Thursday Open Thread

In the news: 7 things Trump and Sessions Get Wrong About MS-13

Jeff Sessions wants the border wall to hurry up.

Ivanka Trump is going to participate in the W20 (Women 20) summit in Germany next week. Her topic is "women's economic empowerment." She can share her experience in one sentence: Be born with a rich father, then marry a rich husband.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< MA to toss 21,000 Drug Convictions Due to Lab Fraud | Sunday TV: Series "El Chapo" Premiere >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Attorney General Sessions (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by KeysDan on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 02:49:41 PM EST
    can't believe that a federal judge "on an island in the Pacific," was able to block Trump's Muslim Ban 2.0.  Sessions and Trump make for a seditious team: Trump with his so-called judge, and Sessions with his so-called State.

    I'd say this was all par for the course ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    ... for a so-called president and his so-called attorney general. Nevertheless, I'm sure that Judge Watson's ruling came as real shock to those 10% of Republicans who don't know of Hawaii's status as a state in the union.

    Wait until (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jack E Lope on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    ...they hear there is a New Mexico.

    I never knew Hawaii (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 01:46:30 PM EST
    consisted of just one island.  Just Oahu?

    Are Maui, Hawaii, Molokai, Kauai, Lanai still part of a U.S. territory like Guam?  


    The judge was only on one of the Hawai'ian islands (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    when he rendered his decision. I'm sure that's what Sessions meant. <snark>
      On a more serious note, what is actually more disturbing than the easy target for humor at another Tr*mpster's expense, is that the freakin' Attorney General of the United States would, in effect, echo the president*'s "so-called judge" remark. Not only does Sessions not have Tr*mp's excuse (no experience or professional training in the role of the judiciary -- despite his sister's being an outstanding federal judge for many years), but more important is this: defending the independence of the judiciary and respecting the judicial function is a very strong tradition in U.S. DoJ. They never criticize a decision after losing a case, much less the judge who rendered the decision. They may say, "We respectfully disagree with the judge's decision, and we will pursue an appeal," but never anything stronger than that, that I can recall, until now.

    Peter G, you're Living in the Past: (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 04:34:22 PM EST
    Why shouldn't (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 08:13:37 AM EST
    one branch of our coequal branches of government have the right to criticize the other?

    Sounds very healthy to me. You know, keeping each other in line.


    "Very healthy" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 08:21:16 AM EST
    So a POTUS personally attacking judges and lying about them is just healthy "criticism" now.  Or are limiting the scope to just Session's comments and why they are an attack on judicial review?

    Yes it is (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 08:35:39 AM EST
    We don't have or need kings.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 08:41:09 AM EST
    OTOH - we do need an independent judiciary who's decisions are respected.

    You're right, though - we don't need a lying King who seeks to undermine judicial review by personally attacking and lying about judges.  But that's who you decided to vote for and now defend.


    And independent judiciary should not need (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 02:51:30 PM EST
    to wrap themselves in their robes and say, "How dare you criticize me!"

    If they are not strong enough to stand firm against criticism by opponents.....

    How can they resist the compliments and pressure by the people who they agree with?


    Good thing they're not doing that (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 08:11:21 PM EST
    It's a shame we have a lying President who seeks to undermine the credibility of judicial review by personally attacking, insulting and lying about federal judges ... or that people like you defend his smears and lies.

    Guess that "birds of a feather" thing holds true.


    It's a shame we have judges (1.50 / 2) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    who don't read the law as written but instead decide to rule on what was said.

    Indeed, indeed. A real shame.


    It's a shame ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:40:27 AM EST
    ... we have a POTUS who lies and personally smears those judges, and people who defend his lies and smears.  People who can barely read that think they are better able to interpret the law, which is laughable.

    Play we have mutual shames (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:48:20 AM EST
    Why don't we just let'em shame each other for awhile.

    Might do'em both some good.


    6% were Republicans. 2% Dems, 2% Indies. (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 02:17:46 PM EST
    Not something to be particularly proud of by any slice of our American pie...

    i believe (none / 0) (#9)
    by linea on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    this is roughly the argument that alan dershowitz asserts and the argument that will go before scotus if it makes it that far. there seems to be case law that supports this.
    "The judges don't get to psychoanalyze the President to see if the order he issues is lawful. It's either lawful or it's not," Sessions continued.

    No judge has tried to "psychoanalyze" (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Peter G on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    the *president. The courts decided that the Executive Order was illegal, in part, because it was intended to implement, in an indirect way that would appear on the surface to be lawful, a promise by candidate Tr*mp to implement a "Muslim ban." A ban on immigration by Muslims would be unconstitutional. As evidence of what Tr*mp intended to accomplish, the court cited statements that Tr*mp made announcing his intentions. How is that similar to psychoanalysis?

    why are you asking me? (none / 0) (#17)
    by linea on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 11:10:33 PM EST
    im not a lawyer. all i know is what i read. but it seems to me that the psychoanalysis comment by sessions was plagerized from the opinion of alan dershowitz who wrote:

    If the case reaches the Supreme Court, a major issue will be whether campaign rhetoric delivered by Donald Trump, when he was a private citizen running for president, may be considered by the courts in deciding on the constitutionality of an executive order. The lower courts gave considerable, indeed dispositive, weight to these anti-Muslim statements in deciding that the travel ban was, in reality, a Muslim ban that would violate the constitutional prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion.

    Under that reasoning, had the identical executive order been issued by President Obama, it would have been constitutional. But because it was issued by President Trump, it is unconstitutional. Indeed any executive order issued by President Trump dealing with travel from Muslim countries would be constitutionally suspect because of what candidate Trump said. In my view, that is a bridge too far. It turns constitutional analysis into psychoanalysis, requiring that the motives of the president be probed.

    I didn't ask you, Linea (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    I asked a rhetorical question as part of my post. (A rhetorical question is not really a question in the usual sense, but rather a form of argument, in which I make clear what I believe the obvious answer to the question is, i.e., in this case, "not at all.") When I post here, it is not usually a personal discussion between me and another individual; it is a discussion of an issue about which I believe I know something. (Even if Sessions borrowed his stupid idea and/or rhetorical device ("psychoanalysis is not legal analysis") from Dershowitz, by the way, that is not what is meant by "plagiarism.") Nor do you have to be a lawyer to realize that whether or not ascertaining motive is relevant to resolving some disputed constitutional claim, determining a person's motives for acting is not the object of psychoanalysis.

    oh (none / 0) (#43)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 06:54:55 PM EST

    Dershowitiz (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 01:52:05 PM EST
    should know that Freud's psychoanalysis has nothing to do with discerning legislative or executive intent.

    He is being sarcastic.

    There is a long history of racist policies being cloaked by supposedly neutral rationale.   The Jim Crow laws of the South used to do this quite extensively.  Racists can be pretty smart in trying to hide their racism.


    And neither is Dershowitz's argument or yours, for that matter. I don't think that any of you actually read Judge Watson's opinion. He took the Trump administration at its collective word about banning Muslim travel and immigration, and in doing so he cited the president's own public statements to that effect.

    That's not psychoanalysis. The most basic rule of Lawmaking 101 for public officials is that one's public statements regarding policy is a direct reflection of one's intentions. If you really don't mean what you're saying publicly, or if you have no real intention of ever doing what you're saying, then you probably shouldn't be saying it at all.

    This cockeyed right-wing notion that we somehow shouldn't be taking whatever Trump says literally is just as big a bunch of bullschitt as the stuff he's been saying. He's the president, and he has to realize that when he speaks, his words matter.

    He therefore needs to choose those words both accordingly and wisely, and not just spew an unfiltered thought stream before leaving it to underlings to clean up his tossed word salad. It's not just his personal integrity that's on the line, but respect for the president's office as an institution as well.



    i cant find (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 12:00:42 AM EST
    Judge Watson's opinion

    i spent an hour trying to find it.  everybody is "blah blah" but nobody helps by providing an actual link.


