Monday Open Thread

Time for a new open thread, all topics welcome.

< UK Police Identify Two of the London Attackers | NYT Report: Trump Unhappy With AG Sessions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So, a 25 yr old NSA contractor (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 06:51:29 PM EST
    Printed out classified intelligence on Russia hacking and mailed it to the Intercept. When the Intercept sought verification from the NSA they actually sent a photo of the tri-folded document that someone obviously printed out.


    Anybody (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:24:44 AM EST
    who has been paying attention to what has been going on should have known not to link to the Intercept simply because of the ties to Putin if nothing else.

    Really? (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 11:20:20 AM EST
    If Greenwald was "tied to Putin", why would he have anything to do with this story which exposes Putin's interference on behalf of Trump and the GOP?  Or am I missing something?

    Because (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    it gives secrets away. The girl that gave him the information probably had no idea what she was doing. Putin now has a hold of the information which if she had given it to the Washington Post that would not have happened.  

    Huh? (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    Ummm...the information is question is Russian cyber-espionage.  aka Putin's information.  He needs no heads up from anybody, it's presumably his doing.

    Or are you saying letting Putin know the NSA knows some of what he knows?  Any publisher would do that by publishing...and I got no problem with that, because it's the only way we get to know.  Sure as hell our very own NSA ain't gonna tell us.

    Who knows what would have happened if she leaked it to the Washington Post...they might have published, they might have ratted her out to Bezos' CIA buddies and skipped the publishing.  


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 12:28:46 PM EST
    Putin doesn't know what we are up to or shouldn't know but now he does. There apparently is a lot that Putin can get from that Intercept report.

    I don't have a problem with the information getting out. I do have a problem with the Intercept who basically gave away the store with the story. You can break the story and handle it professionally and without burning assets and people. You know this poor girl would not be looking at spending time in jail if she had leaked to someone like the Washington Post that knows how to handle this kind of thing.


    The Intercept's failure... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    to copy the docs and remove the evidence of the fold and/or any identifying printer markings is certainly worthy of criticism.  Greenwald was naïve as to the NSA's capabilities before meeting Snowden, after meeting Snowden he should have damn well knew better while doing his due diligence verifying the docs.  

    Hard to hold The Intercept... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    totally accountable for her unfortunate capture, when our new hero used a work computer to correspond with The Intercept.  Sounds like both journalist and source were a little sloppy, and foiled by the fold and method of correspondence. But they're both the good guys in this story, at least in my book.



    Come on kdog...Come on (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 11:44:23 AM EST
    Their whole gig is please leak to us.

    And their narrative on Russia was "nuthin to see here".

    I just cannot believe how they went about the authentication. They utterly outed her. I'm having a damn hard time not believing they intentionally burned her.

    Yeah...she's young...she was stupid, but when you leak to the publication hosting the biggest leaks, a person woulda thought they would have masked how they received the document and from where.


    Exactly... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    there whole gig is leak to us...and that gig is up once they intentionally out a source.  Sloppy I'll buy, intentional doesn't make any sense unless you believe Greenwald is a Russian spy, and I have no reason to believe that.  Too tin-foily, even for me;)  

    Greenwald was called out numerous times (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    For championing Russia by his peers and contemporaries, he has been snide and bitter about all that in the wake of Trump. Now this?

    This.... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 01:25:13 PM EST
    revelation is another nail in the Trump administration's coffin.  Maybe the final nail, if it leads to direct evidence of vote count manipulation by the Russians seeing the light of day.

    I remember a lot of anger at Greenwald for publishing the DNC hack materials...that hardly makes him Russia's champion, it just makes him a journalist. Certainly no one can claim he's Russia's champion now!  

    And I can't exactly blame him for being bitter when bitter Democrats questioned his journalistic integrity during the campaign...I'd be bitter too.


    But "the hacked" emails (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    Contained forgeries too. A forged email is why Comey held the Clinton press conference.

    Because my husband worked MI at the start of his career he was all over me about the very first wiki leaks dump. There was no way to verify this stuff he said over and over again. I still read a lot of the first wiki leaks dump. I only did it on my own personal computer, but what he was saying finally got me with Assange doctoring the Apache tape

    I never read a damn thing concerning the Clinton BS. There was no way to know what had been tampered with, created out of whole cloth, and what wasn't.

    Even my own FBI director forgot sabotage 101. And he burned our whole country forgetting that.

    And now another forgery has created the Qatar chaos.


    You know (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 08:38:40 PM EST
    As more information about the extent to which the Russians penetrated our electoral system I have started to wonder, actually been wondering this for a while, if maybe they really did somehow manage to give it to Trump.

    If they know this, would they tell us?  I think they would not.  Imagine the chaos.  Not only short term but the long term damage to confidence in our system.  Which is not exactly triple A to begin with.  

    It just didn't seem believable to me that Trump won.  Then or now.  Maybe there is a reason no one on earth expected him to win.  Namely that he never would have without help.

    I know how tinfoilish this sounds.  But the leaked story today that they in fact got into the voting software just made me want to slap on another layer of tinfoil.

    A little historical hysterical video (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 11:21:27 PM EST
    Here is a 1-minute video produced in 2004 by Black Box Voting.  They took up the challenge when Diebold famously and arrogantly declared that no human intervention could alter their election audit logs.

    Meet Baxter the Chimp.


    Esquire and Newsweek both have stories up (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:26:02 AM EST
    Now. Did Russia hack our voting machines?

    Electronic voting systems (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Lora on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:25:59 PM EST
    They have been hackable from the get-go.  Maybe it will take the threat of Russian interference for people to understand just how vulnerable our elections are.

    Bottom line: if you want an election that isn't hacked:

    Paper ballots.  Count by hand immediately after the close of voting that night in plain view with observers from each party. Immediately scan each ballot and burn to a read-only device and store all with an impeccable chain of custody.

    I mean, you gotta wonder what is up when it becomes illegal to look at paper ballots.


    Well let me adjust the shiny cap once again (none / 0) (#10)
    by Lora on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 09:25:26 PM EST
    One of my pet concerns since 2004 has been the infamously insecure back-door-engineered completely unverifiable shockingly easily hackable electronic voting systems.

    I think at this point I would be surprised if the Russians did not penetrate some of them.


    She lost by 700,000 votes (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 09:32:31 PM EST
    Spread over three states.  How hard would that be?

