    if "on the basis of sex" in Title IX includes gender identity.

    i read the wiki and several amicus briefs. the Liberty Council brief is odd. it quotes shakespear twice and goes off on wild tangents including a rant against the use of hormone blockers for chldren and against reassignment surgery (neither of which are subjects of this case).

    The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the statute is ambiguous, and held that its interpretation of the scope of Title IX is entitled to "deference and is to be accorded controlling weight" under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and Auer v. Robbins.

    i assume deference would likewise be afforded the trump administration's interpretation?


    The trans boy who sued his school district (none / 0) (#125)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:51:15 PM EST
    in this case is represented at the Supreme Court by the ACLU. Here is their brief, filed today (Thursday). It minimizes the extent to which their positions relies on the Obama DoJ/DoE interpretation of Title IX's use of the term "discrimination on account of sex." The case is not moot. Notably, the federal government has not filed a brief in the case, either in defense of or renouncing the prior official interpretation.

    thank you (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by linea on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:37:13 PM EST
    i read the full ACLU brief that you linked to. it provides considerable information that the other briefs do not.

    and thank you for not treating me like im stupid. im getting tired of that here.


    You're obviously not stupid (none / 0) (#133)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 12:19:05 AM EST
    My interpretation of the constructive criticism (none / 0) (#141)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:26:16 AM EST
    you have received here over such things as your punctuation and spelling, your occasional but repeated reliance on "feelings" rather than "opinions" and evidence, and your use of expressions that seem to run yourself down and undermine the persuasiveness of your points, Linea, is that there is an underlying recognition that you are not "stupid." Folks therefore are encouraging you to become more effective at expressing yourself in English and thus at advancing your points persuasively. If people thought you were stupid they would ignore you and not engage.

    But unfortunately that country is teetering now .. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Erehwon on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 10:45:41 PM EST
    since Trump is the archetype of an "ill-informed and uneducated people," and is ready to battle on their behalf!

    Actually (none / 0) (#165)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:54:58 PM EST
    All The Donald did is remove the hammer of the federal purse from over the heads of the states.
    basically , the states themselves will decide what policies to determine issues of bathroom use,
    Best to get the federal government out of those decisions.

    true (none / 0) (#169)
    by linea on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:13:03 PM EST
    doesnt affect WA state.

    Seven Earth size planets found orbtiting (none / 0) (#75)
    by McBain on Wed Feb 22, 2017 at 10:15:58 PM EST
    a small star

    Astronomers have discovered seven roughly Earth-size planets very close to a cool dwarf star some 39 light-years from Earth, including three orbiting in the star's habitable zone where liquid water, a key ingredient for life as it's known on Earth, could be present, researchers announced Wednesday.

    It's just a matter a time before we find proof of life outside earth.  I just hope it's in my lifetime.

    No need to worry about global warming now (none / 0) (#94)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 12:56:43 PM EST
    Attempt at humor? (none / 0) (#97)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 01:20:21 PM EST
    This was a non political post. It would be nice to keep it that way.

    It will be a very long time before we're able to colonize other solar systems. Lots of obstacles to overcome before that's an option. In the mean time were going to have to solve any earth related problems ourselves.  

    From the link of my original post, retired astronaut Scott Kelly responded...

    This is awesome! Send me! Be there in 800,000 years w our current propulsion technology. More work to do. Let's get on it!

    Did Global Warming/Climate Change Cause (none / 0) (#101)
    by Green26 on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 02:15:05 PM EST
    the CA drought to occur, or to go away, or both?

    Did (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 02:55:32 PM EST
    ignorance cause conservatism, or did conservatism cause ignorance?

    the priest continues (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 03:22:24 PM EST
    what the nurse began, and so the child imposes on the man..

    I consider myself very lucky I wasn't born into a family in which I got belt across the face (literally or symbolically) every time I asked "if God is Love, why does he send people to Hell?"


    That was (none / 0) (#167)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 09:00:07 PM EST
    The election of The Donald. Once elected, the drought ended.

    I am not at all (none / 0) (#166)
    by TrevorBolder on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 08:59:08 PM EST
    Comfortable with that thought.

    I will pass on the visitors from another planet, galaxy. The world history does not have many feel good stories exploration to new worlds.


    "With this many new news junkies, (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    Donald Trump can be as rude to the media as he likes"


    Trump has been a vocal critic of the mainstream media for years. And, as president, he's used his pulpit, among other things, to slam liberal-leaning publications and discredit news reports he claims are false with cries of "fake news." But there's one byproduct of Trump's war with the media that he likely didn't count on.

    The attention he's paid the press has drawn droves of readers and viewers to the very media outlets he's bashed.