    Here are the links: (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 05:34:07 AM EST
    (1) Judge Watson's initial Ruling in STATE OF HAWAI'I and ISMAIL ELSHIKH v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al. - Document 219, which first imposed a temporary restraining order. (Filed March 15, 2017.)

    (2) Judge Watson's second ruling in HAWAI'I v. TRUMP - Document 230, which granted the State of Hawai'i's motion to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction. (Filed March 29, 2017.)



    re: Here are the links (none / 0) (#45)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 07:11:02 PM EST
    thank you!

    i made no argument !! (none / 0) (#20)
    by linea on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 11:40:33 PM EST
    dershowitz cites precedent and previous scothus rulings.

    i realize for you it's like, "in my happy place of cute motorcycles and footballer sports the law is like my feelings" but that's not always the case.


    I hope the president doesn't misinterpret my statements to say I support the order. I don't support the order. I don't think it's necessary for the safety of the United States. I'm opposed to it. But I think there's a difference obviously between not supporting an order on policy grounds and finding it unconstitutional. I do not think it's unconstitutional. I think the Supreme Court will uphold it even if Gorsuch is not yet on the Supreme Court. But if he does make it there in time then it will be a clearer victory for the Trump administration in the Supreme Court.

    ... his own status as a celebrity attorney. Further, and speaking for myself only, I believe that his personal opinion supporting the travel ban is likely motivated by an overt anti-Muslim animus he shares with this president. For that reason, I tend to discount him on such matters.

    Dershowitz expressly says he does not support (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    the Executive Order, Donald. Why do you think he's not telling the truth about that?

    I didn't bother to read Dershowitz. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 02:22:24 PM EST
    In my estimation, he's both a showboat and an Islamophobe, and so I made an assumption.

    I no longer pay any attention to Dershowitz on the subject of Muslims, because like several otherwise rational civil libertarians such as Bill Maher and Sam Harris, he generalizes / fantasizes about a relationship between Islam and violence, to the point where he willingly consigns an entire population demographic to perpetual suspicion for the despicable actions of a relative few unrepentant religious fundamentalists.

    (Speaking for myself only, I believe that religious fundamentalism speaks much more to the weak-minded and vacuous nature of the individual who wholeheartedly embraces its dogmatic and unyielding appeal, than it supposedly reflects the basic tenets of any particular faith in general.)

    If Dershowitz opposes the executive order then color me happily surprised, but I'd offer better than even odds it wasn't due to any sudden enlightenment on his part regarding Islam, and likely had to do with other factors. A broken clock will still tell you the correct time twice daily.



    "I didn't bother to read Dershowitz" (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 04:37:13 PM EST
    yet, four paragraphs...

    Which explained my reason why ... (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 07:22:19 PM EST
    ... I don't read him. If you're not interested, then please move on.

    You're bragging about specious reasoning (4.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 12:45:32 PM EST
    of the particular sort that is a defense attorney's nightmare.  That you do so in a defense attorney's blog is callous and inexplicable.  You've done it before, most notably in cheering the oversentencing of OJ Simpson, arguing that he was guilty at some other time of something for which he was not convicted.  Q.E. Freakin' D.

    You capstoned your self degradation with a bully's bluster:  'move on.'


    example (none / 0) (#21)
    by linea on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 11:44:03 PM EST
    p.s. there is court precedent that ruled against using campaign rhetoric in deciding intent.

    Read Judge Watson's opinion (Doc. 219), ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 05:44:11 AM EST
    ... which I've provided in my comment below. He cites specific comments made after Trump assumed office. Specifically note the examples on pgs. 10-12.

    and (none / 0) (#23)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 12:20:50 AM EST
    we're talkimg about the modified 2.0 without the ridiculous LPR fiasco. and citing experts isnt endorsing!!

    There's a new Casey Anthony trial documentary (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 03:36:53 PM EST
    on the ID network.... Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery.

    The 3 part series isn't horrible but no where near as good as the epic O.J. documentary.  Neither of the main defense lawyers... Jose Baez and Cheney Mason were interviewed.  

    Only one juror was interviewed and he didn't say much.  Wouldn't you want to hear from more jurors? Former prosecutor Jeff Ashton is still blaming them for the verdict, claiming they were biased because they hadn't made up their mind before the trial started. My take on that is prosecutors don't like a fair fight.

    There wasn't much new here but it did remind me about all the idiots who showed up to Anthony's parent's house to harass them. Sometimes bringing their young kids with them.

    The final episode ended with accusations that Anthony paid Baez with sex. Would have been nice to hear from the other side.

    I watched that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 07:52:32 PM EST
    on ID. I really learned a lot but then I was one of those people that deliberately tried to ignore the circus when the case was going on.

    Yeah, I agree that the prosecutor seemed to blame the jury because he said so many people were already decided that Anthony was guilty therefore it limited the jury pool. But the juror did speak or maybe somebody else I can't remember everything said that the prosecution never could really tell the jury how Caylee died.

    Apparently Casey's dad wants nothing to do with her ever again but her mother still speaks to her infrequently. Casey mostly has been pretty adept at keeping out of the public eye.


    I followed the case closely (none / 0) (#10)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    The way I saw it there were three equally probably scenarios....
    • Casey had nothing to do with her daughter's death
    • Casey was responsible but it was an accident
    • Casey intentionally killed her daughter

    So, the jury's verdict made sense to me. What didn't make sense was the stupid decision to make this a death penalty case.  That was someone trying to show voters they were "tough on crime".

    i read (none / 0) (#11)
    by linea on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 08:55:40 PM EST
    i read that the child accidentally drowned in the swimming pool and that casey panikked and hid her daughter's body - blaming herself for not supervising the child appropriately - and that much of her behaviour is understandable because she is a sexual abuse victiim. but i really dont know much about the case.

    Lots of theories (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 09:05:27 PM EST
    • Accidental swimming pool death
    • Left alone in a hot car
    • Overdosed on something to make her sleep so Casey could party

    The prosecution's theory was Casey killed Caylee with a combination of chloroform and duct tape. How often does that happen? A death penalty case and the cause of death is something that rare?

    She claimed, thought her attorney Jose Baez, to be a sexual abuse victim of her father George.  He denies it.  Who knows, she lied a lot but I didn't trust George either.


    You've got a strong stomach (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    McBain, I'll give you that.

    a google search... (none / 0) (#15)
    by linea on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 10:27:43 PM EST
    Chloroform has been banned as a consumer product in the United States since 1976. Chloroform has been implicated as a carcinogen to humans and in the presence of oxygen, it eventually converts into phosgene. Phosgene was used as a chemical weapon in World War 1.

    who has cloroform? that just seems ridiculous.

    i dont know everything about this old case but im inclined to believe someone who is a sexual abuse victim. and i know that abuse victims (and boys with adhd) often dont behave in a way that others feel is standard when faced with a tramatic situation.


    Much was made of her behavior (none / 0) (#19)
    by McBain on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 11:22:42 PM EST
    People were outraged at pictures of Casey partying after she reported her daughter missing. The sexual abuse wasn't brought up until the trial.  Still, people jumped to conclusions because "she didn't act right".  Only a few pointed out that different people react differently to stress.  

    The chloroform theory was very strange. Much was made over internet searches for chloroform in the Anthony house, including one that suggested it was a good way to put someone to sleep.  The defense did a good job of countering that "bombshell".


    i had a friend (none / 0) (#24)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 12:25:35 AM EST
    her brother had adhd and she told me stories about how he reacted inapropriately (indifferently) when incorrectly accused of doing a wrong by a teacher.

    This may (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    be the only time I agree with you, McBain.

    If the prosecution could not prove how Caylee died, it would be very hard to prove murder, let alone first degree or capital murder.

    I came to the issue late, watching some commentary the day the case was submitted to the jury.  And at that time a contrarian commentator said that the prosecution could not and had not proved how Caylee died.  That was a big problem.



    According (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 07:52:30 AM EST
    to what was said on the ID documentary chloroform can be made with household chemicals. So the fact that she couldn't go out and just buy it really wasn't relevant.