    I agree with what you said.  At this point I find (my own) suspicions our own government might not be telling us everything even more disturbing than the idea the Russians did what they did.


    ... three states (Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania) and not 700,000. And in that regard, has anybody actually checked as to whether or not those states' voting systems were hacked? At this point, we should no longer willing to merely take somebody's word for it.

    Boy (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    That would be the leak of all leaks if it leaked.

    Wouldn't it.

    Actually I don't even like thinking about it.  Apart from anything else the country would a absolutely explode


    In Wisconsin, there were weird reports (none / 0) (#19)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 11:02:13 PM EST
    in some towns, in the time frame in this story -- just as voting machines were programmed for the election -- of entire town computer systems coping with crashes and other things that the experts said could have come from hacking.

    The story does not list Wisconsin as one of the states with machines from the contractor reported as having hackable software . . . so far, anyway.  But between the lines, the story suggests that other software, contractors, etc., could have had similar vulnerabilities.  The story is based on only one report, and who knows how many more investigations there may be?


    On one hand yeah, the chaos would be (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 10:33:30 PM EST
    Difficult. And I've been thinking about this too. On the other hand, we survived Bush and the Supreme Court choosing a President. We had weeks in limbo. If the greater powers are hiding something like that from the democracy they are OUT OF CONTROL. Aren't they out of control hiding the truth of what was just leaked from us? Yeah, they are already out of control.

    I think difficult is an understatement (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 10:49:35 PM EST
    Just thinking about it makes my head hurt.  It would be difficult with a normal candidate and their followers. With Trump and the raving Alex Jones lunatics that are his 30% floor it would be miles beyond difficult.  He would never accept it so they would never accept it.  I think armed resistance and blood in the streets is totally plausible

    Not saying I would not want to know the truth. Or that the country should not, if it's true, know the truth.

    But it makes my head hurt.


    I think we would have to allow (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 11:15:21 PM EST
    A very legal type process to occur. Not sure what that would be, not even certain we could do anything before 2018. But if we know it was hacked and stolen it won't kill us. It will compel us, and deligitimize Trump more than he is now.

    Right - I have no idea what the process would be (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    after the election is already certified. I really think impeachments is still the process. It possible could be articles of impeachment that don't even blame Trump but say the election was faulty.

    That said, it is not going to happen.

    I think the only thing that is ever going to work is public and GOP pressure on him to resign.


    And now being tweetef (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 11:23:21 PM EST
    Mike Rogers is going to drop a bombshell on the Senate Intelligence Committee?

    The whole (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:31:48 AM EST
    blood in the streets thing could be avoided by having another election. The bad thing is we're working from nothing. Constitution has no remedy for a foreign power taking over through voting.

    You believe that? (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:56:13 AM EST
    I think if you believe just having another election would eliminate that possibility you don't know as many die hard Trumpers as I do.  Or you don't know them as well.  Based on what I've heard there would be less uproar by simply impeaching him and installing Pence or Ryan then bringing Hillary back into the equation.

    One thing I have realised since the election is that we, democrats, Hillary supporters and generally sane people, have profoundly misunderstood and underestimated the depth and breadth of the hatred for Hillary.  If I had understood it as well as I now do I might seriously have been a Bernie supporter.  Which is definitely not the same as saying I think Bernie supporters understood this.

    Republicans did a job on Hillary.  And it worked. It's irrational.  It can't be discussed reasonably. It's as real as the air.  And it's the defining meme of the people who elected, to the extent he was elected, Trump.


    What we haven't understood (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Lora on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:26:03 AM EST
    ...is the poisonous pervasive influence of talk radio and other far right media.  That's how the hatchet job on Hillary was executed.

    If Bernie had continued to catch fire, I have no doubt that all those media guns would have been turned on him.

    Remember the Dean Scream? He was a rising star till then.


    Perhaps I should speak only (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:42:04 AM EST
    For myself.  I did not understand how deep and all consuming it was.  And I don't believe you do.  

    I remember Dr Dean very well.  I was a regular contributor.  But I have no intention of getting into a back and forth of "what ifs" about Bernie.

    I will say that right around the time it started looking like Trump was a serious contender I speculated about the possibility that IF Trump was the nominee ONLY IF Trump was the nominee Sanders might actually be a better choice.  I think now that was right.  

    Preparing for INCOMING

    As far as the right taking down Bernie, I myself said many times this was a concern. In hindsight I'm not sure that would have been so easy.  For one thing it was not the right who took down Dean. It was the media.  And the media loved Bernie.  Almost as much as the hated Hillary.


    They didn't at first (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Lora on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    In the beginning the media was FULL of articles and commentary about why Bernie would never win the election.

    "The media" in general loves drama.  When Bernie caught fire, they did love him.  When Hillary was under fire, they loved that as well.

    The Dean Scream was drama, too, although it was actually harmless.

    Who made it into a toxic takedown?

    I have my suspicions and they include more than just "the media."

    From before the Scream: Why Howard Dean Can't Win.

    But you're right, it's not always the far right media. In the case of Bernie and Howard, the smug left media media played their part well.

    I don't have a strong belief about whether Bernie would've won against Trump -- too many variables.  But I have no doubt the right would have gone after him viciously.  It wouldn't have mattered if they didn't have anything on him -- they would have made stuff up.

    Just saying, the actual fake news right wing media is a huge factor and ought to be taken seriously into account and addressed going forward.  How, I don't know.


    ... to channel and release our own inner junkyard dog. The question therefore becomes, do Democrats have the willingness and capacity to go there themselves, and visit upon Republicans what the GOP so loves to do to others.

    Thus far, the answer has been a pretty firm no. We still hold out hope that people will come to their senses, and so we act with a modicum of decency and restrain, even as our opponents demonstrate time and again that they don't abide by any such boundaries or respect those who do.

    But Trump may be the guy that finally changes our minds. If this Russia scandal plays out to the extent that I believe it could, in that the Trump campaign and the GOP actively colluded with a foreign adversary as a means to game the system and gain political power, I would not hesitate to go there.

    I'd wrap myself in the U.S. flag, and tar and feather every Republican officer holder and candidate who has either supported, enabled or excused the Trump regime as a person who betrayed his or her country, and sold out his or her fellow Americans in the most elemental and fundamental manner. I would equate the GOP and all that's attached to it with treason.