    Donald Trump's absurd war on truth (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:36:43 AM EST
    is forcing the media to act like real journalists again"


    Covering the new administration has given journalists a renewed sense of mission, but the daily dramas, never-ending news cycle, and early-morning presidential tweets are taking their toll. Reporters are energized but also exhausted (by the way, news consumers are, too). The relationship between journalists and the White House they cover has likely never been so fractured--"the Washington political and media establishment [sent] off on a bender seldom, if ever, seen in American history." And, in CNN's case, the Trump administration has reportedly banned its officials from appearing on the network (with some exceptions).

    That is the one (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 03:35:01 PM EST
    good thing I'm seeing out of all this. It is forcing journalists to actually do their job.

    Several protesters arrested after videos (none / 0) (#106)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 03:34:26 PM EST
    of shooting involving off duty cop and kids emerge. No one was injured.
    Tuesday's confrontation began over what Anaheim police described as "ongoing issues" with the juveniles walking across the officer's property. During the argument, police said, a 13-year-old threatened to shoot the off-duty officer, prompting him to attempt to detain the teen.

    Not quite the typical "get off my lawn" case.  

    The off-duty cop claims (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 06:41:53 PM EST
    the 13 year old kid threatened to shoot him. According to the kid, he threatened to sue the guy. Very different.

    I watched the video. The cop over-reacted to kids walking on his lawn. There does not appear to be any good reason for that cop to grab that boy, drag him through a row of bushes and refuse to let go of him, much less a good reason to draw and fire his gun.

    If some guy grabbed me I would fight like hell to get away from him.


    He was a cop. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 06:45:26 PM EST
    In McBain's world that gives him carte blanche to do as he pleases.

    In my world people wait (none / 0) (#115)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 09:27:58 PM EST
    for all the evidence before reaching a conclusion and don't throw insults around.

    At first glance, I tend to agree with Casey but I'll wait for more info. I'm more interested in the "popcorn shooting" case right now.  


    This world (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:10:40 AM EST
    In my world people wait for all the evidence before reaching a conclusion and don't throw insults around.

    Remember how everybody waited for the evidence to come in on Hillary's emails?  The evidence that never came?  While chanting, "Lock her up!"  That is the "world" that elected the Commodus in Chief.

    Liberals, as you have observed, wait for evidence.  Conservatives go to war over stuff that doesn't exist..


    You mean like this? (none / 0) (#137)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 07:30:55 AM EST
    From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

    Comey Interview


    Carte blanche (none / 0) (#118)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:12:01 PM EST
    is an insult????

    No (3.50 / 2) (#123)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:46:55 PM EST
    I was referring to past offenses by you and others. Is it too much to ask for people in TL to be civil? There are other places on the internet people can go to act out.

    Another case of a cop (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:45:18 PM EST
    this time a retired one, doing the only thing a cop can do when faced with a deadly threat, this time in the form of a shower of a popcorn.

    Popcorn posing a threat to an officers life second only to someone running away at full speed.


    There's a little bit more to that case (none / 0) (#124)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:49:15 PM EST
    than flying popcorn and annoying movie theater texting.  I don't have a strong opinion yet.  

    A little more or a little less (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 10:58:25 PM EST
    granted, there's a little more that Some people, especially on one side, are saying, but that doesn't mean there's more to the case.

    Apparently, the officer wasn't charged (none / 0) (#128)
    by McBain on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:05:54 PM EST
    According to Anaheim police Chief Raul Quezada

    "With regard to the off duty officer, while the evidence is clear and compelling that he did detain the juvenile and discharged his firearm there was insufficient evidence at the time to prove the officers' actions rose to the level of a criminal act," Quezada said.

    I'm shocked (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    it's america (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by linea on Thu Feb 23, 2017 at 11:30:52 PM EST
    if you cant strong-arm children for walking on your lawn and randomly fire your six-shooter in the air, what's the point?

    I'd like to know why the gun was fired (none / 0) (#143)
    by McBain on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 10:09:39 AM EST
    You're not allowed to fire warning shots.  Perhaps it was an accidental discharge.
    It is still unclear why the officer fired his gun, but Wyatt said that the witnesses, including juveniles shown in the video, said in interviews that the officer never pointed it at anyone and they didn't feel threatened.

    "That doesn't mean he couldn't be charged with negligent discharge of a firearm," Wyatt said.

    Who ya gonna believe? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Feb 24, 2017 at 03:05:37 AM EST
    [Citing Police Chief, who said] "...there was insufficient evidence at the time to prove the officers' actions rose to the level of a criminal act...

    Do you believe the video, or the guy who would be relieved of his job if he admitted doing what the video shows he did?  Which one has the incentive to lie?

    For an ordinary citizen, an officer's word is good enough to get a conviction.  For a police officer, video evidence of brutal, unprovoked attacks, and we have seen dozens, is not enough to get a conviction.


    Pradosham Vrat (none / 0) (#187)
    by vratfestivals on Mon Apr 20, 2020 at 04:11:45 AM EST
    Thanks for such insightful information. You have written really well. Pradosham Vrat is observed in honour of Lord Shiva. Know the all Pradosham dates.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#188)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 20, 2020 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    With apologies to Lord Shiva