    Just my opinion (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 09:50:06 PM EST
    But only a sociopath could have twisted the death of their child for their own benefit the way Anthony did

    No remorse, no desired penance. And Daddy was a cop so she understood deny, deflect, and make counter accusations very well in order to taint all evidence.

    I will give her that she's brilliant. That is all I can give though.


    I agree with (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 07:54:32 AM EST
    you she is a sociopath. That pretty much came out loud and clear in this documentary. I will always wonder how on earth she pretended to go to work for 2 years and her parents never knowing about it.

    I am really (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by MKS on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    getting nervous about North Korea.  They have a few nukes.  And if they ever learn how to get their ballistic missiles to fly right, we here in California are in trouble.

    And Gen. Cheeto is making the North Koreans jumpy and trigger happy.

    I stopped worrying about nuclear war after the Berlin Wall fell....In high school, I assumed, and most people did I think, that the world would end in a nuclear conflagration.   I haven't had that feeling in years.

    Yet, Gen. Cheeto in his mindless saber rattling is ratcheting up the temperature.   And, god, is he incompetent--saying that an aircraft carrier task force was steaming to waters off of North Korea, when it was in the Indian Ocean going the other way.  He can't even saber rattle effectively.  But he could blunder us into war.

    And, most disturbing is that the Generals we all hoped would be a restraint on Cheeto covered for him when he said that the carrier group was headed to North Korea--they knew better and said nothing.

    So, we learned we cannot count on the Generals to curb Trump.  God help us all.

    The concept is called (1.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 08:33:36 AM EST
    not telling the enemy what you're doing or gonna do.

    And if you are now scared of North Korea, where's the criticism of Clinton??

    Remember that he went around the DoS and sent people to China to help them with their missile program.

    The company was Loral.

    Now guess what. Loral parts have been found in the sea in missile debris from NK's missiles.

    Not to mention Clinton, Bush and Obama's failure to do anything to stop them.


    No, the concept is (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 09:47:32 AM EST
    not knowing his arse from a hole in the ground.

    Cheeto's farcical statement that the carrier group was headed towards North Korea when it was going in the opposite direction thousands of miles away....show Cheeto has no idea what he is doing....

    Cheeto is keeping his plans secret from himself, so he can surprise himself.....


    Coulter (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Lora on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:32:21 AM EST
    Berkeley faces lawsuit over Coulter speech

    I say, let her come. Take up as many seats as available at her talk with as many people as you can who will be non-violent, have them turn in their seats and face the back of the auditorium and not utter a sound. Perhaps with some choice remarks on the backs of their shirts! Get great video and post it.

    this jihad (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:42:38 AM EST
    against free speech is frightening.  at Berkley fer gods sake.

    Coulterb is a fool.  let her talk.  enough will see that.


    i say that (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    because we currently have an administration that is clearly hostile to free speech.  an inconvenient convergence of leftist speech suppressors is not good.

    useful idiots.


    im sick of (4.00 / 1) (#106)
    by linea on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    the violent anarchists, et alia.

    note: i disagree with the author's sloppy use of far-right and far-left.

    The cancellation comes after a series of violent clashes this year on campus and in downtown Berkeley between far-right and far-left protesters who come armed with pepper spray, Molotov cocktails, brass knuckles and soda cans filled with concrete.
    Chancellor Nicholas B. Dirks said that police have "very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker," her audience and protesters if the event goes ahead next Thursday.


    also (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by linea on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    she is a political humorist who makes her living being outragous. it seems such an overreaction to take her shock-entertainment seriously. by the way, she looks great! thin and tall and a millionaire author. she absolutely doesnt look 55. i would love to go to a wine bar with her. amy schumer not so much.

    Tall, thin, blonde and rich (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    Exactly the sort of reactionary blowhard I'd like to spend an evening with over a couple of glasses of wine. Not. Really, linea-the-real-leftist, are those really your criteria for interesting companions?

    well (none / 0) (#125)
    by linea on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 06:49:06 PM EST
    i've seem her on tv. she's most definately a satirist. i find it odd that people here respond to her as if she's an actualy politician rather than someone who sells book by being shocking and provocative. you're just too serious.

    The bully pulpit has influence (none / 0) (#126)
    by vicndabx on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    surely you know that?


    find it odd that people here respond to her as if she's an actualy politician rather than

    sorry (none / 0) (#131)
    by linea on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:24:21 PM EST
    my impression is that she is a satirist. i googled her and cant believe anyone thinks she's making a serious policy proposal with this (for example):
    "Most public schools are -- at best ... expensive baby-sitting arrangements.... At worse, they are criminal training labs, where teachers sexually abuse the children between drinking binges and acts of grand larceny"

    sorry if im not appropriately hating the correct people. it's not like i'd go to a backyard barbecue with ted cruz and his wife or anything.


    Your "impression" is irrelevant (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:39:25 PM EST
    Calling her a "satirist" doesn't make her one.  Nor does the fact that every word coming out of her mouth is not a policy proposal. She's not a comedian - just a vile human being who regularly insults liberals and groups of which you claim to be a member.

    For what it's worth, David Brock (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    who used to party with Coulter and Laura Ingraham, said that Ingraham was doing a schtick, but that Coulter was genuinely unhinged.

    "There's something wrong with her" were his words.


    david brock? (none / 0) (#146)
    by linea on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:41:35 PM EST
    by jondee

    who used to party with Coulter and Laura Ingraham, said that Ingraham was doing a schtick, but that Coulter was genuinely unhinged.

    really? i wouldnt have guessed that. it sure sounds like schtick to me (see below).

    but if there valid gossip from people who have partied with her than i must be mistaken.

    "Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"

    "Valid gossip" - heh (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 10:39:34 PM EST
    Or, just observations from someone who actually knows her.

    BTW - If you ever do get to hang out with her as you'd like, maybe she'll regale you with some of her statements demeaning sexual assault victims.  Like when she claimed most women who report rapes are just "girls trying to get attention."  Or when she dismissed date rape/ acquaintance rape - it's not legitimately rape unless "the victim was hit on the head with a brick".

    She's hilarious!


    Yeah what a card that Anne is (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    like when she publicly went after the 9/11 widows for their spotlight-seeking and supposed exploiting of 9/11 for personal gain..

    Jeezus H Kee-rist on a popsicle stick. Folks here actually admire that unhinged termagant? Oy.


    If anyone gets drug tested (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    it should be Coulter.

    Whatever she takes for her Tourettes-like symptoms shouldn't be mixed with anything else..

    I saw Coulter once on television talking about the legacy of Ronald Reagan, and she looked and sounded as if her eyes were going to roll back in her head and she was going to have some sort of quasi-erotic "seizure" right on the stage.

    It was actually a little frightening.


    re: valid gossip (none / 0) (#174)
    by linea on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 06:32:07 PM EST
    let me rephrase that.

    there is valid gossip (and i googled) thus i am wrong. people who have partied with her says she's not being provocatively outrageous; she's crazy.


    The sad thing is ... you're serious (5.00 / 7) (#127)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:01:05 PM EST
    by the way, she looks great! thin and tall and a millionaire author. she absolutely doesnt look 55. i would love to go to a wine bar with her. amy schumer not so much.

    You should invite Ivanka along, too.  They're both so thin, rich and "posh".

    Coulter is a disgusting person and is not a comedian.  She's a political commentator and author.  Labeling her a "satirist" to excuse her offensive and disgusting speech doesn't change that.  Nor does the fact that she's thin, rich or (according to you) attractive for her age.  Schumer, OTOH, IS an actual comedian and a liberal.

    Tell us again about what a great progressive you are ...


    She's smart and very quick on her feet (none / 0) (#143)
    by McBain on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:01:02 PM EST
    She does quite well in debates.  A little too thin for my taste but I like your honesty. I'd probably drink wine with her too.  

    Of course, that's going to outrage the politically correct in here. They'd much rather spend an evening with Rachel Maddow.  