    If the Russians hacked our electoral system and attempted to alter the results, I would consider that to be an act of war no less treacherous that the Japanese attack on Hawaii, which let's remember was carried out while its emissaries were still ostensibly negotiating in Washington.

    Democrats and progressives need to come to terms with the true gravity of the present situation, and realize that the proverbial Rubicon may well have been finally crossed here. And we need to get mad as hell about it.



    This is definitely (none / 0) (#46)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 12:39:53 PM EST
    that tack that the Democrats should take: "I would equate the GOP and all that's attached to it with treason." Scream "treason" from the rooftops, from the mountaintops, in the streets and the halls of power. Shout it and mean it. And be mean about it. Stop being nice. Get rid of this bunch of traitorous thugs once and for all.

    Here's what we're dealing with: (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 05:26:13 AM EST
    "I've never seen hatred like this. To me, they're not even people. It's so, so sad. Morality's just gone, morals have flown out the window and we deserve so much better than this as a country. You see the Democratic Party, they're imploding. They're imploding. They became obstructionists because they have no message of their own." (Emphasis is mine.)
    - Eric Trump, "Hannity." Fox News (June 6, 2018)

    So says Fredo, son of the Don.



    of course (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 10:07:52 AM EST
    everything you said.  

    And just to be very very clear (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:46:31 AM EST
    Since I can feel the righteous consternation building.

    We SHOULD have another election.  And if we did I have absolutely no doubt Hillary would win.

    What I am saying is the Trump party would absolutely lose its paranoid mind.  In dangerous ways.

    Doesn't mean we should not do it.


    I agree. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    The HRC hate was overwhelming. The right would have vilified Bernie as much as possible, but I think he still would have won.

    That was put (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 01:12:46 PM EST
    to the test in Montana and so no, Bernie would not have won. Left wing populism has zero appeal to WWC voters. The only reason to believe that he could have won is because he's a white male and too many people have a problem with women in a leadership position.

    I would hardly call Montana (none / 0) (#62)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    a bellwether of the American electorate. Fer chrissakes, the city of Philadelphia has a larger population than the entire state of Montana. I don't agree with your conclusions. I believe there are hundreds of thousands who voted against HRC, not FOR Trump. I believe many if not most of those would have voted for Bernie.

    Montana (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    was a perfect test case for left wing populism. Bernie's brand of white populism should have been perfect for Montana and it was a no sale and they were literally ridiculing him.

    No, unless you think misogyny is a bigger problem Bernie would not have gotten those voters and people need to disabuse themselves of that idea. The GOP had a two foot high oppo file on Bernie ready to land. Just because it wasn't dumped doesn't mean it wouldn't be and it was really ugly like him standing  in front of the Sandinistas praising them all the while they were screaming death to America.

    Here in GA Hillary flipped Cobb and Gwinnett county long time GOP strongholds. If the GOP can't keep them they can't carry GA in presidential elections anymore. Bernie would have lost the state by 20 points. We would not be looking at Jon Ossoff possibly pulling off an upset if Bernie was the face of the party.


    If any people was ever justified (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 12:16:15 PM EST
    in screaming "death to America", the Nicaraguans were.

    ive lost count (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    of the number of people ive spoken to who said a version of

    "i did not vote for Trump.  he is a clown and i knew it at the time.   i voted against Hillary"


    you can attribute (none / 0) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:16:45 PM EST
    any motive you like to that in cluding misogyny.  disturbing tho how many are women.

    Yes, women (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:39:12 PM EST
    can be misogynists. Many white women, especially, older white women were on Trump's train.  I would yield to experts on this such as Towanda, but it may well involve, as with other groups, internalized oppression or internalized sexism.  And, not the only group to vote against self-interest.

    I pointed out to a (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:53:03 PM EST
    friend of mine an article in which the subject was Kristin Gillibrand. They used the same memes and narratives against her that they used against Hillary. She just could not see it. Misogyny is so insidious and so normalized in our culture it is sad.

    And for those who think that Elizabeth Warren won't get it if she runs you will see the same memes and narratives used against Hillary pop up. Already anything Warren says is met with she's out of touch with everyday Americans. She's mad because someone dropped a house on her sister. The ugly is already starting against any woman who might run. People need to face this head on.  


    Would Senator McConnell (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    admonish, to a male senator, like a teacher to a schoolgirl:  she was told, never-the-less, she persisted?

    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 04:25:38 PM EST
    And even in blue MA the misogyny hurt Warren running many points behind Obama in 2012. In MA misogyny was used and worked to the tune of Warren getting elected by a mere 6 points.

    Yes, and that is what (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:59:58 PM EST
    scares me about a Warren run in 2020 for POTUS.  It is just awful that happens even in Mass.

    I have never (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:21:13 PM EST
    thought Warren was a good national candidate. She's more of a boutique type candidate. She's a good senator for MA. She is good at building alliances in the senate creating the "Warren Wing".

    You know though I honestly don't think I will ever see a woman make it to president in this country. I sure hope I'm wrong but it is how I feel.


    Me too. Not saying there aren't (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:07:12 PM EST
    plenty of women that would do a great job. But this country doesn't know what it wants in an "electable" woman.

    I think Klobuchar would have (none / 0) (#110)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    the best chance.  Rachel Maddow seems to think so too.  The Minnesota nice might help Klobuchar dodge a full bullets....Interestingly, it does disguise how absolutely brilliant she is....She was Editorial Board and the U. of Chicago Law Review....I think that group is the brainiest in the nation....more so than the Ivies....

    Maybe Gillibrand.....but they are already talking about her weight, etc.

    I am already on record on who I would like....but not everyone agrees....


    Once Amy (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:04:16 PM EST
    shows any indication she's interested in running for President she will start getting picked apart just like Gillibrand has been. I guess you could say it would be downright hoedown with someone like Kamala Harris because she's a POC AND a woman. Who do those uppity women think they are running for president will be the story line. Don't they know their place? You can be a senator but not president. That job is reserved strictly for men.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#117)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:31:12 PM EST
    But Kamala looks like she has some gritty street smarts the others may not have....She seems like she has made her way this far fighting against that kind of attitude.

    One ray of light--sorta (none / 0) (#119)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:41:04 PM EST
    You tell me, but I think that if Ossoff wins, misogyny may help him over the finish line.....

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:56:21 PM EST
    ironically the misogyny of the GOP is going to really hurt Handel. They've trucked in it and normalized it for so long that it's definitely going to hurt Handel. Though I have to say the men running in this district for the GOP nomination were no prize either.

    And Kamala Harris (none / 0) (#111)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:42:55 PM EST
    may actually have the ganas to do it.  I had thought she was a bit of a ditz.   She barely won AG--it took weeks to tell she had won, and then just barely.

    But as AG she really performed and no mis-steps.

    And as a Senator she has shown some real spine and street smarts.....She supposedly will have some air time chatting with Comey on Thursday.


    i always thought (none / 0) (#118)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:38:23 PM EST
    well, before about 2007, the first female president would be a republican.  female conservatives seem to get taken more seriously by the great unwashed.

    Whatever happened to (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:42:40 PM EST
    Gov. Susana Martinez?   One too many at a booze fest, and she is kaput?

    I used (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:54:47 PM EST
    to think that when it came to a black president. The problem is a woman probably can't get out of the GOP primary. And the GOP does not really have any serious women in elected office that I can think of outside of Susan Collins and she's not running.

    Nikki Haley (none / 0) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    seems to be a commer.

    Uh-oh (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:14:36 PM EST
    Yeah...She is keeping Trump from rubbing off too much.

    Making lemonade (none / 0) (#143)
    by Lora on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    We need good senators, lots of them, maybe more than we need a good president.

    Warren in 2020 (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:08:08 PM EST
    Is a horrible idea.  Hillary redux.  We need new blood.  

    "She's mad because (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 04:39:34 PM EST
    someone dropped a house on her sister." OMG. That's the best one-liner I've read in months!

    i dont think so (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    there has never been anything like this.  people are saying they voted for Donald Trump as a vote against Hillary.  Donald freakin Trump.  i can maybe see voting for Mitt Romney or John McCain. or Ted freakin Cruz.  but Donald Trump?  seriously?  Donald Trump, a running joke whos single claims to fame are a crappy reality show and being sued more than any living person? Donald Trump who has not a shred of anything approaching the experience or judgement to be president?

    seriously?  you hate this person so much you are willing to put the future of your country, your military and your children in the hands of DONALD FREAKIN TRUMP?

    i dont think Gillibrand or anyone else has come close to that level of hatred.

    the fact that so many people, otherwise more or less reasonable people, hated Hillary Clinton enough to do this will be written about and talked about ... forever.  and certainly none of us are close to really understanding why or how it could happen.



    It was a literal (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:06:32 PM EST
    witch burning. It was ugly and yes, just wait. It was a warning to any woman who is thinking about president and yes, it's already starting with Gillibrand. Don't believe me? Read this

    If I ever come (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:02:26 PM EST
    across those people I tell them Hillary is not responsible for your behavior. You are. Hillary did not make you vote for Trump and frankly I think they liked what Trump said but are just too ashamed to admit it.

    At least the people you deal with are too ashamed to admit it. The people around here are loud and proud about their support of Trump and all that he stands for.

    How many of those people even knew Donald was sued that many times? Seriously? Have you ever thought that if maybe the press had spent as much time on that as emails it might be a different story? I knew he was the handmaiden of the Russian oligarchs but I'm willing to bet that most of the people you know had no idea.

    The way I see Republicans were just desperate to get someone in office even if it was Donald Trump. They did not care about his lack of experience. In their minds Obama didn't have any experience so what's wrong with Donald and Donald ran a multimillion dollar business. Therefore he must be smart.

    Everything you and I and everybody around here knew for months none of these people seemed to have any idea about. There is a reason why Hillary did better in the places where people are able to reason and think than the people in other areas where they just jerk their knees.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    Not the same people I know.  They said it was a vote against Hillary at the time. They knew Trump was a fool at the time.  Several of them voted for Obama.  Twice.

    The one thing I have heard as far as "defense" is I did not think he would win.


    They profiled (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:16:46 PM EST
    some of those types votes in one of the papers. One lady was saying she voted for Obama because she didn't want to be a racist but then voted for Trump. I guess she felt "free" to vote for him now.

    Well, in the end the hatred is going to eat them alive for electing a Putin stooge and allowing the country to be run by the Russians.

    And maybe they are learning a hard lesson about what they did.


    A lot of people talked as if they (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:55:51 PM EST
    were strictly casting a "protest vote" by voting for Trump.

    As if drinking strychnine, or burning down your own house were viable expressions of protest against a status quo that's let you down..

    Lets face it: we're not a deeply reflective people.

    "I don't know why, but I just don't like her" and "I'm so sick of political correctness" are a sh*t conceptual basis to rely on when deciding what Presidential candidate to vote for.


    Oh god yes (none / 0) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:06:43 PM EST

    "I don't know why, but I just don't like her"

    I had to just start walking away when I heard this otherwise I start screaming


    not a way to win friends and influence people


    Yeah (none / 0) (#101)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    and as if it was all fun and games electing a president.

    I do think (none / 0) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:23:11 PM EST
    A lot of people will think more than twice about "message votes" in the future.

    If there is a future. I gleefully tell them.


    Ironic as hell (none / 0) (#103)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:27:06 PM EST
    when you remember that at one time, "the WWC" was the very life's blood of the left-populist movement in this country.

    Not that "the WWC" wasn't and isn't a propagandistic f*cking lie right from the beginning. The implication of course being that blacks, latinos, NA's et al don't work.


    Well, (none / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:32:31 PM EST
    I more or less consider WWC just another classification like college educated white women. However it would be nice if we just did everything by socioeconomic class but as long as there is a gain to be made from divide and conquer it's going to continue. I guess the good news is that group is dwindling.

    Yes, they were the lifeblood of the left populist movement years ago back when POC did not even make the social chart.


    No, i understand the (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    hatred. It was there for Obama at least around here. They were convinced he was not a US citizen and frankly still don't think he is. Hillary has some of that plus the general hatred of women gaining power. So that is a different dimension. People underrate the power of misogyny. It's not even just on the right. It's on the left too.

    And Bernie would have been turned into a pedophile socialist in short order by the GOP. Dismantling their smear machine should be something of first order because that is not going to matter who we nominate.  


    Modus operandi. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 01:28:31 PM EST
    The Republicans do whatever they can to win...and damn the torpedos.  Candidates or anyone else who stands in the way...from swiftboating the military hero, John Ketty, calling the alleged leaker/whistleblower, Reality Winner, treasonous, to "crooked Hillary" to be locked up.