    He// yeah (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:00:17 AM EST
    Maddow - versus a right-wing demagogue who regular makes vile statements about gold star parents, 9-11 widows, sexual assault victims, etc., etc., etc.

    It's not even a question.


    I'll drink wine with anybody who is buying... (none / 0) (#166)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:12:14 AM EST
    but I think the wino who sleeps under a tarp across the street from my liquor store would be better company than Coulter...and have more wisdom and knowledge to share.

    If the ultimate in politically incorrect (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:49:07 AM EST
    is the ideal, you'd love Richard Spencer and David Duke.

    Now those guys are a barrel of laughs after a few drinks. Too much for the politically correct, effete, cappuccino-sippers here.


    Rachel by a KO at 0:13 of the first round! (none / 0) (#178)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    They'd much rather spend an evening with Rachel Maddow.

    Duh.  Who doesn't love Maddow, other than the brain dead?

    There is no comparison.  Coulter does not even move the needle on the meter that Maddow has pegged.  Coulter is not qualified to carry Maddow's CV.  She probably couldn't even lift it, a PhD in Political Science.

    Maddow is smart and cares for people.  She delivers an hour of incredible insight every night, does it effortlessly, and does not even appear to be reading notes.  

    If Coulter is smart, she does not bother to reveal it, and it is clear she hates most of America.

    The Coulter program in a nutshell:  If you're Black and poor, it's your own fault.  If you're white and poor, it's the fault of the Blacks and the "illegals," because the poor whites really wanted to pick lettuce.


    Coulter is well educated (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Peter G on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 09:27:03 PM EST
    Ivy League bachelor's from Cornell; J.D. (law degree) from Michigan (a top law school). Clerked for a federal appellate judge -- a very competitive and prestigious position for a new law grad. From all this I infer that her aggressively stupid and illogical positions are deliberate and well-considered avenues of self-promotion. Not a comic put-on, as Linea theorized, but a knowing strategy for fleecing the rubes and exploiting her conservative followers for the fame and fortune of it. My theory, anyway.

    another cigar (none / 0) (#181)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Apr 26, 2017 at 06:44:20 AM EST
    for Peter

    Both sides now (none / 0) (#109)
    by Lora on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    Good article in the Guardian on the April 15 demonstration at Berkeley.

    It appears as though a number of protesters were not Berkeley students.  Some were locals and some -- who knows? Were the ones with the Molotov cocktails agents provocateurs? Not unlikely, I would think.


    i find i am agreeing with George Will (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:41:19 AM EST
    with alarming frequency

    ths is interesting

    George Will realized that America's health care reality means that not only is Obamacare unrepealable but that we are on our way to a single-payer system. He seemed resigned to the fact that the failed market-based health care system he wants to retain is likely dying a slow qualified death.

    "Barack Obama said as a candidate that he would prefer a single-payer plan but couldn't get there," George Will said. "As President when they were going through the Obamacare agonies, he said, look upon Obamacare as a starter home. The beginning, the thin end of an enormous wedge heading toward that. What does Donald Trump say? 'Single-payer works fine in Scotland.' So I don't see any particular animus he has as you say against a single-payer plan. And, what we've learned in this debate about repealing Obamacare is that the essence of Obamacare is the expansion of Medicaid. Who has benefited from that? Probably disproportionately white working-class males, Trump voters."

    It's about time that Conservatives come to the realization that those that benefit the most from the policies enacted by Progressives are people in the Red States (here & here). Ironically if Trump, Ryan, and their Republican cohort were successful in repealing Obamacare and instituting their draconian health care policies, their constituents would bear the brunt of the pain. While that eventuality would likely flip both the House and Senate, it is something we cannot wish on our brothers and sisters who bought into the lie.

    I have been saying that Obamacare was designed to be a stepping stone to single-payer health care for years. It is clear that it is the only solution

    i agree

    ps (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:48:50 AM EST
    i love the irony that our resident "single payer nationalist" will have to reconcile the fact that Obama care is the bridge single payer (obvious from the start) so his enduring ficticious support for single payer will be tested.

    it must have to do (none / 0) (#104)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 10:03:38 AM EST
    with he has become an MSNBC fixture

    I dig Dave Alvin, have fun! (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 04:35:33 PM EST

    I know you do Brother... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Thu Apr 20, 2017 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    You have impeccable musical tastes.

    The only thing better than Dave Alvin would be Dave & Phil Alvin.

    Just as the only thing better than Dave Davies would be Dave & Ray Davies.

    What's up with your Brother?


    The Ray and Dave row goes way (none / 0) (#168)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:38:35 AM EST
    back apparently.

    Dave and the drummer Mick Avory supposedly  couldn't stand each other, while Ray and Mick were best buds.

    A heads up: if you ever meet Dave, don't ever ask him if that was Jimmy Page playing guitar on You Really Got Me.


    4/20 (none / 0) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    You'll never catch me Copper!!! (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 01:18:09 PM EST
    At least not with Doritos and Cheetos and Video Games...some Joyva Jelly Rings and a Ravi Shankar record and the Wyoming PD might have themselves a collar;)

    2nd Michigan Doctor and wife charged (none / 0) (#42)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 04:52:49 PM EST
    for allegedly performing and/or assisting in the performance of female genital mutilation.

    Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, 53, and his wife, Farida Attar, 50, were arrested on charges of "conspiring to perform female genital mutilations on minor girls out of Fakhruddin Attar's medical clinic," authorities said Friday.

    The couple allegedly "arranged and assisted" the procedures performed by Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, who was the first individual to be charged with violating federal law that bans the practice where part or all of the genitalia is removed.

    Attar, who owned the Burhani Medical Center in Livonia, Michigan, lent his medical office to Nagarwala to perform the procedure on girls, aged 6 to 9, while Farida Attar held their hands "to comfort them," the complaint alleges.

    I've got to say (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 07:39:38 PM EST
    what is wrong with the parents? I mean it's not like the girls are going in there by themselves.

    the parents (none / 0) (#48)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 07:49:10 PM EST
    are bringing their young daughters to these doctors to be mutilated because it is part of their religious-cultural beliefs.

    Harming your child (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 02:57:09 PM EST
    for whatever reason is neither acceptable or legal.

    This is just another example of what Sharia law brings with it.


    What ignorance brings with it.. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    another example of which would be spouting off about "Sharia Law" when, according to religious scholars, there's no references to female circumcision in the Koran.

    Your inability to think about things and (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:27:12 AM EST
    problems created by them is understood.

    Let me try and educate you.

    This is just another example of what Sharia law brings with it.

    The example is that Sharia brings something. It is the cart, the carrier, the host, but it is not the specific disease.

    Think of it as a father beating a son's mother. The son marries and then beats his wife. The father didn't spell out wife beating but his actions can be seen as merely the extension of things taught in the Old Testament.

    This, and many other examples exist, is why the birth, life, crucifixion, burial, rise and ascension of Christ fulfilled the Old Testament.  It no longer applies. Christians do not live under Mosaic Law,

    Yet some "Christians," and I use quotation marks deliberately, go back to Mosaic Law and even add to it.

    In Islam there is no Christ. The harshness of Sharia Law acts as a carrier for some "Muslims" to
    use it and to add to it.

    This is just another example of what Sharia law brings with it.


    And you, as a Christian (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:44:19 AM EST
    claim to be what? non-violent and forgiving?

    You who condones war crimes and advocates
    dropping bombs and children and the infirm to get a nation to "come to the table"?

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your truly staggering sanctimony and hypocrisy.

    Try to understand. Let me educate you: you're just another whitewashed sepulchre. One in a long line.


    Yes, If the enemy hides among (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 04:32:24 PM EST
    civilians to launch rockets into my country I would do what is necessary.

    I am my brother's keeper.

    What would you do? Let the enemy kill your civilians?

    Being a Christian does not mean that you agree to let the enemy kill you and your civilians.

    Wolves do not attack the strong.