    Jared, in comparison, was just using a back channel, which is a good thing, Sessions lied during his senate confirmation hearing and amended his testimony 70 days later, only after being caught by the WaPo. He is our Attorney General (for now). Comey is a "nut job, and crazy", Flynn is a good man, etc.

    The attack strategy Hillary Clinton offered the Republicans the ripe, potentially bipartisan territory of misogyny. As Secretary of State, Hillary had a 69 percent approval rating; as she moved from serving a man, the president, to seeking the job of president, the vulnerability to new attacks, innuendo, and absurdity increased, and the preexisting vulnerabilities were augmented.

    Sanders and Trump could tap into and encourage electoral anger and shout to the rooftops.  Mrs. Clinton, acting the same would be reported as screeching.  Ranting and waving of arms was seen as authentic for Sanders, raving and insulting anyone and everyone was seen as strength for Trump.

     Mrs. Clinton's control was read as dispassionate and inauthentic--despite the actual policies to address the supposed anger that were inadequately reported upon.  Never-the-less, Mrs. Clinton excelled in, if not won, all debates against Sanders and Trump, and she won the popular vote by almost three million.  Even with its major flaws, electoral college results usually track the popular vote. Even disputed elections of the past (e.g. Gore v Bush) dovetailed better, with Gore winning the popular vote by about 50,000.  

    All of which makes the 2016 election results curious. We need to find out what the h333 is going on. Sorry that the young woman in Georgia will have to pay a severe price for helping with that answer.


    There is (none / 0) (#53)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 01:42:00 PM EST
    definitely more to this story
    Now Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) has told USA Today that American intelligence services have found evidence of Russian attacks against U.S. elections systems that are much broader than those revealed in the NSA's report this week

    ... that this "emotional support dog" business is perhaps kinda, sorta getting out of hand?

    "A Delta Air Lines passenger was left bloody and badly injured after being attacked by an emotional support dog aboard a flight at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport. A Delta spokesperson told Fox 5 Atlanta that the victim was removed from the flight so that he could receive medical attention. 'The gentleman's face was completely bloody, blood in his eyes, cheeks, nose, his mouth, his shirt was covered in blood,' passenger Bridget Maddox-Peoples told Fox 5. She described the dog as a possible lab mix weighing an estimated 50 pounds. [...] Another passenger told Fox 5 that the crew saw the dog's owner crying after the incident fearing that the dog would be put down as a result."

    As a pet owner myself, I really do understand why people love their dogs. But that doesn't necessarily mean everybody else will feel likewise about them, or that their dogs will get along with everyone in the supermarket or bank, or on the bus, train or plane. I was on a city bus in Honolulu a few weeks ago and a woman brought her emotional support dog on board, a small terrier mixed breed that was clearly agitated by its surroundings and growled menacingly at anyone who tried to sit in the vacant seat next to its master. That really annoyed me.

    I'm sorry, and I realize that I'm speaking for myself only here, but there is a great big difference between a rigorously trained and professionally certified service / therapy dog and an emotional support dog which merely requires a note signed by a doctor. I believe some people are abusing the law by re-categorizing their pets as such. They ought to do both those pets and everyone else a favor, and leave them at home. If they're so emotionally needy that they can't go anywhere in public without their furry friends, then they should seek professional counseling for their malady, no snark intended.


    Yes, the service dogs on flights (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 10:37:48 PM EST
    Are out of hand. Untrained? There's no certification? There needs to be standards for temperament and training. There have always been such standards that service dogs for the blind had to meet, all service dogs must meet basic standards to be on flights IMO.

    I agree. I resent the sullying of (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    the reputation of real well trained service dogs.

    At the park I hear talk all the time of people getting 'certificates' so they can't be refused apartments, etc.


    Quite a few people have figured out that (none / 0) (#139)
    by vml68 on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 10:53:19 PM EST
    if they call their dog an emotional support dog, then they can travel with their pet in the cabin of the aircraft at no charge. They are basically using it as a way to transport their pets for free.

    "Emotional support/therapy animal" certification is easily bought online and unfortunately, airline staff are not allowed to question its validity for fear of discrimination.

    As you said, there is a world of difference between a trained and certified service dog and somebody's pet being passed off as one.


    Just watching (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:31:23 AM EST
    Scarborough and friends pound Pruitt on the nonsensical BS coming from him and Trump on climate.

    They actually force him to say he believes the climate is warming and humans are contributing to it.  It wasn't easy.  It's the first time I've heard him say that.

    The segment is worth watching.  I'm sure it will be up in the usual places.

    Morning Joe (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 11:50:33 AM EST
    I watched this morning, which was unusual for me.

    Just before Pruitt was interviewed, the panel including Scarborough had spent the better part of an hour declaring his Cheetoness without clothes and certifiably nuts.

    Scarborough was leading the charge on the nuttiness charge....

    I was surprised at how adamant and certain they all were.  The fight with the London mayor and trashing the DOJ in Cheeto's tweets was evidence they were citing.


    they have been very consistent (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    for a long time.  they discussed this morning some memo put out by the RNC trashing the show.  it made me want to read it but i have not have the idyl to find it.

    Heh (none / 0) (#85)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:30:55 PM EST

    A Word About Morning Joe

    If there is a leader of the pack for the worst case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, look no further than MSNBC's Morning Joe.

    Once a respected forum for intelligent discourse, the program has turned into 3 hours of far-left hysteria, filled with more faux scandal and innuendo than a bad episode of Gossip Girl.

    According to a rough review of this morning's program, the crew spent the majority of the show discussing misspelled tweets, White House staffing plans, uncorroborated Russia stories, and the supposed horror of President Trump giving his cell phone number out.

    Little to no time was spent discussing how multiple former intelligence heads and members of the left have now indicated there is no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, how illegal leaks are threatening national security, or the fact that backchannel communications are normal practice.  And, if you were tuning in to get a substantive update on health care or tax reform negotiations, good luck.

    To top it off, Senator Franken joined the program and didn't receive a single question on the biggest issue in front of him today, the fact that he is holding an event with Kathy Griffin in July and refuses to cancel it. You'd have to turn to another network to hear that question asked.

    Just trying to keep them honest...

    Oh gawd (none / 0) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:28:00 PM EST
    I am so sick of this whine from conservatives. The "liberal media". They've been doing that whine ever since Nixon.