    Our position in regards to terrorism has been stupid.

    That's is what elected Trump. We couldn't afford 4 more years of Obama redux and his fake "red lines."


    Let me help you (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 06:06:59 PM EST
    when you side with a foreign autocrat like Putin against half of your own countrymen, that makes you an enemy of this country.

    I suggest you rethink what you've been saying of late, before people as intolerant as you start calling for You to be strung up.

    Though, since you're already 'saved' it shouldn't be too much of a problem for you. You're headed for that big 700 Club in the sky after all.


    Ah, the Russian card (1.00 / 1) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:17:56 PM EST
    how trivial.

    We've been told that Russia did not change the election.

    Perhaps you have proof? No?

    But thanks for showing us you cannot refute my points.


    Ah, yes (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:47:37 PM EST
    All you said was that in regard to the recent election, Putin was "the enemy of my enemy."

    Sounds a little treasonous, Miss Fonda.

    Tune up your balalaika and warm up the samovar.


    Per the CDC's data and research, ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 05:31:38 PM EST
    ... during a ten-year period (2005-14), the average number of Americans per year who were killed:

    • In Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks was 9.

    • Accidentally at home by a toddler who had somehow found an unattended firearm was 21.

    • Accidentally by a lawnmower was 69.

    When one examines the actual direct impact of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism upon Americans as compared to other baseline statistics, so as to develop some degree of credible perspective, your alarmist shrieks of "The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!" are rightly and quickly reduced to nothing more than perpetually over-emotive, bedwetting and xenophobic hyperbole.

    Have a nice day.


    That is the silliest (none / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:24:45 PM EST
    attempt at an analogy I have ever seen.

    You are saying that radical islamists killing people is the same as a toddler finding a gun.

    In other words, an accidental death is the same as a planned killing by a radical islamist.

    You've Gumped yourself.

    And before you make took big a deal over what we have gone through you need to talk to Sweden, France, Germany, England, Denmark and even Russia.

    Yes, the radical islamist are coming. In fact, many are already here.


    Just remember, Jim (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:35:12 PM EST
    those little kids dressed up for Halloween aren't midgets hired by Al Queda, so don't shoot through the door.

    I worry about you.


    That's just ignorant and idiotic. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:56:48 PM EST
    But then why should today be any different, eh? Emotional appeals to people's worst fears and instincts about our physical and cultural differences with one another are no substitute for actual facts, Jim. You're the most bigoted and ill-informed person in these threads.

    Have a nice day.


    That's not a "brother's keeper" (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:03:21 PM EST
    Yes, If the enemy hides among civilians to launch rockets into my country I would do what is necessary.

    I am my brother's keeper.

    The indiscriminate killing of civilians is mass murder.  It's a war crime.


    Then arrest all the Brits and US (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:15:06 PM EST
    due to the bombing of Germany.

    In the meantime you can practice surrendering.

    Shall they saw your head off or chop it with one or two licks.


    Actually, under modern standards ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:28:23 PM EST
    ... a strong case could be made that some of the bombings were war crimes, but at the time there was no international treaty/law protecting a civilian population specifically from attack by aircraft, so they were not.

    In the meantime you can practice surrendering.

    Shall they saw your head off or chop it with one or two licks.

    No, I won't be surrendering to anyone, let alone ISIS/"Shariah law!".  But feel free to hide under the nearest bed clutching your favorite set of pearls, if that makes you feel better.


    "at the time..." (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:30:13 PM EST
    So you are not interested in morals.

    And you won't have to surrender. They'll come for you.

    BTW, did you decide on the saw or the blade?


    Actually, I am ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    ... quite "interested in morals".  IMO, the bombing of Dresden, for example, was an immoral act.  It was not however, a war crime, which is what we were discussing.  But it's good to know that you support both the immoral acts of WWII and the war crimes of today.  Just as long as you're not the victim and can watch from the comfort of your Lazyboy.

    BTW - I choose the pearls, because no matter how tight you try to clutch them, you don't have the strength to do more than cause a slight irritation.


    Immoral acts?? (none / 0) (#159)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:15:20 AM EST
    The Germans first bombed England. They were repaid with their own coin.

    Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. They were repaid a thousand times over.

    The radical islamist rain rockets on Israel from locations surrounded by civilians....and you think Israel shouldn't respond?

    The radical islamists attack and attack and we dither and blather and more and more people die.

    And you want to talk about morals? That's beyond shameful.


    Actually, YOU decided to talk ... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 10:10:04 AM EST
    ... about morals, when your silly attempt to distract from your advocacy of East crimes failed.  Immoral acts by one side does not justify immoral acts by the other, any more than illegal acts by one side justifies your advocating the immoral/illegal mass murder of women, children and civilians.

    THAT is "beyond shameful".


    You are your brothers keeper (none / 0) (#161)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    Your decision to not defines you.

    I am indeed (none / 0) (#162)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    My "brother" being the innocent men, women and child civilians that you advocate be murdered.

    This endless, childish, back-and-forth (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    in which each one tries to get the last word (until the comment counter hits 200, I guess) is an exhausting waste of time and bandwidth. I don't know why Jeralyn allows it, but I am sure it has driven off many of the best commenter-members of this community. Does any of you have the maturity and self-confidence to just stop, for goodness' sake? Comment when you have something new and thoughtful to say, or else don't, would be my fervent prayer.

    I wish that Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Towanda on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:13:28 AM EST
    just would set up a separate post per week for them to go at it, Peter -- and label it for us, saving a lot of time in scrolling through these threads to find the few posts by others.

    Sorry, Peter (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    I already have a father, so while I generally enjoy your comments I don't need to be lectured by you.  Moreover, I've seen you get into more than one back-and- forth with other posters without regard to the comment limit of a 5 day old post or its imagined effect on other posters.  But feel free to contact the site's owner of you want an answer to your question.  

    Please let me know if I ever do the same (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 12:53:15 PM EST
    I certainly try not to. I thought my comment was more of a plaintive plea than a lecture, but if it came off that way, I apologize.

    Peter, the easy (none / 0) (#172)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    answer is to put a certain person in a very long timeout.  

    Occam's razor.    


    Never happen (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 03:56:07 PM EST
    And you were being (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 09:24:44 PM EST
    so sunny, giving support to the McDonald brothers in the midst of their naiveté.

    Why are the lambs screaming, Jim? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 10:48:50 PM EST
    Perhaps because they know (none / 0) (#158)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:09:37 AM EST
    you are helping their killer.

    From the guy who just (none / 0) (#163)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    came right out and said he sides with Russia against fifty percent of his brothers.

    Well, we can't say we weren't warned about the hypocrisy of the scribes and the pharisees..


    That has (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 04:35:59 PM EST
    to be one of the most ignorant comments ever. There is no Sharia law and yet people are doing this to their children. People are choosing to do this much like they choose to do a lot of other things like abuse their children. And yet you support women not being able to make their own choices along with the rest of the GOP. It seems to me these people are more of an ally to you along with Putin than an enemy.

    GA, I have posted many times that I (none / 0) (#85)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 10:03:19 PM EST
    support the right of women to choose, support for gay rights including marriage, drug law reform, single payer health care insurance...etc.,etc.

    You know that yet you make up wild claims.

    And if you wanna try ignorant, try your


    There is no Sharia law

    And then to make things worse, and going to a level I thought even you wouldn't descend to, you excuse the practice by writing:

    People are choosing to do this much like they choose to do a lot of other things like abuse their children.

    That is just plain old unbelievable. Especially coming from a female.

    They are choosing to do it for religious reasons.

    Now let's go to someone who understands.

    But at the village level, those who commit the practice believe it to be religiously mandated. Religion is not only theology but also practice. And the practice is widespread throughout the Middle East. Many diplomats, international organization workers, and Arabists argue that the problem is localized to North Africa or sub-Saharan Africa,[4] but they are wrong. The problem is pervasive throughout the Levant, the Fertile Crescent, and the Arabian Peninsula, and among many immigrants to the West from these countries. Silence on the issue is less reflective of the absence of the problem than insufficient freedom for feminists and independent civil society to raise the issue.