    My theory is (none / 0) (#90)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:06:16 PM EST
    that it is the Maria Shriver effect.  When Ahnold was on the way to getting pantsed as Governor, Maria steered him to the Left and re-election.

    Joe and Mika sitting in a tree.  No way Joe wants to upset his sweetie....


    No (none / 0) (#95)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:14:14 PM EST
    Really.  No.  I think they hate each other.  Scarborough likes to tel the story when Zbig said he was breath takingly superficial

    I think it was Maher who said these are two people who would only have a conversation if she had a blowout in her Lexus and he picked her up in a tow truck.

    Mostly they talk around Mica.


    You do know (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:19:22 PM EST
    they are engaged?

    They look clearly like a couple to me--finishing each other's sentences.

    Joe is a blowhard and a bit of a bully.  But he will only go so far as Mika is concerned imo.


    yeah (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:21:18 PM EST
    i read that.  i rather think they hate each other and he is marrying her for the money.

    Echoing Bill Maher (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:22:37 PM EST
    I don't have any evidence of this but I just know it is true:  Mika pouts off-camera when things don't go her way, and Joey just gets all upset that his sweetie is blue.   Wrapped, I say.

    Call it my heterodar (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    I literally made a living out of knowing who was doing whom in the law firm I was at....Some fools would just not get it and start to criticize or give a bad review to someone's covert sweetie....politics ain't bean bag, as they say.  I avoided the landmines.....

    but seriously (none / 0) (#102)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:24:28 PM EST
    i think Scarborough is really alarmed by Trump.  and not just him but the response of the party.  thats why the RNC went after him.  he has been bashing the Party every bit as much as Trump.  more sometimes because its like he thinks they at least know better.

    Yeah, shocked (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:28:14 PM EST
    the snot out of me this morning to hear that.

    But, if they really mean it, they got to go the full Monty....what do you do about it?  They gotta start using the "I" word.


    I'm with you. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    It's time to pull off the full Monty but the GOP is going to continue d*cking around. The only conclusion I can come to is the fact that Trump has voters, these white nationalists, that came out of the woodwork to vote for him and are not going to take it lightly if he is removed from office. I mean something like 85% of Republicans support Trump and his nonsense. They would get the same legislation signed with Pence.

    i really think (none / 0) (#112)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    thursday could be a turning point.  not just because of what Comey might say but by the way Trump is telegraphing he is planning to react.

    those republicans are close to the edge.  IMO.

    they are between a rock and a hard place but enough of them have just about had it with Donald i think.

    if he blows a gasket and freaks on the twitter......


    Your lips to God's ears (none / 0) (#113)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    I hope SHE hears you.

    BUT, Comey  may get all wobbly and say I dunno if Trump was trying to obstruct justice....I just thought his lying and blatant disregard of the laws was just a rookie mistake and curious.

    I think Comey may well pull his punches....He will contradict Cheeto on the facts of what was said between them, but may downplay it all....He is at bottom a GOPer.


    he is (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:10:02 PM EST
    but he is also someone who takes himself and his "place in history" veeeery seriously.  i think.  and he has had his professional integrity and sanity and god only knows what else questioned very publicly.  i think he will chose his words carefully but i will be very surprised if he doesnt leave a mark.  or multiple marks.

    i dont mean things will turn on a dime but...well i cant wait.


    Well, I hope (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 08:00:11 PM EST
    you are right and I am wrong because every time I think oh, this is it the GOP just sits there. It's like they think they can pretend to ignore what Donald did or said and everything will be normal again.  

    ... that spoofed "Morning Joe"? It was pretty funny.

    I saw it on morning joe (none / 0) (#132)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:26:34 PM EST
    they ran the whole thing

    Malama Honua. (Nuture the Earth.) (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 01:13:20 PM EST
    Hawaii became the first state in the country yesterday to commence the alignment of its laws in accordance with the landmark Paris climate agreement, as Gov. David Ige signs two measures to reduce greenhouse gas production and further the development of sustainable carbon-free farming practices. (Even as Big Sugar -- a pollutant-laden industry -- finally passed from the scene, we'd already been moving rapidly in that direction.)

    Tillerson gets a rude awakening... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by desertswine on Thu Jun 08, 2017 at 01:57:57 AM EST
    in New Zealand.

    "I've been in motorcades for a couple of years now ... I've never seen so many people flip the bird at an American motorcade as I saw today," New York Times�reporter Gardiner Harris�told Stuff.co.nz.

    Bill Cosby trial underway (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 01:12:31 PM EST

    Prosecutors in the Bill Cosby indecent assault trial on Monday claimed the 79-year-old actor knew exactly what he was doing when he drugged and assaulted Andrea Constand in 2004 -- while the defense went after Constand and another Cosby accuser's credibility.

    Apparently, only two accusers will testify against Cosby in this trial.

    He is on trial for what he is accused of doing (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    to one woman. The only one, of many many complainants, within the statute of limitations. The prosecutor asked the judge for permission to call a dozen others to prove "identity" and "knowledge" through a pattern of similar behavior, as sometimes permitted under the rules of evidence. The defense of course objected strenuously. The judge allowed the prosecutor to choose and present one.

    One is a pattern? (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 08:20:42 PM EST
    Trying to avoid prejudice, I assume....

    Makes it all seem very arbitrary.


    Relevance "outweighed by a danger of ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    unfair prejudice" is the standard.

    Or California (none / 0) (#7)
    by MKS on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 08:49:21 PM EST
    The case is on trial in a state court (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    of Pennsylvania. The rule invoked by the prosecutor, of course, was this one (see subsection (b)(2)). Luckily for Cosby, he is not being tried in federal court. I know both the prosecutor and defense counsel very well, by the way. Defense counsel is better. The Cosby trial is taking place in the county where we live and where my office is located.

    "Defense counsel is better." (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    This interests me. Thankfully, in my life so far I've never needed a lawyer, but in case I ever do, what criteria do you use to determine the competence of a lawyer?

    You determine the quality of a lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:02:48 PM EST
    by skills many of which a lay person would find hard to evaluate -- intellect, learning, creativity, diligence, ethical sensitivity, experience, technical skills and interpersonal qualities. Just as in selecting a new doctor, or a medical specialist, there is no substitute for a good referral from someone whose judgment you trust.