    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 07:08:45 AM EST
    you support the anti-woman agenda of the GOP. They even wrote a bill to decriminalize rape so the fact that you are yelling about this is a joke. You and the GOP have a lot in common with the people that do mutilation. Both frankly have the same goals and it is a fundamentalist theocracy.  

    GA, your inability to complain (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:04:45 AM EST
    anything about the problems associated with Islam is puzzling.

    Instead of condemning the vehicle, Sharia Law, that brings FGM of female children with it you choose to generalize.

    People are choosing to do this much like they choose to do a lot of other things

    And then you make a specious comment about me that you know is not true. And then you attack the GOP, who may have some members that oppose abortion but have no members that support FGM.

    Why can't you bring yourself to condemn actions by some Muslims that are horrific?

    It is strange, GA. It really is. You worry more and attack more, political opponents than you do acts done my Muslim parents to defenseless children.


    Why don't you ever Ever (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:32:12 AM EST
    and I mean Ever, condemn the actions of your extreme conservative christian cohorts, Jim?

    You being such a committed social liberal and all..

    Ah, but I forget: you've always supported a woman's right to be gunned down outside Planned Parenthood.

    Just as you support the right of murderous christian-shariah lunatics to bear arms.


    Once again you make a false (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 12:39:24 PM EST

    extreme conservative christian cohorts, Jim?

    By the simple act of saying I support women's rights, including the right to chose, gay rights, including the right to marry, LWOP, drug law reform and single payer health care insurance I am showing that I condemn them.

    Plus, you make a really idiotic claim:

    Ah, but I forget: you've always supported a woman's right to be gunned down outside Planned Parenthood.

    Let's see if I can match it.

    Ah, but I forget: you've always supported the right of woman to be stoned because she has been accused of adultery and condemned by the local Imam.

    You see, attacking Christianity is more important to you than condemning FGM and the other horrific things done to females by some Muslim males. Honor Killing comes immediately to mind.


    You unabashedly side (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 01:55:19 PM EST
    with the right coalition that includes the most socially conservative elements in American society.

    You can dissemble and play misdirection and outright lie about it, but there's no question that you do.

    Have you ever Once taken to task the Cruz's and Carsons of the world here? No you haven't. Not even once. Can't bring yourself to do it

    Apparently you're worried that Jesus would get mad.

    On the other hand, he's ok with you wanting to string-up Jane Fonda and bomb societies back to the Stone Age.

    You're a fraud, it's that simple.


    You write utter nonsense (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 05:03:07 PM EST
    I side with no one.

    And that's your bogey man. You do not have the capacity to understand independence. You are the ultimate "group" man. But don't get impressed with yourself. The Right has their share of carbon copies of you.

    You fail to understand the simple concept of my support for people to have the right to do things that others may not agree with. It is the societal grease that lubricates the machine of liberty.

    As for your mind reading of Jesus, remember that He didn't attack the government. Indeed, he said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Salvation is not a group thing. It is 100% personal.

    To that end I would have arrested Fonda and turned her over to be prosecuted and then judged by a jury of her fellow citizens to the charge of Treason with a penalty of LWOP.

    And any country that attacks my country I would certainly and with no hesitation use all my resources to defeat it.


    "You write utter nonsense," says ... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    ... the man who not only insisted just the other day in these very threads that the U.S. military didn't bomb or attack Hanoi during the Vietnam War, but doubled down on his BS when confronted with his misstatements.

    Spare us your pseudo-patriotic folderol, Jim. You have absolutely no standing to be questioning anyone else's love of country, particularly since you were an active participant in the dissemination of Russian-generated disinformation and propaganda, both here at TL and likely elsehere, during the recently concluded 2016 election campaign -- and further, you were a rather enthusiastic one, at that.

    Have a nice day.


    Quit proving my point that (none / 0) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:38:16 PM EST
    you actually understood my point that we didn't really attack the North, just some off and on bombing raids.

    A really stupid way to fight...and lose...a war.

    You are a cutie, Donald. You have no real experience in the real world of commerce or military yet you are always ready to insult and spout a few thousands words probably paraphrased from WIki. I've been meaning to run some phrase and structure comparisons. Maybe I'll find time next week.

    In the meantime, enjoy your self appointed king of the world position.


    Quit lying about what you said, Jim (none / 0) (#142)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:53:34 PM EST
    you said the U.S didn't bomb at all. No ifs ands or buts.

    What's the matter? your Southern honor preventing you from acknowledging even the most obvious, glaring error?

    I thought you Christians were supposed to be humble?


    jimakaPPJ: "We didn't attack or bomb Hanoi. How's that, private?"

    What part of it did we not understand?


    If you bothered to follow the conversation (none / 0) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:07:57 AM EST
    both of you would have known the context and what I said was true.

    Actually you did but just want to snark.


    We did follow the conversation. (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 02:04:34 PM EST
    In fact, it's posted in the link. What you said about the U.S. not bombing or attacking Hanoi during the Vietnam War is still absurdly unequivocal and laughably wrong, even in context -- were that statement's inherent falsehood not so horrifically offensive and insulting to the memory of those who actually fought, suffered and died in that misbegotten adventure called Vietnam.

    (And given that you specialize in taking others out of context for your own rhetorical purposes, your sudden and opportunistic concern for context rings entirely hollow and plaintively phony.)

    Rather, your self-satisfying remarks are entirely reflective of someone like you who's living in your own private Idaho, a fully cocooned right-wing "Never-Never Land" where fact and truth obviously take a back seat to your own take and spin. Thus, you haven't even a clue about what actually happened during the Vietnam War, nor do you probably even care anymore about the details.

    Nope, 40-plus years ex post facto, it's far more important for you to continue deluding yourself by blaming Jane Fonda, the lefties and the hippies for our country's eventual defeat in Vietnam, than to actually engage in an honest effort to understand the myriad of reasons why we ultimately failed there in such a spectacular, ignoble and heartbreaking fashion.

    And that's just pathetic. Have a nice day.


    An independent social liberal (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    who supports the Fatwas issued by the Right against Planned Parenthood..

    Don't make me laugh.

    And, as you've already stated, you side with Vladimir Putin against the Democrats.

    Some brother's keeper.

    With brothers like you, this country doesn't need enemies.


    It's just plain unbelievable (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    that You Jim, expect anyone to swalliw your bs about supporting "a woman's right" after you were spreading stories here awhile back about Planned Parenthood supposedly "selling" baby parts.

    Those stories circulating led to Robert Dear's deadly shooting rampage in Colorado.

    It's also just plain old unbelievable that you expect anyone to swallow your "social liberal" bs, when it's so obvious that you're perfectly willing to be the tool/fool of the Cruz-Carson-Pence wing of the GOP whenever the situation warrants.

    We're not interested in having your conservative Diarrhea Law imposed here in the U.S anymore than we're interested in Sharia Law.


    jondee, try to use some logic (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 12:23:59 PM EST
    instead of just knee jerk personal attacks.

    Opposing selling baby parts, and the implied harvesting them through killing and aborting perfectly normal babies, has nothing to do with supporting a woman's right to choose.

    Your problem is that you are not a liberal. Instead you are a Leftie. You don't believe in others' rights, just their right to agree. In that respect you are much like radical islamists.


    Like I said (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    you support a woman's right to be gunned down by pro-life loons and your right to parrot the lies of the Operation Rescue types of the world.

    You're a fraud, a faker, and a spreader of lies.

    And you're not even clever about it.


    Having lost the debate (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:27:36 PM EST
    jondee demonstrates his total lack of knowledge and resorts to doing all he can do.

    Call names and toss personal insults.

    And he isn't even very good at that.



    You have (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    done nothing with your posts but show ridiculous xenophobia and bed wetting irrational fear. And then you constantly apologize for Putin. Maybe you would be happier in Russia since Putin is your ideological godfather.

    Irrational fear?? Do you lock your doors (none / 0) (#145)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:22:11 PM EST
    when you go to bed at night? Do you have an annual physical? Do you buckle your seat belts?

    Those are all acts of caution. They are designed to protect you.

    Are they irrational?

    Here is a list of successful radical islamist attacks in the US.

    Here is a list of unsuccessful radical islamist attacks in the US.

    Does this concern you?

    A significant minority (21%) of Muslim Americans say there is a great deal (6%) or a fair amount (15%) of support for extremism in the Muslim American community.

    That's a bit more than 1 in 5.

    Does it bother you that a public school builds a special place for Muslim students to worship? I mean that seems a clear violation of the First Amendment to me. Surely you, who would have kittens if there is a creche on a courthouse lawn, are much concerned over this. Have you called your Rep and Senators?

    Does it bother you that the Obama administration supported Muslim workers suing their employer because the employer wanted them to drive trucks with beer inside.

    How about the Amazon employees in Seattle who are suing to be allowed to stop work and prey.

    I mean I thought we had a secular society.

    I mean you are just so concerned about Christians.

    And why did CAIR claim to be against Sharia Law yet opposed Oklahoma's law outlawing Sharia? I mean if you are opposed, why be against opposing?

    The list goes on and on and it is bigger than just the US. Ask yourself why Sweden is stopping immigration of Muslims.

    GA, we are in a religious war. And yes, there are many peaceful Muslims and I have sympathy for them and wish them well. But those aren't Christians running ISIS and no Hindus were flying airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11.

    We have a problem. And denying it won't make it go away and I wish I had a solution. But I don't.

    And far too many of us don't want to admit that we are at war and won't talk about it.

    No good will come of that. Stick around and watch.



    Uh, no, Jim. (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 10:26:32 PM EST
    jimakaPPJ: "GA, we are in a religious war. ... We have a problem. And denying it won't make it go away and I wish I had a solution. But I don't."

    WE don't have a problem with Muslims. But you've made it perfectly clear that YOU sure do, just as you do with facts and truth and people of color in general.

    If we DO have a problem, it's with your role here as cheerleader for the damned, wasting bandwidth with your constant trafficking in innuendo and misinformation about people whom you quite obviously know nothing.

    Have a nice evening.


    No Donald (none / 0) (#154)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 07:42:36 AM EST
    we don't have a problem with Muslims anymore than we do with Hindus or Christians.

    We have a problem with radical Islamists.

    Denying the problem doesn't solve it.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 06:37:27 AM EST
    so you finally admit what you've been denying for a long time and that you want some sort of holy jihad war. You and the jihadists seem to have the very same goal. You keep proving this over and over.

    Really there's an entire country that's on board with what you want to do and it's Russia. Living in Russia would be your utopian dream and maybe you can immigrate there one day because you sure do hate 21st century America.


    GA, in case you missed it (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 08:04:35 AM EST
    I didn't fly planes into the Twin Towers.

    I am not killing people in the ME while proclaiming a caliphate.

    I'm not driving a truck into a crowd on the sidewalk.

    I'm not engaged in Honor Killings, FGM or stoning.

    I'm not burning churches.

    I'm not demanding  special facilities in schools or at work to allow me to pray.

    I'm not refusing to carry physically challenged passengers with service dogs in my cab.

    You have nothing to say except mumbling about Russia.

    You have no solutions. You are very much part of the problem.

    GA, please. Put aside your political anger. Look at this problem and try to find a solution. People of all persuasions died in Orlando and on 9/11.


    Oh now, Jim (none / 0) (#165)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2017 at 11:12:01 AM EST
    don't sell yourself short; you've done your small part.

    What with giving encouragement to Planned Parenthood shooters, and crowing about bombing the children and peasant farmers of Vietnam to dust..

    Kudos also for cheering on the efforts to make guns and ammo easily available to all the Robert Dears, Columbine, and Orlando nightclub shooters of the world.

    Yes, you're your brothers shooter, I mean keeper, alright.


    president trump (none / 0) (#44)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 07:06:02 PM EST
    appears to be honoring his campaign pledge to stop the h1b visa abuse. i hope he virtually eliminates h1b visas completely.

    [April 18, 2017] H-1B visas "should include only the most skilled and highest-paid applicants and should never, ever be used to replace American workers," Mr. Trump told a gathering of about 500 workers and local luminaries, including the White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, who hails from Kenosha.

    other than his administration eliminating "entry level programmer" as a "specialty" eligible for h1b visas, it seemed as if the obama administration was generally unconcerned with this issue.

    Classic Tr*mpism, if not pure Tr*mpery (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 08:36:12 PM EST
    to equate the public interest with whatever is "highest paid."

    other than (none / 0) (#50)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    you expressing "i hate trump" i dont see your criticism. this is a good thing.

    I don't hate Tr*mp. I'm not a hater. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 09:14:38 PM EST
    However, I do despise him and all he stands for.  As far as h1B visas are concerned, I'm at a loss to explain more clearly that I do not agree that (a) it's a bad thing to have a category of preferred immigrants based on special skills; or that (b) the most valuable skills in a given society can be identified by measuring how highly their practitioners are paid. For example, I believe we need more nurses in this country more than we need more stock brokers; we need more social workers more than we need more football tight ends; and we need more sixth grade teachers more than we need more corporate lawyers.

    that's not what is going on (none / 0) (#54)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 09:28:58 PM EST
    I do not agree that it's a bad thing to have a category of preferred immigrants based on special skills

    average tech people are being brought to the u.s. on special visas with the specific intent on hiring low-wage imported workers to undercut the prevailing domestic technology wage.

    rather amazed you have been sleaping under a bush and didnt know this.


    I have not been doing any "sleaping" (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 09:49:15 AM EST
    at all. Would that explain why I am so tyard?
       Anyhow, the focus of my comment was on Tr*mp's suggestion that the most valuable immigrants to the U.S. economy are those would be most highly paid. I included the part you quoted just to identify to those readers not familiar with immigration lingo what program "h1B" refers to. If the program is being abused to undercut wages of eligible, qualified and available U.S. workers, that would violate its existing criteria, as I understand them (perhaps you know better), and would call for enforcement, not for reform or abolition of the program.

    i love you Peter (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 09:34:05 AM EST
    but you are peeing into the wind

    Why wouldn't he? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    He already has a (third) wife, and now Melania no longer needs her H-1B visa.

    Wonder if he'll actually follow through on his campaign promise and completely eliminate them, or if his businesses will stop their own hiring of foreign workers?


    on the uscis.gov site: (none / 0) (#55)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 09:33:22 PM EST
    H-1B Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Cap Season
    ALERT: Starting April 3, 2017, USCIS will temporarily suspend premium processing for all H-1B petitions. This suspension may last up to 6 months. We will notify the public before resuming premium processing for H-1B petitions. While premium processing is suspended, we will reject any Form I-907 filed with an H-1B petition. If the petitioner submits one combined check for both the Form I-907 and Form I-129 H-1B fees, we will have to reject both forms. Read more here: USCIS Will Temporarily Suspend Premium Processing for All H-1B Petitions

    So? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 09:47:11 PM EST
    That's referring to a special, expedited processing program.  A temporary suspension of expedited processing isn't what he promised.

    Think his businesses will stop hiring foreign workers on visas - now that Melania no longer needs one?


    and more (none / 0) (#58)
    by linea on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 11:23:28 PM EST
    TheNewYorkTimes: Trump Signs Order That Could Lead to Curbs on Foreign Workers

    im not posting this on a hope. it appears president trump is actually legislating against the h1b visa fraud and abuse perpetrated by companies like amazon and microsoft, et alia.


    Presidents don't legislate (none / 0) (#61)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 06:44:37 AM EST
    Congress does.  But like I said - that's not what he said he would do.  He said he would eliminate H-1Bs entirely ("no exceptions") which, of course, he doesn't have the power to do.  Instead, he's now talking about reforms that are similar to the bipartisan legislation that's been floating around Congress for a decade now.