    Right on, thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    Here in California (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:14:08 PM EST
    when the Big Law Firms get into trouble, they go to John Keker of Keker Van Nest.  That tells you who is really good.

    Had a case against them briefly.  The associate was a former Rhodes Scholar.  But an odd duck.  I swear he talked to himself during oral argument.  Not sure anyone knew what he was talking about.  The judge was then state court Commissioner Virginia Phillips.  Better known now as the District Court Judge who declared DADT unconstitutional nationwide.

    But Keker is the guy when the big boys have a holy sh*t moment.  Not sure how long he will still practice.


    I reference California (none / 0) (#97)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:20:20 PM EST
    because that is all I know.....A sort of caveat.....

    Worst case scenario is locating (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 11, 2017 at 06:05:40 PM EST
    a family law lawyer whose billing rate is not astronomical.

    It's a good standard. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 09:38:41 PM EST
    Some of these allegations against Bill Cosby go back nearly five decades, and the statute of limitations has long since passed. While I'm sympathetic to the plight of women who claim to have been victimized, he's been charged with this one instance of sexual assault and nothing else. Prosecutors therefore need to prove this specific charge against him, and not seek to secure his criminal conviction under an avalanche of innuendo.

    Donald prepares to throw Foghorn (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 05, 2017 at 09:23:32 PM EST
    Under the bus according to the NYTimes

    Trump grows discontented with Jeff Sessions

    TWIN PEAKS (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    boy, i really wanted to like this.  i really tried.  its not working.  for one thing the cheezy made-in-his-garage props and effects.  and the equally cheezy high school halloween dance play-do makeup prostetics.  

    seriously.  come on.  it worked in B&W in Eraserhead.  not so much in the primetime high end marketplace.

    i guess it really depends on what your goal is.  if its to show the world you can get people in high places to give you the money to do any outrageous thing you want, and a prime time slot to show it, well, mission accomplished.  if on the other hand its to actually get people to watch it maybe not so much.

    and i am the diest of die hard Lynch groupies.  this this is just a waste of time.  and i haven even talked about the endless goofy dream sequences or whatever the f they are.  seriously.  the opening of the third hour with the tin box in space was a far as i got.  when he got sucked into an giant electrical plug by video post effects leaving his shoes.  well, that was it for me.  i will keep recording it and maybe try later.  matbe im just in a pi$$y mood.

    and maybe i am being limited by my background as an effects person and taking it to personally.

    i would be interested in the opinions of any other Lynch fans.  i think there are a few here.

    Topic change on you.... (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:13:37 PM EST
    Since I'm not on showtime anymore.

    How about The Leftovers? I adored that finale. Somehow made the whole thing make emotional sense even without technically explaining anything.


    previously tv comment (none / 0) (#129)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:17:35 PM EST
    LEFTOVERS (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Jun 04, 2017 at 10:20:02 PM EST
    I am not a person who get misty eyed watching dramatized romance.  
    i just not.  never.
    but i totally got misty watching the finale.  it was so good.  so well done.  Carrie Coon is just amazing.  and the guy too (whos name escapes me).  so good.
    a perfect ending to a near perfect story,

    Parent | Reply to This

    how do you like (none / 0) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:20:31 PM EST
    Gillian Andersons MANY FACED GOD?

    Even the best directors have their misfires. (none / 0) (#48)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    Just my opinion, obviously, but I've always seen David Lynch's elemental problem with his own work as one of excess, by which his affinity for edginess and the avant-garde gradually reduces that work to a stale cliché.

    I was initially a big fan of the original "Twin Peaks" 27 years ago, but I remember how tedious it had gotten by its second season. Perhaps Lynch's visions work better within the confines of a two-hour movie every few years, rather than as a weekly TV series by which he risks becoming his own parody.

    Does that make any sense? I'll admit that I'm not as big a David Lynch fan as you appear to be, because he's always been very hit-and-miss with me. I absolutely despised -- actually, no, I hated -- "Eraserhead," and found "Dune" to be nothing but a big-budget mess.

    But I also consider "The Elephant Man," "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive" to be brilliantly conceived and exquisite filmmaking of the very highest caliber. So there's absolutely no question in my mind that Lynch is -- and still can be -- very good at what he does. I mean, when he nails it, he really NAILS it and after the experience you're just, like, "Wow."



    Because of a slight dip in the ratings (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    Lynch was strong armed by the suits into revealing who killed Laura Palmer.

    He said afterwards that his original intent for the series was that the mystery should never be definitively resolved.

    After the identity of Laura's killer was revealed, Lynch and the other writers had to recalibrate their vision for the direction of story more-or-less on the fly.

    I heard an interview with Lynch in which he sounded almost as annoyed with the network as he had been when "too many cooks" spoiled his version of Dune.


    But if he directs another movie, I'll be right there in line to see it. "Mullholland Drive" and "Inland Empire" were two of the better films of the prior decade, in my opinion, but they're probably not for those who disdain the surreal.

    Ironically, "Mullholland Drive" was originally filmed in February 1999 as a pilot for a prospective TV series, which ABC ultimately rejected as too nonlinear a storyline for its executives' tastes. Lynch himself didn't really care for the final results. Undeterred, he proceeded to rewrite and expand it into a feature film, and called together the original cast in October 2000 to shoot additional scenes, which he then wove together with scenes from the original TV movie to flesh out his new cinematic vision. It proved to be a critical success and led to some of the best reviews of Lynch's directorial career.



    and an oscar nomination (none / 0) (#134)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:31:38 PM EST
    for directing

    And a well deserved one, at that. (none / 0) (#138)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 10:00:11 PM EST
    "Mullholland Drive" is one of my favorite movies of the last 20 years. And I've always appreciated that Lynch cast the late, great Ann Miller in two roles as Coco, Betty's protective landlady, and as Adam's disdainful mother. That was a wonderful tribute to her and a most fitting capstone to her marvelous 60-year showbiz career.

    I've only seen the first two new episodes and (none / 0) (#60)
    by McBain on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    I enjoyed them. Then I went back and rewatched some of the old series and the Fire Walk With Me movie. Now, I'm a little burned out and sick of Laura Palmer.  

    Back in the day Laura Palmer reminded me of my next door neighbor when I was in high school.  A beautiful, mysterious young woman who would later die from a drug overdose.  They seemed like the perfect family until I found about about the drugs and sexual abuse.  