    But my larger point is the hypocrisy of a POTUS who's very wife is the result of the H1-B program and who's businesses regularly hire foreign workers.  Or that of other foreign workers who want the H-1B program eliminated because they already have a green card and want those jobs.


    Drive wages down (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by jmacWA on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 05:47:03 AM EST
    The H1B phenomena in my industry (what is now called IT) exists solely to drive wages down.  It has worked quite well.  I have worked in this field for over 40 years, and while it was once very well paid, it has slipped in terms of compensation, even for those highly skilled in an area with high demand.

    The biggest cause for this slip, in my opinion, is H1B visas (I am not at all upset with the visa holders, it's the companies that sponsor them).  The mere fact that Microsoft has publicly stated that there are not enough skilled programmers in the US and was never called on it by the legislators who allowed this abuse is a shame.  The Microsoft statement should have added "who will work for the money we want to pay them so we can keep our profits high for the shoddy software we send out the door every 6 months".  (OK, I admit that list bit is just my personal anti-Microsoft sentiment).  I am happy to be retiring soon from an industry that once produced high quality work (software that actually worked) to one where the bottom line is driven by profit.

    IT was once a great profession, a fun place to make a living, but IMO this is no longer the case.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 06:16:48 AM EST
    the interesting thing is it's mostly that American companies no longer care about the quality of the goods we produce. A friend's husband worked for IBM and according to him his issue wasn't visa workers but American workers that they refused to hire as employees and would only put people on 1099's.

    In the telecom field this started (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 08:24:11 AM EST
    with the Communications act of 1996. The resulting explosion of companies brought a flood of people who did work for less thus depressing the wages.

    Many were promised stock options and when the start up floundered the employees were out in the cold.


    Nope (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 12:14:08 PM EST
    the tech boom created a demand that outstripped the supply. As a matter of fact employers were complaining about how much they had to pay employees back in the 90's.

    AND THEN... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jmacWA on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    They found the H1B bonanza, and wages have gone down since.  Wages today don't come close to what they were in the tech boom, and now "american it workers" are not good enough.

    I would (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 01:43:59 PM EST
    imagine higher unemployment during the Bush II administration played a part too.

    It was impossible to find (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    office space in Silicon Valley back then....

    And in the city where Trump said that (none / 0) (#57)
    by Towanda on Fri Apr 21, 2017 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    the newspaper has reported on the employers there state that seek the most of those visas in that state -- such as the oldest and wealthiest company in the state, the leading private employer in the state.

    It has been a leader in technological innovation in its industry, too, in part because of those  skilled immigrant workers.  

    Both that company and that newspaper are very conservative, very pro-Republican, but I think that they are not happy with the interference in what is needed for continuing innovation and success for the major private employer in the state.


    More bad behavior on an airplane (none / 0) (#70)
    by McBain on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    This time American Airlines
    video posted to Facebook captured the moments after an employee allegedly took a stroller from a woman and hit her with it, narrowly missing the baby in her arms. The video shows the distraught woman holding her baby and crying, asking flight attendants to give her the stroller back.

    There are at least two idiots in this story.  While the woman is crying another passenger gets up and confronts one of the AA employees.

    Hey, bud? Hey, bud? You do that to me and I'll knock you flat

    This guy will probably do well in the court of public opinion but if I'm the pilot I would remove that idiot from the plane.  Who knows what he'll do once in the air.

    But what the employee does next is even worse...

    the employee responds, waving his finger at the passenger. "Try it. Hit me."

    I'll be very surprised if that guy keeps his job.

    i feel the man (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by linea on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 06:38:29 PM EST
    was appropriately indignant (feeling or showing anger or annoyance at what is perceived as unfair treatment) and that the pilot should have put the flight attendant off the airplane.

    Perhaps understandable but not appropriate (none / 0) (#81)
    by McBain on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 07:33:14 PM EST
    Not on a plane.  Maybe in another setting.  

    Hopefully, we'll find out what happened before the video started.  


    i dissagree (none / 0) (#105)
    by linea on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 11:40:19 AM EST
    you say that his reaction is (from the definitions) "to be expected and reasonable" but "not suitable or proper in the circumstances."

    i would assert that your demand for demureness is a result of u.s. flight crews unreasonably and arbitrarily abusing the regulation that passengers not interfere with the official duties of the flight crew.

    going on a wild rant about babycarriages and assaulting a woman holding her child isnt reasonable and most certainly not part of that flight attendant's official duties. some easily frustrated male gets a job as a flight attendant and everyone must submit to his anger managment issues?


    Maybe someday (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 09:22:56 PM EST
    you'll try living life somewhere other than on your knees in submission.

    I don't know where you live (none / 0) (#87)
    by McBain on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 11:11:32 PM EST
    but where I am, authority doesn't force anyone into submission unless they do something stupid.    

    ... as one's refusal to give up their paid-for-and-ticketed seat on a United Airlines flight that they've already boarded, I've no doubt that you'd likely offer to buy the rope by which those same authorities would hang you.

    No one is trying to hang me Donald (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by McBain on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 12:45:01 AM EST
    but yes, Dr. Dao's behavior was stupid.  I hope he's not going to be overly rewarded by for it.  

    Yours is a baseless contention, McBain. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 25, 2017 at 03:45:24 PM EST
    And further, it's a willfully uninformed minority opinion at that, one which is not even shared or supported by the senior management of the very company whose employees instigated that unfortunate confrontation aboard UA3411.

    Repeating it ad nauseum in these threads doesn't magically make it otherwise, or compel us to see your obvious authority fetish as anything but appallingly unattractive and incredibly disturbing.

    Have a nice day.


    Sigh......when you discover that that Bernie Bro (none / 0) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 22, 2017 at 11:11:25 PM EST
    Protest/anti-Hillary vote organizer you observed as a "friend" on Facebook is not just a middle aged angry white guy....his chosen  profession is also golf course maintenance. Who could have predicted?

    Is it this guy? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 02:14:50 PM EST
    big hitter, the Lama.. (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    ... has been completed, and a more starkly contrasting runoff could not be imagined, with progressive Emmanuel Macron to face off against Marine Le Pen of the far-right National Front.

    It marks the first time in French history that the two major parties, the Conservatives and Socialists, have failed to advance at least one of their candidates past the first-round presidential vote to the runoff. Socialist candidate Benoit Hamon has already conceded defeat, and Conservative candidate Francois Fillon is expected to do likewise shortly.

    Au revoir.

    i woudnt use those term (none / 0) (#116)
    by linea on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    i dont feel macron is progressive. he has been compared to bernie sanders and he portrays himself as an "anti-system" candidate fighting the "corporatist and conservative powers." but based on his positions i would describe him as a centrist who has postioned himself as an outsider and part of a youth movement. he is promising to get the economy going and promising jobs to young adults. i feel he will win the election.

    and of course, marine le pen is populist-conservative not far-right.


    Nonsense, linea. (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 23, 2017 at 06:30:54 PM EST
    First of all, Bernie Sanders is hardly the baseline measure for defining progressivism, whether in this country or anywhere else.

    Even though he is running for president as an independent under the En Marché! coalition movement, Emmanuel Macron is still a member of the left-leaning Socialist Party. He most recently served as current President Francois Hollande's Minister of the Economy, Industry and Digital Affairs, until he resigned in August 2016 in order to launch his candidacy.

    Marine Le Pen's National Front is unabashedly far-right. While she's not as crazy and venal as her Holocaust-denying father, who mentored her, and even though she's softened some of her party's hardline positions on abortion and capital punishment, she is still very much a hard-right fascist and unapologetic xenophobe.

    As recently as December 2010, Ms. Le Pen stirred up considerable public controversy by likening the presence of French Muslims to her country's four-year occupation by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. That noxious, incendiary and irresponsible comparison led to a formal complaint being lodged against her in a Lyon court on charges of inciting ethnic hatred, which is a crime in France. She was subsequently acquitted in December 2015.