    Anyway, I'm going to get back in to Peaks soon and give it a shot.  I'm a big Lynch fan but I didn't care much for his last work, Inland Empire.


    I think what Lynch is doing (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:52:19 PM EST
    in part, is showing that the vision/dream sequences are partly constructed from materials from Cooper's personal subconscious..

    I imagine Cooper growing up as a straight arrow Eagle Scout kid with a darker side that included a fascination with the occult and the cheezy scifi-horror films of the fifties and early sixties..  


    there should be a disclaimer (none / 0) (#77)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    before every episode

    vision/dream sequences are partly constructed from materials from Cooper's personal subconscious..
    I imagine Cooper growing up as a straight arrow Eagle Scout kid with a darker side that included a fascination with the occult and the cheezy scifi-horror films of the fifties and early sixties and should not be taken personally by any professional make up or effects persons.  living or dead.

    Well, this isn't the first time (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:15:01 PM EST
    Lynch's work has elicted a lot of wtf?!s

    Instead of a star rating system, you could almost rate a lot of Lynch's work with a wtf?! rating system. For instance, for me, Mulholland Drive warranted a good 3 wtf?!s

    The caveat here being that in David Lynch's case, a lot of his wtf?! moments are mysterious and interesting and weirdly funny; at least to me.


    Well see (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:38:06 PM EST
    There you are

    I thought Mullholland Drive was incredible.   IMO he should have won the Oscar for directing he was nominated for.

    It to me was absolutely everything this new series is not.  I agree with a lot of Donald said but I like a lot more of his work I guess.  There seems to be a lot if Eraserhead in this series. It just doesn't work for me in color and long format.  

    I think the man has a twisted sense of humor and watching this show I can't help thinking he is laughing his a$$ off.  


    Btw (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 06:41:58 PM EST
    The opening scenes were a total homage to Eraserhead.  It could literally have been edited footage.  My I just need more medication.

    I don't think Mulholland Drive was lousy (none / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    I just lost the thread someplace around the middle of the flim.

    It probobly didn't help that my eighteen year old son walked in right in the middle of the lesbian love scene and distracted me with all his eighteen year old director's cut commentary.

    I've been meaning to watch it again.


    i had to see it more than once (none / 0) (#106)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    and it was explained to me by a very smart screenwriter.

    watch it again and think of it like this.  the first part is the going to hollywood and being discovered fantasy.  the last part is what going to Hollywood to be discovered is really like.


    Me too....I was watching it on my computer on an (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:15:17 PM EST
    airplane .... hurriedly shut the laptop at that point and never got back to it again!

    LOL! You sound like my wife. (none / 0) (#135)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:40:04 PM EST
    After we saw "Mullholland Drive" in the theatre, the only thing she said to me about it was "I'm sorry, but that was really weird." As for me, I thought it was absolutely brilliant. I'd watch it again if it shows up on Showtime.

    There was the suggestion, (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    earlier in the week, that Trump inadvertently stoked the fires between Qatar and other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt (excluding Jordan and Kuwait), leading to isolation of Qatar with major repercussions, and a new crisis,in that volatile area.

    However, there is no need for speculation for this unsettlement. TrumpTweets reveal that this turn of events was advertent. ..."so good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries paying off."   Trump taking credit was different from that of Secretary of Defense, Mattis, who was apparently taken aback....Quatar hosts one of the largest military bases in the middle east at Doha Airbase, Al Udeid.

    Trump is saying (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    not making this up

    he intends to LIVE TWEET the Comey testimony.

    that smacking sound is repiblican face palms from Portland Maine to Portland Oregon.

    I think (none / 0) (#59)
    by FlJoe on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    at this rate,those faces need to be made of Portland cement.

    Kellyanne instructs us (none / 0) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 03:47:10 PM EST
    that Trump's tweets don't count.  Although, Spicer says that Trump's tweets speak for themselves--apparently not for the Trump Administration or for Trump himself.  But, I think that his Comey tweets are more likely to be indictable than just covefefe.

    he says (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 05:17:35 PM EST

    he will probably live tweet his impeachment


    So awesome (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:48:45 PM EST
    Ana Navarro is Killin me (none / 0) (#136)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 06, 2017 at 09:48:05 PM EST
    She's on CNN, and she's got a new stylist or something. She said she can't wait for Comey to testify. She is documenting all the Comey naysayers. She hasn't looked forward to anything this much since the Dallas episode exposing who shot JR.

    She has a new hairdo, new color, carmel highlights, great makeup. I wish I felt that inspired right now. I want what Ana is having.

    anti Comey ad (none / 0) (#144)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 05:34:40 PM EST
    i just read the Comey statment (none / 0) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 06:04:53 PM EST
    it really sort of reads like a romance novel
    I assumed there would be others.

    It turned out to be just the two of us, seated at a small oval table in the center of the Green Room. Two Navy stewards waited on us, only entering the room to serve food and drinks.

    The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. He said that lots of people wanted my job and, given the abuse I had taken during the previous year, he would understand if I wanted to walk away.

    My instincts told me that the one-on-one setting, and the pretense that this was our first discussion about my position, meant the dinner was, at least in part, an effort to have me ask for my job and create some sort of patronage relationship. That concerned me greatly, given the FBI's traditionally independent status in the executive branch.

    I replied that I loved my work and intended to stay and serve out my ten-year term as Director. And then, because the set-up made me uneasy, I added that I was not "reliable" in the way politicians use that word, but he could always count on me to tell him the truth. I added that I was not on anybody's side politically and could not be counted on in the traditional political sense, a stance I said was in his best interest as the President.

    A few moments later, the President said, "I need loyalty, I expect loyalty." I didn't move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence. The conversation then moved on, but he returned to the subject near the end of our dinner.

    full statement


    It does (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 07:55:50 PM EST
    sound like a cheap romance novel. You get everything that went on though and Comey's opinions on what went on.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 07:58:39 PM EST
    I'm surprised how much I'm hearing about how "great" the writing is.  And how gripping he makes the story

    So I read it.  Meh.

    Romance novel at best.  IMO.  Saw a tweet that said is was like a telenovela

    That too.


    I do think releasing it today (none / 0) (#148)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 08:04:58 PM EST
    Was very smart.  You definitely get the feeling there are things not in the document and it was almost like a roadmap for directing the questioning.

    And I love (none / 0) (#149)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 07, 2017 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    That DC bars are opening early tomorrow for day drinking